• 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.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

zer0

John Thornett (49)
Maybe combination of Northland/North Harbour (north of Auckland) (both have 25-30k stadiums)
NZ doesn't have the infrastructure nor desire for a sixth franchise. As for the stadiums, no one turns up to Albany for anything, and Whangarei is so small you could just about fit the entire population (~56,000) into Eden Park.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bloos are struggling already & you wanna take ~20% of their catchment off them? Even a One-eyed Cantab can see that's just nuts.


They would, literally, just be left with the Auckland union.
 

charlesalan

Sydney Middleton (9)
So the 2016 annual report is finally out and the ARU gave away an extra $2.6 m to Cox on top of last year's $1.4 m = $4m in extra funding, so far, more to come!!
I hope the other franchise fans continue to support Melbourne Rebels next year since the ARU will have more funds available for their good mate Coxy and Rebels will be in a good position to secure a decent coach at last.
 

amirite

Chilla Wilson (44)
Points addressed in red, though I suspect you're not the kind of guy that likes facts being brought to an argument.
The point about Victoria being more successful at Under 18s and Under 20s level.
Firstly there is no U/18s competition, so thats a lie and 2 or 3 more wins in a 2 year old Under 20s comp is hardly anything that can be labeled a trend of success.
Yes, there is an Under 18s comp. Here is a link to a page titled "Western Force Schoolboys" https://www.rugbywa.asn.au/western-force-school-boys/.

Here is a link to an article last year where they came last: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/97932/

Here is a link to the top squad they got no players selected for in 2016 (nor the 2nd squad): http://www.rugbynews.net.au/2016-australian-schoolboys-teams-announced/

As far as 20s goes, if "2-3 more wins" is what you have to minimise the difference to create a point, okay. Another framing (and a more accurate one) is the Rebels have come 2nd and 3rd of 5 in the comp, and the Force have come dead last twice and never won a game.
Also 2 of our 3 Aus under 20s this year are WA born. Our other rep, much like the majority of The Rebels u/20s squad, is from interstate.
Do you know something I don't about the Aus 20s squad?

In last years squad there was one WA player (not born, nor developed in WA).

In this year's squad there is two, and the local boy is at short odds to get cut due to some super contracted players vying for back 3 positions.

Here is the article: http://www.rugbynews.net.au/2017-australian-u20s-extended-squad-announced/

If were picking on technicalities of where players are born vs where they were developed then Perth still wins. The majority of the homegrown players we are claiming spent more than 4 years playing in WA pathways. This is on top of the 20 plus players now interstate or overseas. Even one of your own is from Perth. Cruz Ah-Nau ring a bell?
Seeing as your larger point was the Rebels have produced equal levels of talent, there is no evidence to support this. The numbers still remain - Rebels have 2 players developed in Melbourne. Naivalu and Fereti Sa'ga. The Force have 11 in their current squad, 2 in the Brumbies, 2 in Qld and one in Melbourne.
Tell me if I miss any currently CONTRACTED WA developed players -
Ah-Nau (Rebels)
Jooste, Godwin (Brumbies)
Scoble, Hardwick, RHP, Koteka, Burton, Peni, Rona, DHP (Force)
If I'm generous, I could give you Rangi, Ruru, and Ainsely. But that's quite generous considering they all played senior rugby in a Tier 1 nation that wasn't Aus first.

So that obviously doesn't meet up with your numbers, even if I add in the 'generous' additions. Perhaps you're counting uncontracted players who've done preseason? Even still, I don't know where the numbers come from.

Current Victoria developed players (which you've massively misreported) include -
Faulkner (Force) - "ring a bell?"
Lealiifano, Valetini (Brumbies)
Saaga, Siliva, Uelese, Douglas, Tupai, Tuipolotu, Tuimalealiifano, Naivalu (Rebels)
Peter Samu (Crusaders)
So the numbers look pretty similar. In fact, Victoria is down one player with 5 years less development.

Maybe you can unearth a couple of extra WA names, but does a couple of names really rationalise 5 years extra?

The Rebels have had less time to produce players. Yes correct but 2 in 7 years vs 16 in 11 years points to Melbourne having 4 players in 14 years at current pace. At our current pace we will have 32 players of super rugby standard in another 11 years. That shows our growth is exponentially better the Melbournes.

But i truly suspect your true larger point is based on your allegiance to Melbourne not on the figures that explain what is happening.

I acknowledged it. Then i proved he was wrong in his assumptions.

You want a truth based discussion but spread mistruths.

Mate, all you proved is that you're chock full of bias, and on top of it you're arguing in such an unbecoming way that several people have remarked on it. It's a bad look for you.

I don't want any franchises gone, I had merely contested the point that the WA pathway is out-and-out better than the Vic one.

The numbers (I even added links because you called me a liar) just don't add up.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Very amusing that the ARU Chair, in identifying Pulver's 'extraordinary' efforts, can only particularise his achievements in improving 'international relationships' in the Southern Hemisphere where such were 'badly burned' before his arrival.

These are the 'newly positive' relationships that have given us, under Pulver, the disastrous S18 format (that the ARU at the time loudly self-praised) and now the 'new' format wherein the ARU has conceded, indeed it turns out volunteered, a full Super team to depart and yet seemingly gained zero in return other than a new brotherhood with the Sunwolves.

Clearly the threshold by which excellence of executive performance is judged within the unique confines of the ARU is not worryingly high. Not likely to cause any undue stress, or unpleasant pressures.
Someone needs to point out that the 'nice guy' just got steamrolled in London.
Our relationships should be strained ATM whilst we fight tooth & nail to save our franchises.
Maybe, in the end it might have been our only choice, but we'll never know.
We caved at the first hurdle.
And then the softcocks, prove they are spineless by making no decision, their decision, about who gets cut.
 

amirite

Chilla Wilson (44)
Someone needs to point out that the 'nice guy' just got steamrolled in London.
Our relationships should be strained ATM whilst we fight tooth & nail to save our franchises.
Maybe, in the end it might have been our only choice, but we'll never know.
We caved at the first hurdle.
And then the softcocks, prove they are spineless by making no decision, their decision, about who gets cut.

It sounds like they thought that they'd go into insolvency eventually if they didn't get rid of a team. This was the first opportunity to do so and they took it.
The talk of them redistributing these funds into grass routes is cute, but it remains to be seen.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I thought our process was shithouse, but I feel just as much for our Saffer cousins right now. Slow death anyone?

Those people who still deny a link between incompetent management and the performance of an organistion only need to compare what's going on in SA and Aus with what happens in NZ - where grown up real managers are in charge.
 

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
Only one franchise doesn't have licence , and unless the others hands there's over its game set and match for the force IMO
 
B

BLR

Guest
Only one franchise doesn't have licence , and unless the others hands there's over its game set and match for the force IMO

And only one team has a private owner who has set a price for a buy out as we wants to jump ship.

And only one team has a revenue raising strategy which has a minimum amount that is slightly more than that private owners buy out price.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Those people who still deny a link between incompetent management and the performance of an organistion only need to compare what's going on in SA and Aus with what happens in NZ - where grown up real managers are in charge.


And where rugby has always been an essential element of the fabric of national life. And a very important one, at that.


At the end of the day, this is all about a sport. A sport which is just not all that popular in Australia, and never has been, except for brief periods.


A sport which was totally identified with white supremacy in South Africa, and yet which has managed to survive, somehow. Under a rather difficult, even hostile, government environment, too.


Are you seriously suggesting that somehow our situation on the one hand, South Africa's on the other, are the fault of the respective administrators; but New Zealand's long history of rugby worship is because the sport has had better managers?


Spare me.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
And where rugby has always been an essential element of the fabric of national life. And a very important one, at that.


At the end of the day, this is all about a sport. A sport which is just not all that popular in Australia, and never has been, except for brief periods.


A sport which was totally identified with white supremacy in South Africa, and yet which has managed to survive, somehow. Under a rather difficult, even hostile, government environment, too.


Are you seriously suggesting that somehow our situation on the one hand, South Africa's on the other, are the fault of the respective administrators; but New Zealand's long history of rugby worship is because the sport has had better managers?


Spare me.

I really find it unbelievable that you continue to assert that competant or incompetant management has no correlation to the performance of an organisation. If this is truly the case one wonders why we are paying anyone to run the organisation, if their performance makes no difference.

You're consistent in your view and I respect that, by I just cannot by any form of logic accept your interpretation.
 
B

BLR

Guest
Are you seriously suggesting that somehow our situation on the one hand, South Africa's on the other, are the fault of the respective administrators; but New Zealand's long history of rugby worship is because the sport has had better managers

When you have teams like the Highlanders go from bottom of the table to winning the whole thing & the last few years you have not a single real weak Kiwi side you need to ask why this is.

The Highlanders side got strong through the smart distribution of talent under the overall strategic plan in NZ to have a strong all blacks by making all their franchises strong and not just one warehousing talent. Keep in mind in the Carisbrook days they were on the chopping block. This way of drafting talent was set up by good administrators. So yes, yes NZ is where they are in comparison to Aus & SA because of their administrators.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
When you have teams like the Highlanders go from bottom of the table to winning the whole thing & the last few years you have not a single real weak Kiwi side you need to ask why this is.

The Highlanders side got strong through the smart distribution of talent under the overall strategic plan in NZ to have a strong all blacks by making all their franchises strong and not just one warehousing talent. Keep in mind in the Carisbrook days they were on the chopping block. This way of drafting talent was set up by good administrators. So yes, yes NZ is where they are in comparison to Aus & SA because of their administrators.

Couldn't have put it any better myself.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLR

amirite

Chilla Wilson (44)
When you have teams like the Highlanders go from bottom of the table to winning the whole thing & the last few years you have not a single real weak Kiwi side you need to ask why this is.

The Highlanders side got strong through the smart distribution of talent under the overall strategic plan in NZ to have a strong all blacks by making all their franchises strong and not just one warehousing talent. Keep in mind in the Carisbrook days they were on the chopping block. This way of drafting talent was set up by good administrators. So yes, yes NZ is where they are in comparison to Aus & SA because of their administrators.

One massive piece of subtext from the press conference this morning is the ARU don't like the governance model for Super rugby. NZ has very centralised governance, Australia has very decentralised governance.

You can make philosophical arguments for both, but the fact that the Kiwis (and also Ireland) got better when they centralised a lot of their processes, staff, and decisions. They're probably onto something.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
What I want to know is, did the ARU demand KPI requirements be established for the Sunwolves admittance to the Australian conference.. the establishment and running of the Sunwolves has been well below the standard required since day 1, Eddie Jones forewarned of the structural issues which would prevent success for a Japanese Super Rugby team.. so what have the ARU done to address this, what have the ARU demanded in return for sacraficing a team?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top