Australian Rugby / RA

[Slim 293]

If new squad size of 35 - 40 isn't achieved by any of the teams (and I think none of the Reds, Tahs or Brumbies have 35 contracted players on their books), are they at liberty to divide the additional funds up over the existing players?

I dont' know about the other teams but the Brumbies have 39 players on contract........ and that doesn't include the Academy squad:

https://www.brumbies.com.au/squad/

 

[Quick Hands]

Ironically the players voted against the culling of the Force, the culling of the Force is the reason the players average pay has increased.

Players now face less playing opportunities within Australia, maybe that’s the trade off.

Presumably the pay increase and the increased squad sizes mean that RA is now spending about the same if not a little more on player payments. Where then is the promised increased funding for grass roots?? Another big lie??

 

[Strewthcobber]

Presumably the pay increase and the increased squad sizes mean that RA is now spending about the same if not a little more on player payments. Where then is the promised increased funding for grass roots?? Another big lie??

If revenues have stayed the same, the collective bargaining agreement meant that the total player payment pool was always going to remain the same right?

 

[swingpass]

I dont' know about the other teams but the Brumbies have 39 players on contract.... and that doesn't include the Academy squad:

https://www.brumbies.com.au/squad/

Rebels have about 5000 training, 44 on the books, not including Cottrell. Koteka or Debreczeni, who was back at training yesterday. i suspect Lance, Stirzaker and one or two others may finish up elsewhere, however Baden Stephenson keeps saying they are only marginally over the salary cap.

 

[TOCC]

Well... the repercussions of all this will be 10 months time when they’re releasing their annual reports covered in red ink.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[swingpass]

Well. the repercussions of all this will be 10 months time when they’re releasing their annual reports covered in red ink.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

almost certainly, but as Tex posted on the Rebels thread, they had half a roster to fill and clearly either they or the Force were going to be the big beneficiaries of the culled team. You could argue that, so far, from the Rebels, only Hanson and Cummins have been directly forced (boom-tish) overseas. i strongly suspect there will be other casualties as well however.

 

[TOCC]

Rebels have about 5000 training, 44 on the books, not including Cottrell. Koteka or Debreczeni, who was back at training yesterday. i suspect Lance, Stirzaker and one or two others may finish up elsewhere, however Baden Stephenson keeps saying they are only marginally over the salary cap.

 

[Braveheart81]

Presumably the pay increase and the increased squad sizes mean that RA is now spending about the same if not a little more on player payments. Where then is the promised increased funding for grass roots?? Another big lie??

The expectation is that the four Super Rugby teams will be in a better position financially so there isn't the need for RA to spend over what is budgeted to bail out a struggling club. Obviously that needs to be happen now for their to be more funds to allocate to the grassroots.

 

[Quick Hands]

The expectation is that the four Super Rugby teams will be in a better position financially so there isn't the need for RA to spend over what is budgeted to bail out a struggling club. Obviously that needs to be happen now for their to be more funds to allocate to the grassroots.

We live in hope BH

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The expectation is that the four Super Rugby teams will be in a better position financially so there isn't the need for RA to spend over what is budgeted to bail out a struggling club. Obviously that needs to be happen now for their to be more funds to allocate to the grassroots.

Things at the Tahs appear pretty desperate. wonder if they'll be bailing them out

 

[Brumby Runner]

The expectation is that the four Super Rugby teams will be in a better position financially so there isn't the need for RA to spend over what is budgeted to bail out a struggling club. Obviously that needs to be happen now for their to be more funds to allocate to the grassroots.

BH, there is no question that each of the four franchises will be spending more this year than previously, given the increase in the average payments being made, and the increased number of players on the roster. There will presumably be a small saving in travel and accommodation costs this year, though that's not indisputable given the changes to the structure of the competition. So, it seems that all teams will be dependent on increased gate takings and sponsorship to cover their increased costs. Just like wishing to hold back the tide, I'd suggest. The trend in gate takings has been down for a number of years as I understand. It is fanciful to hang the budget outcome for 2018 on an estimated increase in patronage and memberships this year. I would expect a couple of the Aus franchises will be posting losses by year's end, with the Rebels probably leading the way.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, there is no question that each of the four franchises will be spending more this year than previously, given the increase in the average payments being made, and the increased number of players on the roster. There will presumably be a small saving in travel and accommodation costs this year, though that's not indisputable given the changes to the structure of the competition. So, it seems that all teams will be dependent on increased gate takings and sponsorship to cover their increased costs. Just like wishing to hold back the tide, I'd suggest. The trend in gate takings has been down for a number of years as I understand. It is fanciful to hang the budget outcome for 2018 on an estimated increase in patronage and memberships this year. I would expect a couple of the Aus franchises will be posting losses by year's end, with the Rebels probably leading the way.

The distribution from RA to each team will presumably be higher to allow for the increased player costs. The amount received from the broadcast agreement remains unchanged.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The distribution from RA to each team will presumably be higher to allow for the increased player costs. The amount received from the broadcast agreement remains unchanged.

Yep - ARU grant to each team will rise to match the salary cap. Travel and accommodation is covered by SANZAAR The challange for the Super teams (and rugby in this country) is not player payments. It's that they can't raise enough revenue to cover all of the other costs associated with having a competative - or otherwise - Super team.

 

[TOCC]

Is it true that each team will receive an increased grant? And if so, where are the savings to be made by the ARU for culling a team?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Hawko]

I dont' know about the other teams but the Brumbies have 39 players on contract.... and that doesn't include the Academy squad:

https://www.brumbies.com.au/squad/

The Waratahs have 34 on their website with possibly McCalman to add if he's not crocked. Given how many of that 34 are unknowns (Johnson-Holmes, Jones, Palmer, Mason, McCauley, Meafua, Sandell, Swinton, Wilkin) who must be on the minimum it is clear that not every team is like the Brumbies/Rebels. The Reds squad has got a lot of young unknowns too.

 

[dru]

We live in hope BH

When did "hope" = "fantasy"?

 

[dru]

Right now, an impartial outside observer would be baffled as to why Waratahs and Reds were protected but the Force cut. Such a person would also be bemused on "how the Rebels?" I can't see how any of it is of any benefit at all.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Is it true that each team will receive an increased grant? And if so, where are the savings to be made by the ARU for culling a team?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Among other things

a) The grants for player payment aren't the only payments RA make to each Super Rugby team


b) RA was covering the Force's losses each year under the Alliance agreement


I do agree there must be a fair old chance that they are covering one or more (all!) of the other teams losses as well pretty soon anyway

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Hawko]

Right now, an impartial outside observer would be baffled as to why Waratahs and Reds were protected but the Force cut. Such a person would also be bemused on "how the Rebels?" I can't see how any of it is of any benefit at all.

Even partial observers like me (Waratah) are asking that question.

 

[TOCC]

Among other things

a) The grants for player payment aren't the only payments RA make to each Super Rugby team


b) RA was covering the Force's losses each year under the Alliance agreement


I do agree there must be a fair old chance that they are covering one or more (all!) of the other teams losses as well pretty soon anyway

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I just haven't heard anywhere that there will be an increase in grants for 2018