• 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

Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Strewthcobber said:
Brett Impey made this statement

SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours,” Impey said.



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The broadcast money to SANZAAR won't change, but do we still get the same now that we are contributing one less team?
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
RedsHappy said:
Words totally, just totally, fail me (see link below).

The ARU today say they knew from the very moment they established the Rebels that 5 Super teams were not financially or commercially viable and could not be sustained.

Yet this is what they created, they wanted, they designed it.

But, today's news, they ‘could not escape this high-risk 5 team system until this rare and welcome opportunity to do so came forward, six years later.’

And now the entire edifice is non-viable 'placing the ARU under severe financial pressure'. (Btw: as a number of us here predicted from around 2012 would with certainty be the outcome of the 5 team model.)

Talk about walking head-long into a disaster principally of your own construction.

The incompetence, gross strategic irrationality, lack of judgement, and full-blown institutional stupidity on show today and in obvious past cases surely forces a complete recalibration of all prior known scales for assessing the severity of these human attributes of folly and foolishness.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...1/news-story/7fcdebdce4fc5fc219fefe1f476f9374
Click to expand...

Surely they could have "escaped it" when Super 18 was first on the table? Assuming that at that point they knew that it wasn't sustainable and they were looking for an excuse to move back to 4 teams?
 
zer0

zer0

John Thornett (49)
Quick Hands said:
The broadcast money to SANZAAR won't change, but do we still get the same now that we are contributing one less team?
Click to expand...


Yep, you do.

[Tew] did confirm that New Zealand would not be receiving a bumped-up share of broadcasting revenue to allow for the fact that from 2018 on it would be financing one more team than its principal partners.

"We've largely left the revenue split as it was," he said. "We're comfortable that's the right thing to do given the circumstances. There will be costs in unwinding these teams in any case so we're not unhappy about that."

He admitted the new broadcasting agreement in 2020 could factor in the differing representations from each country, among other things. "It's a complicated negotiation at the best of times," he added.
Click to expand...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...-villains-in-super-rugbys-bloodonfloor-revamp
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
zer0 said:
Yep, you do.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...-villains-in-super-rugbys-bloodonfloor-revamp
Click to expand...
In short the incentive to lose a oz team was nailed by leaving broadcast revenue splits unchanged to end of contract in 2020.

I accept we have to lose a team as the aru are broke and given how they got us into this mess it is unlikely they will come up with ideas to fix it other than cutting back.

If only we could get better professional administrators to run our game as sadly that is why we are in the shit we are in

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
So the interesting takeaways from the 2016 ARU annual report in terms of the grassroots were as follows:

ARU's community rugby expenditure increased by $1.9m to $4.237m and the distributions to state unions increased by by $2.3m to $5.596m.

Hopefully we continue to see those figures at the very least remaining stable and preferably increasing and then see some benefit of it down the line.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Braveheart81 said:
So the interesting takeaways from the 2016 ARU annual report in terms of the grassroots were as follows:

ARU's community rugby expenditure increased by $1.9m to $4.237m and the distributions to state unions increased by by $2.3m to $5.596m.

Hopefully we continue to see those figures at the very least remaining stable and preferably increasing and then see some benefit of it down the line.
Click to expand...

Where is this money going?

What happened to the western sydney academy that they talked about establishing?
 
Cpt Crow Eater

Cpt Crow Eater

Chris McKivat (8)
Lee Grant said:
This is also posted in the Force thread:

Interesting radio interview this morning between the President of Rugby WA Hans Sauer and Alan Jones, a shock-jock for 2GB Sydney (and ex-Wallabies' coach) - sent to me by Yeatesy.


Give it a click.
.
Click to expand...



Thanks Lee.

His thoughts about Australian teams performances and the money on offer overseas were bang on.

At their little meeting, the ARU handed out a piece of paper with a graph showing Aussie performances dropping more and more as more teams are introduced.

My question is : If the reason for cutting a team is to make our SOUP teams more competitive, why not simply increase the foreign marquee spots??

Its such a shame and makes me so angry that the Force are finally getting a sustainable, profit making business model of the ground.

As said by others. The ARU needs to decide what Super Rugby is for Australia.

If its purely for Wallaby selection then take control of all the provinces, control the movement of coaches and officials.

If it's meant to be a competitive club competition, then allow the franchises to be privately owned, take away the salary caps and make it an open market.

This half-half shit is slowly killing the game.
 
lou75

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...r-corrupt-former-labor-minister-ian-macdonald

This article is interesting because "Labor Minister Ian Macdonald was convicted of two charges for handing a lucrative Hunter Valley mining exploration to former union boss and political associate John Maitland without putting it to tender. The deal was sealed over dinner at the upmarket Catalina Restaurant in Rose Bay. Maitland later sold shares in the company that acquired Doyles Creek Mining and made $6 million."

In other news, the ARU sold the Melbourne Rebels to private owner Andrew Cox without putting the process to tender. The deal was sealed over dinner at TGI Fridays Southland. Cox is now reportedly trying to sell his company for - wait for it - $6 million.
 
formerflanker

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
lou75 said:
http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...r-corrupt-former-labor-minister-ian-macdonald

This article is interesting because "Labor Minister Ian Macdonald was convicted of two charges for handing a lucrative Hunter Valley mining exploration to former union boss and political associate John Maitland without putting it to tender. The deal was sealed over dinner at the upmarket Catalina Restaurant in Rose Bay. Maitland later sold shares in the company that acquired Doyles Creek Mining and made $6 million."

In other news, the ARU sold the Melbourne Rebels to private owner Andrew Cox without putting the process to tender. The deal was sealed over dinner at TGI Fridays Southland. Cox is now reportedly trying to sell his company for - wait for it - $6 million.
Click to expand...

Careful lou75.
To compare the ARU's no-tender process with that of Ian Macdonald is one thing.
But to draw similarities between Maitland's profiteering and Andrew Cox could be defamatory.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
So hang on, is it dodgy because Cox was gifted an asset now worth $6 million, or because he was duped into taking on an asset that the ARU knew will never be worth anything?
 
stoff

stoff

Trevor Allan (34)
And the only reason it is worth that much is because the main buyer/original seller created a market that allowed that valuation. Difference is intent - I don't believe the ARU could ever have set out to achieve what they have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
William88

William88

Syd Malcolm (24)
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top