• 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

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
That's exactly my point - first it was in VA, then in danger of VA, then back to in VA - the message keeps changing.
I don't think it did jump back - it's more likely it was due to cookies on your end or just that the specific page you saw it on hadn't updated for whatever reason. It's been consistent on my end
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
This is getting to a pedantic argument, but fresh from the site. The headline doesn't match the subtext. Go figure they don't have decent copy editors anymore.

1706149829381.png
 

Rebel man

John Thornett (49)
There is no way rugby Australia would be in a position to turn down the 50m on offer from the Victorian government
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
Yeah, that's not what RA would be worrying about...

A potential drop in broadcast revenue on the other hand.

I'd be surprised if the drop weren't substantial, given you're eliminating your second biggest TV market.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific), to me, is revenue generation first, then player development second. On that criteria, maximising broadcast revenue is the (arguably) the best way way to generate the revenue desperately needed for players' development
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
I'd be surprised if the drop weren't substantial, given you're eliminating your second biggest TV market.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific), to me, is revenue generation first, then player development second. On that criteria, maximising broadcast revenue is the (arguably) the best way way to generate the revenue desperately needed for players' development
Sadly Rebels doesn't equal Victoria as we've seen. I doubt the Vic tv market will be dented that much at all.
 
Top