• 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

CNorth

Herbert Moran (7)
Thanks Donald - cant work out if your serious or not. On the off chance that you are

Now if the governing body posts on its own website something rumoured to be a "commonly mooted reform" its almost a gold plated certainty that one team's gone - why else would the ARU incur the ire likely to be generated by the suggestion that that is the most commonly mooted reform?
A traditional softening up.
PS - I was told months ago this was a done deal



Looking at length of contracts to give indication of who knows what is coming. You would have to say Force is a front runner..

http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=37624
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Why flick the Sunwolves? They're in by far the biggest economic market out of all the Super Rugby teams, and they're in our time zone! They're also good to watch.

Removing teams is not the ideal solution IMO. It'll create a lot of resentment and drama, and will set rugby back in the regions where teams are cut. The format can be easily improved with 18 teams anyway (Sunwolves into the Australian conference, Jaguares into the NZ conference with a similar structure to Super 15). And in the longer term it can be improved with further expansion in Japan/Asia and South America.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Still on the fence about this.

I have a feeling we're about to get another season of watching our teams be steamrolled by the Kiwi sides, and have our top side bounced a few weeks before the GF.

Five teams stretches our talent too thin. It will suck for Perth, but I wonder if it's the lesser of two evils - cutting one team to sustain the other four.
.
 

Twoilms

Trevor Allan (34)
Still on the fence about this.

I have a feeling we're about to get another season of watching our teams be steamrolled by the Kiwi sides, and have our top side bounced a few weeks before the GF.

Five teams stretches our talent too thin. It will suck for Perth, but I wonder if it's the lesser of two evils - cutting one team to sustain the other four.
.

Short term fix to a long term problem. Better to weather the storm and find ways to nurture more talent/encourage higher future participation rates over middle/long-term.

Besides, even if we disperse the Force players among the other four teams our results won't dramatically improve against the Kiwi's.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Sorry, guys but if any should go it should be the Rebels. The Force have just signed a significant sponsorship deal while the Rebels are still to find a sponsor. If the Rebels go then the Brumbies could be assigned the territory this expanding their base.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Sorry, guys but if any should go it should be the Rebels. The Force have just signed a significant sponsorship deal while the Rebels are still to find a sponsor. If the Rebels go then the Brumbies could be assigned the territory this expanding their base.

Rebels private ownership means that ARU are financially indifferent to their continued existence, I assume.
Plus its potentially (which is all it will ever be) the second largest market in the country
 

Twoilms

Trevor Allan (34)
Rebels private ownership means that ARU are financially indifferent to their continued existence, I assume.
Plus its potentially (which is all it will ever be) the second largest market in the country

A proper market analysis would likely show it has the least potential for growth, even if it is the second largest population center.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Rebels private ownership means that ARU are financially indifferent to their continued existence, I assume.
Plus its potentially (which is all it will ever be) the second largest market in the country


Don't the ARU still provide the Rebels with funding?

Either way, I'm actually not a fan of nixing anyone to be honest. As far as I'm concerned Super Rugby doesn't need to contract more re-organise. The conference format they used last season and this one is bullshit. A far simpler one is literally staring us in the face. Move the Sunwolves into our conference and the Jaguares in the NZ. I put the Jaguares in the NZ conference as there are direct flight between Auckland and BA.

Play each of your in conference rivals twice and 3 or 4 from the two corresponding conferences for either 16 or 18 games. Eliminate the individual logs and run one combined one with a top 8.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Thanks Donald - cant work out if your serious or not. On the off chance that you are

Now if the governing body posts on its own website something rumoured to be a "commonly mooted reform" its almost a gold plated certainty that one team's gone - why else would the ARU incur the ire likely to be generated by the suggestion that that is the most commonly mooted reform?
A traditional softening up.
PS - I was told months ago this was a done deal


It was a little bit of sarcasm a little bit of it there is no clear indication of stating a team will be dropped.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
A proper market analysis would likely show it has the least potential for growth, even if it is the second largest population center.


Completely speculating here but if a team had to go it'd be from one of the following scenarios.

Force have a mediocre season get booted
Brumbies have a horror season on and off the field get booted
Force have a horror season off the field get booted
Brumbies move to Melbourne
Rebels private ownership falls through
Force gain private ownership, Brumbies horror season

A little part of me would die if any of these scenarios happen tho and if it were to happen i'd expect full transparency as to why and why couldn't methods be a success.

We need a Frank Lowy style billionaire supporter who wants to invest millions into the game. haha
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Split it into two parts, first half is strictly the domestic component.. 9 week round robin domestic championship, then follow this up with a 11 week Champions League where they play RSA/NZ/Japan/Argentin teams..

Sell it as two separate products, push for the domestic tournament to get on FTA.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Split it into two parts, first half is strictly the domestic component.. 9 week round robin domestic championship, then follow this up with a 11 week Champions League where they play RSA/NZ/Japan/Argentin teams..

Sell it as two separate products, push for the domestic tournament to get on FTA.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


We could look to include Fiji in our 'league'. Run it for 10 weeks and then run the Champions League set up.

Have the Top 6 teams from the Top League play in their conference. Have NZ add one and Argentina use either their Compenato or Nacionales de Clubs. The current 6 SA remain.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Only works if NZ and SA agree to it. In the past both have been keen to protect and differentiate the ITM Cup and Currie Cup as their premier domestic tournaments, and to ensure their Super Rugby teams play against each other in the regular season.
 
Top