Sorry in advance if this has already be covered, but I have not seen it anywhere.
If the Rebels cannot take part in Super Rugby, does this reduce the amount RA receive from the media deal.
understandStory quoted Waugh saying they definitely will take part in 2024 fulfilling the obligation for this yr.
understand
but two questions arise given they are in administration, that decision is up to the administrator, not Waugh. second moving forward past 2024 if only four teams in 25 how does this affect the next media deal.
The problem you have with Melbourne paying apparently $50M for World cup fixtures is once again you are ignoring your primary markets.
Melbourne gets its show but come the following Monday its goes straight back to AFL land.
Its death by a thousand cuts, when every decision you make is ruled by the almighty dollar. The constant compromising of your primary markets, and then surprise at why your main supporter base is disappearing.
Nine has said they will be seeking a reduction in the rights if the Rebels aren’t inunderstand
but two questions arise given they are in administration, that decision is up to the administrator, not Waugh. second moving forward past 2024 if only four teams in 25 how does this affect the next media deal.
Na let’s go play it in Sydney and get nothing for it. Great idea. It’s myopic thinking like that, that is hurting the gameThe problem you have with Melbourne paying apparently $50M for World cup fixtures is once again you are ignoring your primary markets.
Melbourne gets its show but come the following Monday its goes straight back to AFL land.
Its death by a thousand cuts, when every decision you make is ruled by the almighty dollar. The constant compromising of your primary markets, and then surprise at why your main supporter base is disappearing.
Don’t doubt they would, it’s one game less a week, but where has this been said?Nine has said they will be seeking a reduction in the rights if the Rebels aren’t in
Re-read the article, forgive me I raced through it yesterday. It does say “nine would likey seek”Don’t doubt they would, it’s once game less a week, but where has this been said?
But when have they spent that money on grassroots development, maybe they should take some of that money and help out the Rebels. But they won't so what does the code then gain from that $50 millionTaking the 50m is by far a better decision, when no other state has put money on the table.
RA is better off with that money, that they can then spend on grass roots development in all states. If NSW wants the final for Sydney than out bid Vic it is simple
Well the report seems to be the 50m is contingent on the Rebels remaining. Not enough money is spent on grass roots because the game is short of money without a cash injection this will not changeBut when have they spent that money on grassroots development, maybe they should take some of that money and help out the Rebels. But they won't so what does the code then gain from that $50 million
Your missing my point,
But that cash injection will never go to the grassroots, because it will forever be needed to sustain a structure that simply does not generate enough interest or support to be viable to pay, the game is operating at a cost level in Australia that it cannot sustain.Well the report seems to be the 50m is contingent on the Rebels remaining. Not enough money is spent on grass roots because the game is short of money without a cash injection this will not change
I expect they would, I just would have been surprised if a Nine spokesman’s had spoken publicly about consequences at this point in timeRe-read the article, forgive me I raced through it yesterday. It does say “nine would likey seek”
While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, especially regards removal from Super Rugby, I am just unsure how you fund a domestic competition, you would need at least 2 new teams and maybe a continuation of the Drua, but where does the money come from, what is the plan.I have been quite optimistic about Aussie rugby, essentially the Wallabies, up to this point, but I fear if the Rebels go under it could herald in the lowest point since the evolution of the professional game in this country.
In that scenario, I think either RA will take on the licence and grow their debt to some unsustainable level when combined with what the RA Waratahs owe, or the Rebels will fold and not be replaced in Melbourne. In either case, neither RA nor any of the Super Rugby sides could afford to contract most of the displaced players and there will be a spike in player exodus which would be expected to continue into the future as opportunities and revenue both diminish here.
I don’t know what the best solution is, but to my mind it must include a continuing Rebels presence in Melbourne. Perhaps it is time to sever the Super Rugby link with NZ and go it alone with a domestic competition. That course would have its own issues as NZ and Stan would probably seek compensation. But no way do I see our involvement in Super Rugby continuing to the end of the current agreement.
Agreed, too hard to fund.While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, especially regards removal from Super Rugby, I am just unsure how you fund a domestic competition, you would need at least 2 new teams and maybe a continuation of the Drua, but where does the money come from, what is the plan.