Australian Rugby / RA

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Would that be the "Easts" that last won anything in 1969 lol.. sure look like certainties to be in a comp that's the best of the best.....

I don't know if youre being facetious but the clubs which will make it will be the ones with financial clout, playerbase, community and fanbase.

 

[GeoffL]

I don't know if youre being facetious but the clubs which will make it will be the ones with financial clout, playerbase, community and fanbase.

You left out "and who can actually win a few games here and there".....not everyone flocks to watch a rich loser

And Easts are bordered by Randwick and Uni who are both rolled gold certainties to be in

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Well if you took out waratahs reps, easts certainly would be top of the pile.

 

[PhilClinton]

Maybe, but the upper echelons of the business world are full of personality types quite similar to the Hammers - move fast, break things, i'm the smartest guy in the room, fuck off if you dare question me. I suspect many of them were undisturbed my his more egotistical tendencies.

The loudest one in the room is also the first to get knifed in the hallway when results are going the wrong way.

 

[Goosestep]

You're looking into it too much. I simply like the name. Move on. Not to mention that every single team u mentioned are all international teams but whatever.

lol true

 

[Goosestep]

Would that be the "Easts" that last won anything in 1969 lol.. sure look like certainties to be in a comp that's the best of the best.....

Money talks

 

[kiap]

Australia conference and NZ conference. you play each team in your conference twice for 10 games and you play each team in the other conference once for 6 games. that's at least now 8 home games a year. i think the sweet spot is 8-10 games at home.

There's actually a double benefit here.

It not only increases the number of home games, but the ratio of away games in a closer time zone also goes up.

Separate Aus and NZ knockout series leading to an Aus and NZ "champion" to satisfy both markets.

Aus v NZ champion for ultimate bragging rights.

+1 Also agree with this, as per Zero ...

Am still sceptical about the downsides of Soup but, if we're locked into it, then improvements like these need to be found.

 

[kiap]

Are you my other account?

I thought @KentwellCup>ShuteShield was your other account!

 

[GeoffL]

Snore. All. It's pretty simple. What do we lack?

1. Game time for Super Rugby/Wallabies-standard players
2. More content for fans/SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) franchises and broadcast deals.

So let's stop kidding ourselves with made-up NRC clubs or SS/Hospital Cup Clubs which only draw a couple thousand (yes, ok, committed) fans to any game.

Just go to a full season of home-and-away games with Super Rugby. Expand from 14 regular season games to 22 (11 teams, which your team plays twice).

The infrastructure is in place already. We don't have to suddenly start pouring more resources into Gordon or Manly or Brothers or GPS. (although it'd be nice if RA did that as well, TBH). We don't need to resurrect the Sydney Rays or gold diggers or whatever the F*** they were called.

We don't need an extra layer of bureaucracy at Moore Park to deal with it. (again, I'd hope that with Hamish gone RA may finally start to reduce the many, oh so many layers of bureaucracy they love to have).

We just have to solve the conundrum of the July Tests (I don't know, do them later or better still, do them in the middle with SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) still going. League does it with Origin and it seems to work ok.

33% more games means a commensurate increase in broadcast, or at least SOME increase.

It means our SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) players - the elite, who feed the Wallabies - are finally starting to get game time on par with northern Hemisphere clubs.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) clubs get another $1m or so a year (ok, maybe not the Brumbies, who couldn't pull a crowd to a public execution of Hamish McLennan in the Civic Mall) from the extra four home games. So that's extra money to put back into the community game, for those clubs actually tied to community. Which is just the Reds and Brumbies, come to think of it, but at least the other three clubs get the novelty of an actual annual profit.

Simple is best.

and that sure is simple

25 years of that crap and we've never been worse, crowds are terrible, sponsors couldn't care less, the pro games on live support. so lets double down on it and dig faster..

 

[Homer]

Outside the box. List RA and let fans buy shares and have voting rights (cap on how much anyone can buy to stop people from certain North Sydney schools trying to buy up too much to maintain the status quo). Would raise a few bucks and create more oversight on board and executive spending.

 

[noscrumnolife]

and that sure is simple

25 years of that crap and we've never been worse, crowds are terrible, sponsors couldn't care less, the pro games on live support. so lets double down on it and dig faster..

yep. super rugby is a dead brand in the eyes of the general public. all well and good a few forum members with positive memories saying if we just keep tweaking it she'll be right.

the answer to super rugby being the dogs bollocks is not more super rugby. it's a new competition with fresh ideas, fresh investment, fresh ownership. the wallabies won't go to shit if we start a new competition, our best players will just go overseas and we can crack on with a model that makes geographical and financial sense and actually has the capacity to grow the game. Without the intervention of the crummy states. Doesn't mean you never have to watch Queensland, NSW, ACT etc ever play rugby again either...they will just become representative teams like they should be.

Brett Clark: "I'd sooner burn an effigy of Hamish McLennan than let RA take a hold of QRU commercial assets"...regardless of your personal feelings about the hammer, is that really the sensible kind of chatter that implies he is driven by sound business decision making, not ego, pride and emotion? professional organisations don't talk in this way...just another emperor in new clothes looking after his silly little empire.

 

[Wallaby Man]

yep. super rugby is a dead brand in the eyes of the general public. all well and good a few forum members with positive memories saying if we just keep tweaking it she'll be right.

the answer to super rugby being the dogs bollocks is not more super rugby. it's a new competition with fresh ideas, fresh investment, fresh ownership. the wallabies won't go to shit if we start a new competition, our best players will just go overseas and we can crack on with a model that makes geographical and financial sense and actually has the capacity to grow the game. Without the intervention of the crummy states. Doesn't mean you never have to watch Queensland, NSW, ACT etc ever play rugby again either...they will just become representative teams like they should be.

Brett Clark: "I'd sooner burn an effigy of Hamish McLennan than let RA take a hold of QRU commercial assets"...regardless of your personal feelings about the hammer, is that really the sensible kind of chatter that implies he is driven by sound business decision making, not ego, pride and emotion? professional organisations don't talk in this way...just another emperor in new clothes looking after his silly little empire.

I did not like that statement from him. If that was Hamish, there would be pages of comments. It shows it was clearly a power struggle and might be the worst statement from any party in the whole sad affair so far. States have got away with murder and haven’t wasted a crisis to move the blame onto another equally incompetent entity.

 

[dru]

It seems strange to me that in a country like Australia we seem to have such a poor understanding of the reality of federalism.that the nature of federalism is not really captured. How often have we ever seen the States feel a need to follow a National govt lead? Even if both State and Federal govt are the same party? In essence within rugby there are no parties (every State Ru with factions that may or may not cross borders) and no necessary political alignment. We can anticipate a greater disparity between State and Federal in Rugby than in our parliaments.

It seems fairytale stuff to expect the State RUs to openly and enthusiastically drop in behind a National lead - especially when that leadership has been palpably poor and rarely treating State viewpoints with respect.

As a Qld-er, even though I have often been concerned with QRU exec management, I feel quite calm with this:

Brett Clark: "I'd sooner burn an effigy of Hamish McLennan than let RA take a hold of QRU commercial assets"...regardless of your personal feelings about the hammer, is that really the sensible kind of chatter that implies he is driven by sound business decision making, not ego, pride and emotion? professional organisations don't talk in this way...just another emperor in new clothes looking after his silly little empire.

I've seen a lot worse from Palaszczuk on Albenese.

The bigger practicality here is RA stupidity in pushing a specific vision that the States had a bad reaction to, and not doing anything to ensure buy-in from the State RUs. At best cart before the horse.

It is the same problem I have with the "third tier" apparently devolving into an NSW and Qld initiative. No evidence there of working the matter through and buy-in from the RA voters. At best this makes the result a Dutch lottery.

 

[hoggy]

and that sure is simple

25 years of that crap and we've never been worse, crowds are terrible, sponsors couldn't care less, the pro games on live support. so lets double down on it and dig faster..

Everything is turning to shit but lets stick with the one thing that has pretty much been part of that slow decline for 25 years.

Why not try something new, Super Rugby hasn't worked for god knows how long, what exactly do we have to lose anymore.

 

[wamberal99]

Despite being an avid rugby supporter in the mid 90's, I probably couldn't have named more than one club team from the Sydney and Brisbane competitions at that time.

The suggestion that Australian rugby should've built a professional rugby competition around the clubs citing the NRL and AFL as a comparison is a false equivalence - those club teams were the pinnacles of their sport with far greater support, money and brand awareness.

A more pertinent measure of your avidness (sic) is whether you can name more than one club team from the Sydney and Brisbane competitions now. Incidentally, the Sydney competition was televised live on the ABC for many years. The Brisbane comp was advertised too. I recall Friday night games at Ballymore??


It is a simple fact that both the NRL and AFL were built on the foundations of their strongest club competitions. Of course both codes were stronger than ours, but we have to start somewhere if we are to create a national competition.

 

[Tazzmania]

It is a simple fact that both the NRL and AFL were built on the foundations of their strongest club competitions. Of course both codes were stronger than ours, but we have to start somewhere if we are to create a national competition.

Not comparable as the AFL and NRL are for all intents and purposes soley Australian run and administered sports with little to no following or interaction elsewhere in the world

 

[hoggy]

Not comparable as the AFL and NRL are for all intents and purposes soley Australian run and administered sports with little to no following elsewhere in the world

What has that got to do with it. So the game is played in some other countries in the world.

So because we play Test rugby then we cannot have a domestic competition, has someone told the French. They are comparable, because they are competing with us for eyeballs each weekend of the season.

And guess who's winning.

 

[dru]

I perfectly well understand the nature of Federalism...that's why I think its a terrible model to run a professional sport. Don't know of anywhere else in the world that does it like this, certainly nowhere that's successful.

So much hand-wringing about what we should, coulda, woulda done over the last 25 years...all done with the benefit of hindsight. neglecting the plain and simple fact that the governance structure and financial fundamentals of rugby in this country are unattractive for sustained investment and this is why we fall behind the rest of the world. Big picture sports is business like any other, those who invest and grow the most will be the most successful.

Does it matter what model is most effective for investors or anyone else if those who seek to implement it are incapable or uninterested in the working through the system that exists to achieve it?

Every executive has to work with the system they step into if they want to change it.

 

[noscrumnolife]

Does it matter what model is most effective for investors or anyone else if those who seek to implement it are incapable or uninterested in the working through the system that exists to achieve it?

Every executive has to work with the system they step into if they want to change it.

The other alternative is that those with actual power over the system (in particular, NSWRU, QRU and ACT Rugby) could stop hiding behind the line they are "protecting the community game" which they are not. They could cede control over the game voluntarily as they control the governance structure and work together rather than against each other to help build a new professional competition, one they don't run and control the growth of. I'm sure this will attract a reply like "well why would they do that, its not in their interest" - yep, that's exactly the point and why its so frustrating, all they do is act in their own interest and not as custodians of the game we all love.

The community game is protecting the community game, the deliverance of consecutive losses or sub six-figure small profits which blow with the wind aren't exactly doing much for your local rugby club. Further, every year professional rugby in this country continues its terminal decline is another year of lowered participation amongst youths - which is what the eventual death of the game will be a result of.

But nup, who books the profits from taxpayer funded Ballymore is more important than any of that, play on, love that Brett Clark and Matt Nobbs gave it large ones to the dogs at RA and Hammer the dickhead, woohoo.

 

[Tazzmania]

What has that got to do with it. So the game is played in some other countries in the world.

So because we play Test rugby then we cannot have a domestic competition, has someone told the French. They are comparable, because they are competing with us for eyeballs each weekend of the season.

And guess who's winning.

Have you looked at the French club squads, made up of players from many different nations as well as France.

This adds to the intrigue, competitiveness and eyes on the competition as its not only local players that make up the teams.

In a small way similar to the EPL in England that draws the best players to make it a good club competition, where most clubs are stronger than international teams