ARU take over the Western Force.

[barbarian]

The fundamental difference between the Rebels and Force situation is twofold- time and results.

The Rebels are only five years old, into their sixth season now (off the top of my head). They have been slowly building, and this season looks like it might be their best yet.

The Force are now ten years old, the point where big questions start to be asked.

If the Rebels have the same record of failure at the 10 year mark as the Force, then the same questions will be asked of them. At present it looks like they might be able to challenge for the finals in the next few years, and they have developed a number of promising young players.

The Rebels certainly deserve scrutiny, but everyone is still prepared to give them the benefit of any doubt due to their on-field potential, which is significantly greater than the Force right now.
.

 

[kiap]

The fundamental difference between the Rebels and Force situation is twofold- time and results.

The Rebels are only five years old, into their sixth season now (off the top of my head). They have been slowly building, and this season looks like it might be their best yet.

The Rebels have got an extra ~$1m from the ARU this season, over and above the standard grants provided to the other clubs.

That buys a few players and helps the results.

More power to them, but it's not comparing apples with apples.

 

[TOCC]

I don't want to see the Force scrapped or moved, too much time and money has been invested into making it work and to scrap them would cause detrimental effects to rugby union in WA.

I just don't think WA should have been included to start with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

The Rebels were sold for negative millions of bucks.

Australian rugby is actually PAYING extra installments worth a couple of million for someone to take the club off their hands – because they were draining them of $3.5m a year.

Clearly the plan is for the private ownership to turn that around, and the early signs are that it is doing so. And fair enuff.

But those years of Rebels' results to date – on field and off – are in no way better than those of the Force.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I don't want to see the Force scrapped or moved, too much time and money has been invested into making it work and to scrap them would cause detrimental effects to rugby union in WA.

I just don't think WA should have been included to start with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Captain Cook had to chuck the canons off the "Endeavor" when he hit the reef and started to sink..

Ten years is a long time. It may be time for the ARU to consider similar options as Jimmy was "forced" to make.

 

[swingpass]

apart from the differing lengths in existence, it is important to look at the initial way both franchises were allowed to start, i can't really comment on the Force because i didn't follow it that closely or recall much, except that they pillaged the Reds playing roster at the outset, which created a shit storm on the East Coast. as a result the Rebels were severely handicapped in who they were allowed to talk to and publicly comment on who was signed. the opening roster was poor and it has taken until this season to get some some stability. Weeks and Jones are the only two originals left after 5 seasons. the ARU have done a sensible deal with the Rebels owners, $6.2 m over 5 compared to the > $3 m per year the ARU were haemorrhaging. on field success will hopefully increase revenue and sustainability (at both Rebels and Force).
i agree with others in that it seems that in Australia we have neither the revenue nor the playing personnel to sustain 5 Super franchises, but the reality is that all 5 have to continue at the present to stay in the SANZAR agreement and the TV deal. in the short term there are no other options. If neither the Rebels nor the Force can remain viable when the next negotiations start then one or both will have to go. i hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[swingpass]

I don't want to see the Force scrapped or moved, too much time and money has been invested into making it work and to scrap them would cause detrimental effects to rugby union in WA.

I just don't think WA should have been included to start with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that opens up a whole new can of worms.
the victorian bid was lacking in substantive government support, i really think that they thought the VRU would get the franchise irrespective of the business plan put forward.
the grassroots support in WA was very visible.
although denied, it must be said that the TV rights played a role as well. games in NZ followed by the east coast followed by the west coast followed by SA certainly had an appeal for programming.
did the ARU not have enough balls to take on the AFL in its homeland ? don't know, different markets probably. what it did do though was allow the Storm to get a headstart on all the PI youngsters who wanted to play Rugby of either sort.

eggs cannot be unscrambled, all of the Rugby people in Australia have a vested interest in seeing the new franchises succeed, the difficulty is getting the various factions to put aside their sectional interests and acheive
the result. given past efforts, I'm not that hopeful

 

[Rugbynutter39]

apart from the differing lengths in existence, it is important to look at the initial way both franchises were allowed to start, i can't really comment on the Force because i didn't follow it that closely or recall much, except that they pillaged the Reds playing roster at the outset, which created a shit storm on the East Coast. as a result the Rebels were severely handicapped in who they were allowed to talk to and publicly comment on who was signed. the opening roster was poor and it has taken until this season to get some some stability. Weeks and Jones are the only two originals left after 5 seasons. the ARU have done a sensible deal with the Rebels owners, $6.2 m over 5 compared to the > $3 m per year the ARU were haemorrhaging. on field success will hopefully increase revenue and sustainability (at both Rebels and Force).

i agree with others in that it seems that in Australia we have neither the revenue nor the playing personnel to sustain 5 Super franchises, but the reality is that all 5 have to continue at the present to stay in the SANZAR agreement and the TV deal. in the short term there are no other options. If neither the Rebels nor the Force can remain viable when the next negotiations start then one or both will have to go. i hope it doesn't come to that.

But the ambition should be to generate improvements to sustain five super franchises, as regardless if Force or Rebels were to disappear that would be a major backward step for Rugby in this country. Particularly given strong national national footprint of AFL and every growing national footprint of A-League and Rugby league.

Fully support ARU supporting Force and Rebels whilst try to establish themselves and grow in their respective markets.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I don't want to see the Force scrapped or moved, too much time and money has been invested into making it work and to scrap them would cause detrimental effects to rugby union in WA.



I just don't think WA should have been included to start with.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes always thought odd to start with Force in WA over Rebels in Melbourne. But would be a disaster for rugby in WA to move or scrap the Force. It has got some legs to grow - just needs more help - including levelling the playing field as ARU top ups make it very hard on sides like Force with very few wallabies.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

You missed:





ARU to fund the coaching team and back office at the Force to reduce costs.



Fisher is also used as Wallabies forwards and scrum coach.



Cheika and Wallabies coaching team etc assist with some player and local development programs especially with the young promising 10!

Cripes I am a Tahs supporter but I would put some money into the hat to get Fisher recruited as coach for the Force.

Agree Foley not horrible but not exactly a world class coach who can help with wider dimensions of improving Force's Rugby and Academy programs.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think some lessons were learned from the Force expansion by the time the Rebels came around. That's OK and I'm fine with it. However, in the interests of fairness I think those lessons should now be applied back to the Force, so they aren't disadvantaged unnecessarily. With the ARU takeover of the franchise there is the opportunity to do that and I think it should be grasped with both hands. Whether it means money or governance changes or both, the ARU should press forward with it as a matter of urgency.

 

[Tomikin]

Id just like to say top ups are for players to play for the wallabies if your not wallby class you dont get a top up...if izzy moved to Perth he'd still get a top up.. should he not get one because he plays in Sydney.. The tahs coach got Izzy to Union at the time should they have said no play for the Force..weird sentiment. If you had a good coach and progran you'd get more players with top ups..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[lou75]

Do you really think that selling the franchise for a reverse $6 m to a guy with no sport administration is a good idea?

 

[lou75]

The Rebels were sold for negative millions of bucks.

Australian rugby is actually PAYING extra installments worth a couple of million for someone to take the club off their hands – because they were draining them of $3.5m a year.

Clearly the plan is for the private ownership to turn that around, and the early signs are that it is doing so. And fair enuff.

But those years of Rebels' results to date – on field and off – are in no way better than those of the Force.

Sure, but at the end of the day, Mr Cox is in the business to make money, and if the Rebels start to drain his actual pockets, there's nothing to stop him from walking away

 

[TOCC]

Do you really think that selling the franchise for a reverse $6 m to a guy with no sport administration is a good idea?

Wasn't Peter Sidwell the former chairman of Melbourne City FC.

 

[lou75]

Wasn't Peter Sidwell the former chairman of Melbourne City FC.

Sure, but a company search with ASIC shows only Mr Cox owns the Rebels, Mr Sidwell is not listed as an owner.

 

[kiap]

Sure, but at the end of the day, Mr Cox is in the business to make money, and if the Rebels start to drain his actual pockets, there's nothing to stop him from walking away

Sports teams rarely make big profits. Some are vanity pieces for the private owner in the same way that rich dudes buy yachts to pour money down the bilge pumps.

Or, for a kinder slant, it's an investment in the local community. The best-case scenario for the Rebels is for them to be reasonably competitive over time and generate a small return.

If the owner cannot sustain the club, the obvious converse is that he sells or walks away, as you say.

Should this need to be spelled out in other ways, it's implicit, connoted and implied. It's tacit.

Ultimately that applies to any owner, though, private or otherwise. And who knows, RugbyWA may choose to "disinvest" as well.

 

[swingpass]

Ultimately that applies to any owner, though, private or otherwise. And who knows, RugbyWA may choose to "disinvest" as well.

or the ARU

if the Imperium group walk away from the Rebels at any point, of the three scenarios, another private buyer, the ARU resume control or the entity ceases to exist, only the latter is likely (at this point anyway)

 

[Forcefield]

apart from the differing lengths in existence, it is important to look at the initial way both franchises were allowed to start....

I often wonder if the Reds would have been pillaged so badly if the ARU had been able to do more to free up a competent roster for the Force. We were left with a choice- aggressive recruitment from the weakest franchise or field a team drastically unable to compete at Super Rugby level. RugbyWA soured their relationship with the Eastern States powerbrokers by being a bit cowboy and gung-ho, but there really wasn't an alternative offered.

The Rebels had the problem of joining the competition when depth was already stretched from the introduction of the Force. There weren't many quality players to take. You had over the hillers, not yet readies and a couple of journeymen who made good.

Hard to compare the two in my opinion. Not worth focusing too much on the past either. Better to focus on where to from here.

 

[TOCC]

Its an interesting argument as to whether Australia has the depth to field 5 teams, in my opinion Australia does have the depth to fill 5 competitive teams, what Australia doesn't have is the money to retain and recruit all the players to fill those 5 teams.

Everyone is blaming the recent performance of Australian teams on the expansion teams, and that is part of the problem but so too is the lure of the european contract which has seemingly only increased over the past 4 to 5 years, or at least the age in which the players depart seems to be getting younger.