• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
The article says Rebels are on board. Force supportive. Reds have come around. Brumbies stomping their little feet.
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Tomikin said:
Fair... NZR should do what's best for them, as Rugby Australia should for themselves. I think NZR though should understand though if the competition can't produce unpredictably of outcome how ever that's done. A lot of Australians believe we should make our own commercial product that does.. More teams more players and realistically we believe more money. The only sample size we have is the years of Super Au which was a success in Australia..(no matter what Kiwis say)

What's happening now is that Rugby Australia just got knocked out at the group stages,NZ got beaten in the pool game and could very well get knocked out at the quarters of a RWC.

We need to generate interest from the public of Australia...sorry don't think that happens in Super Rugby Pacific. No interest no money no game... we will all end up all blacks... but from when they turn the lights off.
Click to expand...
I actually think RA is doing what's best for them, I not sure if they right or wrong. And I agree this comp with a lot of Aus teams would meybe good, but probably at best a semi pro comp and more top players overseas. I can assure you if Stan (or Fox) thought they would get more eyeballs on a local comp RA would be looking very very seriously at it. At moment it would have to be pretty good for Stan to up their offer enough to field another 3 or so teams , as generally they talk of needing $10mill a year to field a team, and even if you drop the price you won't do it for much under 6-7 mill a year. So say 6.5 mill a year x 7 or 8 teams is well over $40mill which is going to need at least $60 mill tv deal for it to work when you take in test team cost? I pretty sure that as I say if there was a lot more money to have that comp tv would of worked it out.
See I kind of agree that NZR should (and I sure they do) and perhaps RA should also understand that unpredictable results are good for the comp. That's what I mean by it can't always be someone else's fault.
I truly believe if a standalone comp was a better for Aus and they could afford it , I would be all for it. In general a lot kiwi's actually would be same.
 
Last edited:
RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Yeah. I keep hearing Melbourne are close behind. I can’t imagine Canberra have much in the bank surely?
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
RugbyReg said:
The article says Rebels are on board. Force supportive. Reds have come around. Brumbies stomping their little feet.
Click to expand...
"Philosophically agree" is pretty key. By the sounds of it, they still haven't agreed on an exact path forward - which is why Brums, Reds, Force were initially noncommittal, wasn't it? Must've been shown a pretty convincing slide deck.

The Brums' (promoted) argument of not wanting to be moved from CBR is still a bit bizarre to me - I'm not sure that would really be on the cards, would it?
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
Is there a foreseeable future where all teams except Brums commit to, at the least, high-performance alignment? Would be interesting to see how that works out for them.

1696547375796.png
 
stillmissit

stillmissit

Peter Johnson (47)
As this last week of the pools rolls through it would be better for Rugby in Australia if we don't make the qtr finals. There would be some glossing over of the issues that have plagued us for years. Centralised systems, aligning all schools, clubs and academy players with better ID of potential players and making the most of what we have with improved coaching and fitness. It is past the time when we can expect to have more players coming through than we have had in the past.
 
PhilClinton

PhilClinton

Mark Loane (55)
LeCheese said:
"Philosophically agree" is pretty key. By the sounds of it, they still haven't agreed on an exact path forward - which is why Brums, Reds, Force were initially noncommittal, wasn't it? Must've been shown a pretty convincing slide deck.

The Brums' (promoted) argument of not wanting to be moved from CBR is still a bit bizarre to me - I'm not sure that would really be on the cards, would it?
Click to expand...

Reds non-committal centred around maintaining control of their commercial assets, which I understand to be quite significant compared to the other entities.

Sounds like RA are willing to let them maintain control over those but they will fall in line with the performance and development-based model.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Derpus said:
Cut them! They are, after all, the biggest drain on depth for NSW and QLD. Makes perfect sense to me.

:D
Click to expand...

That'll bring mixed emotions from the Kiwis...

On one hand you're satisfying their hunger to cut an Australian team...

But then they're still left with no one competitive to play against...

What would Mark Robinson do?
 
Wilson

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
RugbyReg said:
Yeah. I keep hearing Melbourne are close behind. I can’t imagine Canberra have much in the bank surely?
Click to expand...
There is talk that there's some interest from the ACT government around financial assistance for the Brumbies. What that looks like and whether it's enough to make a difference remains to be seen.
 
Members Section

Members Section

John Thornett (49)
LeCheese said:
"Philosophically agree" is pretty key. By the sounds of it, they still haven't agreed on an exact path forward - which is why Brums, Reds, Force were initially noncommittal, wasn't it? Must've been shown a pretty convincing slide deck.

The Brums' (promoted) argument of not wanting to be moved from CBR is still a bit bizarre to me - I'm not sure that would really be on the cards, would it?
Click to expand...

Merge them with the tahs,
 
Wilson

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
LeCheese said:
"Philosophically agree" is pretty key. By the sounds of it, they still haven't agreed on an exact path forward - which is why Brums, Reds, Force were initially noncommittal, wasn't it? Must've been shown a pretty convincing slide deck.

The Brums' (promoted) argument of not wanting to be moved from CBR is still a bit bizarre to me - I'm not sure that would really be on the cards, would it?
Click to expand...
I think part of the Reds coming around (and potentially the Force) is that they don't have to hand over their commercial operations, likely due to the relative strength/stability of them. It seems as though the Brumbies will still need to, at least to get the requisite financial support they're probably going to need to keep going.

As far as the Brumbies being moved goes it does seem bizarre that they would be, but then why do RA need to hold their license/why can't they have their continued existence in Canberra contractually guaranteed?
 
Jimmy_Crouch

Jimmy_Crouch

Peter Johnson (47)
Matt Nobbs crying that the only reason the Brums haven't made a made a profit is due to RA reducing their hand out. What a joker.

That thought process always makes me think about Herbie and GPS. Where other people/clubs cried poor that RA took their funding away GPS got on with getting their house in order and improving their own outcomes. Herbie said it was actually the best thing for the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top