Australian Rugby / RA

[JRugby2]

It's tone deaf for the Melbourne fans who have been watching players like Isaac , Leota, Pone develop, start finding their feet only to have their team closed and they have to leave home to ply their trade in another state - whilst we're left without a super team.

It sucks that the Rebels are dead but I can't see this as tone deaf? The games played in Melbourne and while I don't imagine they have a massive reach, they have a interest in promoting the fixture.

If I'm RA, and the choice I have is between promoting the fixture with an article that highlights a home-grown player playing his first test match in his home state - or not because mentioning the world "Melbourne" may upset some (understandably) bitter Rebels fans - I know what I'd choose

 

[Bullrush]

Super Rugby is not the reason that rugby in Australia is struggling and getting out of it won't help on-field success - which is all fans really care about.
Apart from the ridiculous obsession to keep adding teams who weren't ready to compete at that level, the biggest mistake was made by NZ pushing SA out.

 

[Adam84]

Super Rugby is not the reason that rugby in Australia is struggling and getting out of it won't help on-field success - which is all fans really care about.
Apart from the ridiculous obsession to keep adding teams who weren't ready to compete at that level, the biggest mistake was made by NZ pushing SA out.

its certainly a significant part of the reason....

 

[Bullrush]

its certainly a significant part of the reason....

Only due to the 'ridiculous obsession' part.

Again - getting out of Super Rugby won't go very far in obtaining the on-field success that has been missing for the last 10-15 years. I don't know if there are any 'quick fixes' but perhaps turning things around won't take as long as we think.

Some don't want to hear it but losing the Rebels and centralisation are parts of the equation that Australia needs to get back to being one of the best in the world.

I don't know how we fix the 'pushing SA out' part....it's a big loss

 

[stoff]

I'm assuming the Brumbies don't owe $20m though.....

I'm sad we've lost the rebels but the reality is that RA couldn't take on that level of debt.

Taking over the operations of a side who's just getting by is different to taking over one who was trading whilst insolvent for years

But they never had to. They owned the IP and the playing contracts. They didn't even have to phoenix it as they got everything of value for $0.

 

[SouthernX]

Some don't want to hear it but losing the Rebels and centralisation are parts of the equation that Australia needs to get back to being one of the best in the world.

please explain.
Shrinking the pool of rugby players that the wallabies team can select from doesn’t achieve that.

sounds like some bullshit logic to justify cutting a team

 

[dru]

please explain.
Shrinking the pool of rugby players that the wallabies team can select from doesn’t achieve that.

sounds like some bullshit logic to justify cutting a team

In this case X, I think it is some bs logic related to how Australian rugby can best serve NZ.

 

[SouthernX]

In this case X, I think it is some bs logic related to how Australian rugby can best serve NZ.

The rebels were cut for financial reasons. I don’t think any reduction in teams/player pools increases competition or depth.

a hard decision was made by Rugby Australia and some ppl still want to put lipstick on the pig

 

[dillyboy]

But they never had to. They owned the IP and the playing contracts. They didn't even have to phoenix it as they got everything of value for $0.

You sure?

My understanding was that if RA were to take them on, they'd be liable for the ATO debt.

I'd love them to launch a new Melbourne based side but then my worry would be the phoenixing claims would start.....

 

[Wilson]

Even without claims of phoenixing the operation was unsustainable - they were losing money much too fast without any real plan to turn that around, or the capital to keep them going long enough to change that. It's why RA couldn't continue to run them and (part of) why the consortium was knocked back.

 

[Bullrush]

please explain.
Shrinking the pool of rugby players that the wallabies team can select from doesn’t achieve that.

sounds like some bullshit logic to justify cutting a team

Do you think that all players are equal?

Having more players doesn't equate to better players. Since expanding the pool of rugby players in 2011 for the Rebels, Australia has dropped from 2nd to 10th and all the Australian Super Rugby teams have become less competitive.

Super Rugby is where 5 of the last 7 RWC winners have come from. Having a bigger player pool doesn't equate to on-field success, otherwise France and England would have surely won more than 1 RWC between the 2 of them.

 

[Bullrush]

In this case X, I think it is some bs logic related to how Australian rugby can best serve NZ.

Yeah.....NZ has really struggled for results since the Rebels entered Super Rugby.

 

[Tomthumb]

Do you think that all players are equal?

Having more players doesn't equate to better players. Since expanding the pool of rugby players in 2011 for the Rebels, Australia has dropped from 2nd to 10th and all the Australian Super Rugby teams have become less competitive.

Super Rugby is where 5 of the last 7 RWC winners have come from. Having a bigger player pool doesn't equate to on-field success, otherwise France and England would have surely won more than 1 RWC between the 2 of them.

To be fair, the Reds and Waratahs only won their Super Rugby titles when Australia had 5 teams

 

[Derpus]

Do you think that all players are equal?

Having more players doesn't equate to better players. Since expanding the pool of rugby players in 2011 for the Rebels, Australia has dropped from 2nd to 10th and all the Australian Super Rugby teams have become less competitive.

Super Rugby is where 5 of the last 7 RWC winners have come from. Having a bigger player pool doesn't equate to on-field success, otherwise France and England would have surely won more than 1 RWC between the 2 of them.

It doesn't really matter at this point. If Super Rugby is the key to World Cup dominance is irrelevant to us. It relies on a top down funding model that we can't afford.

Reality is, rugby needs a domestic comp (of whatever form) that can at least break even.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think it really matters whether we think we will improve or otherwise. We don't have a choice. We can't afford to pay 5 teams of professional rugby players in Australia. It is what it is.

 

[Bullrush]

To be fair, the Reds and Waratahs only won their Super Rugby titles when Australia had 5 teams

I don't want to make it about the Rebels. I'm just saying that since that decision has been made and now the Brumbies are entering into this centralisation plan, I think Australia are on the right path. I don't see how leaving Super Rugby would help make Australian players better or AUstralian teams more competitive.

 

[Bullrush]

It doesn't really matter at this point. If Super Rugby is the key to World Cup dominance is irrelevant to us. It relies on a top down funding model that we can't afford.

Reality is, rugby needs a domestic comp (of whatever form) that can at least break even.

Honest question.....Is there a model of this already working somewhere?

NPC loses money, I don't know if the CC makes money, the NRC lost money..... which rugby nation doesn't rely on a top down funding model? And can we just basically copy what they do?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Honest question.....Is there a model of this already working somewhere?

NPC loses money, I don't know if the CC makes money, the NRC lost money..... which rugby nation doesn't rely on a top down funding model? And can we just basically copy what they do?

France and Japan are the only ones.

Even the Premiership in England survives on Six Nations funding

the agreement will see the ten Premiership Rugby teams receive a guaranteed UK£33 million (US$41.4 million) per season from the RFU over the first four years.

 

[Bullrush]

France and Japan are the only ones.

Even the Premiership in England survives on Six Nations funding

And from what I understand, billionaires and corporations own a lot of teams in France and Japan?

 

[Strewthcobber]

And from what I understand, billionaires and corporations own a lot of teams in France and Japan?

France runs on sponsorship to a much greater extent then most other places. Sometimes that's a billionaire.

Who knows in Japan.