Rebels 2017

[Brumby Runner]

Can someone please enlighten me as to why the Rebels would be quarantined from being cut just because they have private equity involved, when that equity can pull out at any moment as it is more than likely to do when it doesn't turn a profit year after year? Must be nigh on impossible for a Super Rugby franchise in Aus to consistently turn a profit, especially in a market which has no history or stability in following rugby as a sport.

I would say that no matter whether the Force or Brumbies are cut, in the event one franchise has to go, then the Rebels will also fold in the next couple of years as the private owner (and why do the Rebels' fans call him Coxy? Are they all personal friends of his - I am bloody sure it will be that bastard Cox once he pulls the pin) gets sick and tired of shelling out his hard earned on a failing enterprise. And remember, he has a "get out of jail card" in the deal that allows him to withdraw at any time that suits him.

I am dead set against any of the Aus franchises getting the flick, but the thought of the Brumbies either being shafted or moved to Melbourne is just mind boggling. Unfortunately, the way I see it, it is almost inevitable that the commercial realities will see the Rebels go under within a few short years. If the Brumbies were to relocate, they would go down the same gurgler in time.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Everyone calls him Coxy, even his wife. It's the surname. Lends itself, really!

 

[amirite]

Here's some food for thought, could the Melbourne and Canberra be the same team in the way that the Canberra and Western Sydney are in the AFL. With 2 pools of Juniors and NRC teams, they would become reasonably self-sustainable recruitment wise.

Shall we say Melbourne-based, with 3 games played in Canberra (inc. 2 Aussie derbies), and keeping the Brumbies title because it's far more valuable. From there, the Rebels become the name of the NRC side.

Is this flawed? Yes. Am I genuinely pitching it? Not really. But still, interesting.

 

[Slim 293]

amirite, in your scenario they could probably still hang onto 2 NRC sides.......

But I think the games would have to be split evenly between Canberra and Melbourne.

I'm not sure how that would affect the Canberra Government sponsorship deal?

However, I have hope that we won't see a team cut...........

Saffas won't agree to do the same, and too many parties will protest.

Hopefully the 3 x 6 team conference that RUPA has suggested will come into fruition.

 

[swingpass]

prior to the Rebels, there existed an MOU between the VRU and the ACTRU/Brumbies about playing half the games in Melbourne. it was also widely believed that the Brumbies would eventually have to re-locate to Melbourne in order to remain viable. this was in the days of a 3 and then a 4 Oz conference. Despite all, if Melbourne can get a viable product, and i don't mean fireworks, dancing girls and razzamatazz, but a winning team, the local populace will support it and keep the franchise afloat. Whether it can survive that long is another matter entirely. the stark reality is that the initial set up of the franchise was hobbled/nobbled from the very outset by NSW, Queensland and to a lesser extent the Force and Brumbies. the two main states not wishing to be raped again like they were with the Force. it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby if they lost a strong presence in Melbourne.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

*snip*

Hopefully the 3 x 6 team conference that RUPA has suggested will come into fruition.

That is pretty much the scenario that the Saffers flat out rejected in 2013 and the reason we have this basket case of a competition now. From their point of view, they already have the Currie Cup. An SA conference would just be more of the same.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

prior to the Rebels, there existed an MOU between the VRU and the ACTRU/Brumbies about playing half the games in Melbourne. it was also widely believed that the Brumbies would eventually have to re-locate to Melbourne in order to remain viable. this was in the days of a 3 and then a 4 Oz conference. Despite all, if Melbourne can get a viable product, and i don't mean fireworks, dancing girls and razzamatazz, but a winning team, the local populace will support it and keep the franchise afloat. Whether it can survive that long is another matter entirely. the stark reality is that the initial set up of the franchise was hobbled/nobbled from the very outset by NSW, Queensland and to a lesser extent the Force and Brumbies. the two main states not wishing to be raped again like they were with the Force. it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby if they lost a strong presence in Melbourne.

I think it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby to lose any of its current teams. IMHO, expansion is the way forward.

 

[swingpass]

I think it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby to lose any of its current teams. IMHO, expansion is the way forward.

I agree completely 5 franchises should stay

 

[lou75]

I recall Coxy stating that he would make the Rebels one of the top 25 Rugby teams in the world - that was really early on, and to much applause and beer swilling, but so far, he seems to have only reaped the benefits of the synergies of Weary and Rebels through the lunches, but has not really done much else to make the night an event that people want to go to. Even members check to see if they can visit their nan instead, so Joe Blow public aint going to stump up and pay for a ticket although, with the Yakult youngsters playing at halftime, does it get any better than that I ask you?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Brumbies in Melbourne will eventually kill the brand. And it is probably by far the best known and most widely recognised Aus rugby brand around the rugby world. Melbourne is AFL through and through. Rugby is a novelty to most. I can't see a rugby franchise surviving in Melbourne long term, no matter who it is, unfortunate as it is.

Brumbies would have achieved a healthy profit last year if not for the back room shenanigans leading to the massive payout for Michael Jones. They have healthy sponsorship deals atm and are looking at being in the black this year and for the foreseeable future. They are a foundation Super 12 side and the franchise which has enjoyed the most success on the field out of all Aus sides. It would be a travesty if they were to be removed or relocated, and imo would have much worse consequences down the track.

 

[Rebels3]

Brumbies in Melbourne will eventually kill the brand. And it is probably by far the best known and most widely recognised Aus rugby brand around the rugby world. Melbourne is AFL through and through. Rugby is a novelty to most. I can't see a rugby franchise surviving in Melbourne long term, no matter who it is, unfortunate as it is.

Brumbies would have achieved a healthy profit last year if not for the back room shenanigans leading to the massive payout for Michael Jones. They have healthy sponsorship deals atm and are looking at being in the black this year and for the foreseeable future. They are a foundation Super 12 side and the franchise which has enjoyed the most success on the field out of all Aus sides. It would be a travesty if they were to be removed or relocated, and imo would have much worse consequences down the track.

Are we on here to be constructive or are we just looking to throw mud at someone else in order to justify survival? Nobody down here is wanting the Brumbies to go, so no need to comment on something you probably know very little about, esp when it comes to the local Rugby scene. I'm sure your prob just worried about the future of your club, like the rest of us are, but no need to start throwing out silly comments of why mine is bigger and better than yours therefore i get to stay. We should be all trowing our attention to how we can all get the most from this situation and not kicking and shoving until i'm the only one left.

Also to claim the Brumbies are more recognizable than the Tahs or Reds is just a silly comment.

 

[amirite]

I agree completely 5 franchises should stay

Definitely.

Brumbies in Melbourne will eventually kill the brand. And it is probably by far the best known and most widely recognised Aus rugby brand around the rugby world. Melbourne is AFL through and through. Rugby is a novelty to most. I can't see a rugby franchise surviving in Melbourne long term, no matter who it is, unfortunate as it is.

I'll be honest mate, I don't think you know much about Victorian rugby, and I don't think the Brumbies is the most valuable brand is Aus Super Rugby, locally or internationally. I think you're speaking out of instinct and passion.

The fact of the matter is, Melbourne is a bigger media market, more local rugby players, better performing juniors, and a larger overall rugby community (not many locals however). The debate is entirely based on how you frame it and as a franchise somewhat under siege, don't go pointing fingers. It's classless, "don't cull me, cull him instead!".

amirite, in your scenario they could probably still hang onto 2 NRC sides.

Hopefully the 3 x 6 team conference that RUPA has suggested will come into fruition.

I phrased badly, it would make sense to retain two NRC sides.

The 6 team conference makes the most sense, but the fact of the matter is nothing in SA suggests the business acumen exists to run the Kings.

I think all these Aussie-centric conversations hides the fact that Kings and Japan are extremely poorly run teams. Far worse than the Rebels or Force, so I'd say over the course of the season their results will be worse too.

 

[neilc]

I hope that the ARU take a long term view. Victoria and WA are long term developments - not just in terms of the local players but also in terms of growing the presence of the game in those areas. AFL will always dominate there but rugby can provide another sporting option and with the right development attitude and support they can grow to become a strong and viable presence.

The Brumbies have that strong reputation as a place that can help develop players into higher performers, which attracts players and they have a strong presence locally and outside of Canberra too. It is a well known rugby brand now and hopefully they can re-engage with their local community and get the supporters to their games again. We need these teams to provide the opportunities for the players, if we lose teams we will lose more players to where they can get opportunities - overseas and to league. Yes we might have a narrower more focused pool of elite players if there are less teams but we won't develop the depth below that.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Quite frankly, none of us want our own team to be cut, so it's understandable there is a bit of criticism of other teams in order to divert attention.

However, for the future of Rugby in Australia we should be doing all we can to keep 5 teams. Sure, dropping a team (or two) will strengthen the others, but at what cost to the game? The perception outside of Rugby would be the code is dying if we drop teams.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Rebel3 and Amirite. My post re the possible relocation of the Brumbies to Melbourne was in response to a number of suggestions by Melbourne fans here that that should happen if the Rebels fold. In truth, I don't want to see any Aus franchise get the chop, but I do have my thoughts about the long term viability of a franchise based in Melbourne, simply because of the overwhelming support down there for AFL.

My main point is that if Melbourne can't sustain the Rebels, and I think long term there is a doubt about that, then moving the Brumbies or any other team there will inevitably lead to two franchises going to the wall. Let's not change anything but see over time how the Rebels succeed.

 

[KevinO]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong. The current tv deal is to the end of 2018 so they can't get rid of anyone until that has expired.

Which would mean restructing the current conference system for next season is the best option to try gain some momentum.

While everyone says SA does jot want 3 conferences, surely having 4 teams not playing NZ teams each season until play offs does not help attract crowds.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong. The current tv deal is to the end of 2018 so they can't get rid of anyone until that has expired.

Which would mean restructing the current conference system for next season is the best option to try gain some momentum.

While everyone says SA does jot want 3 conferences, surely having 4 teams not playing NZ teams each season until play offs does not help attract crowds.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

I was under the impression it was a 5-year deal, until the end of 2020.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

It is:
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2016/0...s-new-media-rights-arrangements-for-2016-2020

 

[KevinO]

So even if they reduced 2 sides, they would need to make up the amount of games in a new format.

Would rather keep the 18, 3 conferences with more local derbies. Increase the amount of games out of good faith and hope to be rewarded when the next tv deal comes up

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[KevinO]

Plus any extra games can be given to FTA as Foxsports would not have exclusive rights to the game. If you could give a local derby to network 10 in each state live in prime time early in the season you would get viewers.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk