Search results

The funds that have inspired this idea (Future Generation Australia and Future Generation Global) have combined assets under management of over $1.2 billion and are 9-10 years old. So it's not outside the realms of possibility.

I'm not against dates being moved, just making the point that French club rugby has been incredibly important to the growth of global rugby, regardless of the motivation. I would argue that France actually has the best balance between club and international rugby out of anyone, because both...

Because it allows their very very top players to be highly paid stars and still represent Fiji in their most important games, making them considerably more competitive. Top 14 is a big dog in the sport, world rugby needs a calendar that doesn't clash with it for important series. Yes Fiji now...

Yes because they didn't pick their French based players for the Pacific Nations Cup due to it clashing with the Top 14 (which employs its top players). Compare that to their world cup squad, and particularly their starting team in big games.

Nothing, it's to do with whether French club rugby has a positive or negative effect on world rugby. Without French rugby how many Argentinians, Georgians, Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch etc would be playing high level professional rugby? Those test teams are all much...

Hostage? They get paid well to play in the top club league in the world. Before the Drua it was the only top level professional opportunities many of them had. They could be semi-pro or amateur and play for Fiji, or play professionally in Super Rugby etc but not play for Fiji (because all the...

French rugby has arguably been THE primary driver of growth in international rugby due to the fact it's club competitions are so open to foreign players. All the top emerging/tier 2 nations would be significantly weaker without it and Argentina likely would never have got to where they are...

Arguably we've had zero success with PE because the Super Rugby product has been so underwhelming compared to its competitors. Too uneven and predictable, not enough passionate fans, and seen as primarily a test rugby development competition. With that style of competition it probably is best...

It's based on the fact Australia has a lot of very wealthy rugby union fans. There's a massive difference between seeking $200 million in PE investment for a minority stake in all of Australian rugby. That's an entirely commercial decision made by large firms seeking a return. Investing in a...

You are defending it though. A competition that's failed Australian rugby for 20 years and hemorrhaged fans. I'm sure a few more tweaks and it'll be great. Lets go down to 2 teams and we could even win it every 3 years. The big question with a domestic competition is how much money could be...

Super Rugby AU was more a proof of concept, obviously a 5 team competition wouldn't be sustainable long term. The concept being domestic rivalries culminating in 2 domestic teams meeting in a final with a big crowd and tv audience. It's a blueprint that works all around the world. The better...

The current agreement ends next year. You'd need minimum 6 teams to start with and there's already 4 (maybe 5 if the Drua linked with us), but 8-10 would be ideal. It would likely only be possible with private ownership of expansion teams, so the viability is predicated on that interest being...

It's not a matter of being as successful as the NRL and AFL, it's about being more successful than Super Rugby. The A League is not a huge success compared to the NRL and AFL but it's got 11 Australian based teams with a presence in most major population centres and had a total attendance of...

I think you're confusing the word 'idea' with 'demonstrably successful model that is easy to copy.' It'd be more like you already manufacturing and selling phones, but not doing very well, and then incorporating some of the features that make Apple and other competitors popular, in order to sell...

Nothing is guaranteed, but it's "because" that's what works for all the most successful sporting leagues around the world (and in Australia). Meanwhile, the status quo strict eligibility, national team development competition hasn't been working commercially for a long time.

I've thought this forever. Such a no brainer. 2 game series decided by aggregate is arguably the most fair way to decide the Cup too, with 1 home game each. There'd be so much more casual interest in the game next weekend if we were talking about the Wallabies having to overturn a 3 point...

Agreed, ideally most of the top pacific islander players would be playing here in an NRL type comp (either Australian only domestic competition, or Super Rugby evolving into this). But it would require significant $$ and change in strategy.

Expanding on this further, is there a risk that with the Rugby Championship not played during the SA/NZ tour years that Argentina prioritise the Nations Championship, and allow their star players to stay with their clubs during August/September instead of playing some kind of series against us?

Problem with Fiji in the RC window is that they typically don't have their European based players (see this year's PNC (Pacific Nations Cup) - it's essentially the Drua).

Probably not to the same extent due to the need for 8-10 teams, but it would also depend how much money is behind it and whether the Wallabies players and contenders are playing in it. If they are you can still have a fair bit of central control over players (like England and Japan).