• 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.

Melbourne Rebels 2024

Rebel man

John Thornett (49)
One thing I would definitely look at if I were the Rebels aligning with the MCC. So many private school boys in the MCC that would have been exposed to the game as school boys but also they promote to their members everything that your membership gives you access too. There are over 200,000 members. What’s the golden rule in marketing 10% of 10%. If you get an extra 2k at the games it’s a huge step in the right direction
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
One thing I would definitely look at if I were the Rebels aligning with the MCC. So many private school boys in the MCC that would have been exposed to the game as school boys but also they promote to their members everything that your membership gives you access too. There are over 200,000 members. What’s the golden rule in marketing 10% of 10%. If you get an extra 2k at the games it’s a huge step in the right direction
Dunno if an AAMI park based team could do that. For the RWC and Bledisloe maybe but the MCC is the bar/the G/the physical section.
 

KevinO

Geoff Shaw (53)
All caught up (Pissed off)

Firstly, Australian rugby cannot afford to lose any teams, the view that going back to 4 teams will make Aus rugby stronger is rubbish.

The biggest problem with supporting Australian rugby is lack of games, always has been. 7/8 home games a year and 1 international. That's less than 10 games per season in your city. It's not like where in Europe where you can also drive to a few away games as well. We need more games, as simple as that. Super Rugby needs to stay at 12 teams and go home and away, anyone who says the calendar is to packed is deluded. AFL/NRL/URC/Premiership/Top14 all make it work. All have over 20 rounds/games a season. More games = more money, it's pretty simple.

Why can't Rugby Aus and NZ sort it out once and for all.
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
Bit more in the smh today about the issues, club bosses at the Rebels are working to assure the players and members that everything is ok for this year at least.

On the other side of the coin Rugby Australia seem to have lost interest in bringing the Rebels into the fold like they did the tahs. Whether this is because of the financial situation or because priorities have shifted with the changeover at the top is not clear, but it's a worrying development if they feel they can't afford to do it with the sides that want to when only months ago they were ready to force it on sides that didn't.
It comes as club boss Baden Stephenson hit out against “unfounded speculation” about the future of the Rebels on Wednesday, but confirmed Rugby Australia had ceased conversations about taking ownership of the Melbourne side.
...
Asked about the plan for Rugby Australia to take control over the Rebels, as it did with the Waratahs in October, Stephenson said those talks have broken down.

“The Melbourne Rebels, we very much were open to having a conversation around the centralisation of the commercial assets of our club. We had one brief conversation … Those conversations have ceased for the moment, I don’t think it’s a major priority for Rugby Australia.”
Rugby Australia were approached for comment.
“Given the major events that are coming to Melbourne, the government support, the broadcast deal, the Super Rugby deal – Melbourne is not going anywhere. I’ve got full confidence that our viability will be absolutely fine.”
 

GoMelbRebels

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
All caught up (Pissed off)

Firstly, Australian rugby cannot afford to lose any teams, the view that going back to 4 teams will make Aus rugby stronger is rubbish.

The biggest problem with supporting Australian rugby is lack of games, always has been. 7/8 home games a year and 1 international. That's less than 10 games per season in your city. It's not like where in Europe where you can also drive to a few away games as well. We need more games, as simple as that. Super Rugby needs to stay at 12 teams and go home and away, anyone who says the calendar is to packed is deluded. AFL/NRL/URC/Premiership/Top14 all make it work. All have over 20 rounds/games a season. More games = more money, it's pretty simple.

Why can't Rugby Aus and NZ sort it out once and for all.
Couldn’t agree more, Kev, the season is ridiculously short. SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) is more an exhibition series than a full on competition. A full home and away would give us 22 rounds plus a bye for each team in the middle like AFL to make it a 23 or 24 round regular season. This would also force teams into using all their squad, which is more reason for players to hang around and not look for game time elsewhere. Having a short season to fit in internationals so 35 or so players can be released makes no sense. Use the large number of players who aren’t on international duties.
 

Rebel man

John Thornett (49)
Dunno if an AAMI park based team could do that. For the RWC and Bledisloe maybe but the MCC is the bar/the G/the physical section.
100% they could MCC supports many a sports across multiple venues. It just comes down to getting the deal done.
 

Rebel man

John Thornett (49)
Couldn’t agree more, Kev, the season is ridiculously short. SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) is more an exhibition series than a full on competition. A full home and away would give us 22 rounds plus a bye for each team in the middle like AFL to make it a 23 or 24 round regular season. This would also force teams into using all their squad, which is more reason for players to hang around and not look for game time elsewhere. Having a short season to fit in internationals so 35 or so players can be released makes no sense. Use the large number of players who aren’t on international duties.
100% need a full season
 

Members Section

John Thornett (49)
All caught up (Pissed off)

Firstly, Australian rugby cannot afford to lose any teams, the view that going back to 4 teams will make Aus rugby stronger is rubbish.

The biggest problem with supporting Australian rugby is lack of games, always has been. 7/8 home games a year and 1 international. That's less than 10 games per season in your city. It's not like where in Europe where you can also drive to a few away games as well. We need more games, as simple as that. Super Rugby needs to stay at 12 teams and go home and away, anyone who says the calendar is to packed is deluded. AFL/NRL/URC/Premiership/Top14 all make it work. All have over 20 rounds/games a season. More games = more money, it's pretty simple.

Why can't Rugby Aus and NZ sort it out once and for all.

Agree! also we play in a stadium bigger than every prem club. Wont happen but a little 10k stadium would be much more fitting (prob would work for 2/3 a league sides as well
 

GoMelbRebels

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The biggest challenge is timing. I think it would be far more doable if the period you were playing through without the test players wasn't also likely to be the the final few rounds and finals.
True, you couldn’t have internationals and finals running in parallel.
 

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
I really was underwhelmed by the open letter on the website. Seemed to deflect a lot from the actual concerns supporters have about long term financial viability

1703130200570.png
 

Mick The Munch

Vay Wilson (31)
Clearly I've got too much time on my hands. I was intrigued by the comment in the articles that "No Rebels staff or players are contracted beyond 2025"

Using All.rugby, (not exhaustive) below is the summary of player contract lengths - only the Brumbies (Valetini and AAA) and Tahs (Bell) have players contracted after 2025.

202420252027
Rebels15170
Brumbies1192
Force14150
Tahs1591
Reds17130

Can I go on my Christmas holiday now?
 

GoMelbRebels

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Clearly I've got too much time on my hands. I was intrigued by the comment in the articles that "No Rebels staff or players are contracted beyond 2025"

Using All.rugby, (not exhaustive) below is the summary of player contract lengths - only the Brumbies (Valetini and AAA) and Tahs (Bell) have players contracted after 2025.

202420252027
Rebels15170
Brumbies1192
Force14150
Tahs1591
Reds17130

Can I go on my Christmas holiday now?
The comments about no players contracted beyond 2025 are ridiculous. Two-year contracts are the most common amongst Super Rugby teams. Hodge was an exception (I think he signed for four more years in 2017).
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Clearly I've got too much time on my hands. I was intrigued by the comment in the articles that "No Rebels staff or players are contracted beyond 2025"

Using All.rugby, (not exhaustive) below is the summary of player contract lengths - only the Brumbies (Valetini and AAA) and Tahs (Bell) have players contracted after 2025.

202420252027
Rebels15170
Brumbies1192
Force14150
Tahs1591
Reds17130

Can I go on my Christmas holiday now?
Tate McDermott Reds.
 

GoMelbRebels

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
there is a list of contracted players and contract length on the front page of every teams 2024 page on this forum. It took about 2 minutes.
If you can get that down to a minute I think I can find the time. Those lists are very helpful, actually (and thank you).
 
Top