Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Fox Sports didn't want any teams cut..........
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Fox Sports didn't want any teams cut..........
I'd encourage everyone to go and have a look at the ARU Annual Report.
Not the glossy editorial stuff, but the hard financial numbers at the back.
It's amazing how much more cash we are getting from the broadcast deal, and how much of that increase we are sinking into Super Rugby.
You can see why Pulver and co want to cut a team. It's about $$$. It's the answer to all their problems. Yes they burn a big chunk of their fans, but can collectively:
a) lower travel costs (which doubled last year)
b) give existing Super teams more cash
c) increase local player salaries, fighting off European raiders
d) increase grassroots funding, fighting off local critics
Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it gives a bit more idea about why they did what they did.
.
Not the glossy editorial stuff, but the hard financial numbers at the back.
It's amazing how much more cash we are getting from the broadcast deal, and how much of that increase we are sinking into Super Rugby.
You can see why Pulver and co want to cut a team. It's about $$$. It's the answer to all their problems. Yes they burn a big chunk of their fans, but can collectively:
a) lower travel costs (which doubled last year)
b) give existing Super teams more cash
c) increase local player salaries, fighting off European raiders
d) increase grassroots funding, fighting off local critics
Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it gives a bit more idea about why they did what they did.
.
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
Putting the blinders on here and purely looking at the financial assistance.
the force and the rebels - overall have received very different amounts of funding.
Indeed RWA was forced into a sale for any additional assistance while the other franchises have been given money (yes, the tahs paid some of it back but [sorry Phil Waugh, for once] we're not talking about them at the moment).
Then RWA have done a total restructure in the last 18 months including a new coaching panel. (yes we sent some admin jobs to the ARU as part of the agreement, but with unemployment in Perth those jobs can be filled with skilled people locally within a week).
at the same time we re-negotiated naming rights sponsorship going from the multiple jersey sponsors to a partnership with the stage government and road safety. While keeping most of the various companies who previously sponsored on the front of the jerseys.
This alone secured the immediate and short term financial future for the force based on the losses made in the last few years.
on top of that there is the share offering which will potentially allow RWA to buy the licence back and have additional capital left over to invest or sit on and gather interest. further improving the bottom line.
there are heaps of other issues at play here for sure. but it's not accurate to call the force a financial basket case, as they have learnt from their mistakes and are looking at all options to improve them - including selling their soul (IP) to the devil (ARU) as it were.
and it's also not accurate to say that both the force and the rebels have has "massive" amounts of cash sunk into them. as there is such a huge discrepancy in the amounts. and what has been asked for in return. OR that the force requiring additional ARU funds wont change anytime soon. we're actually trying to give them money at the moment!
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
ok, travel is paid for by sanzaar, it has no impact on the ARU's balance
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
If it's about $$ then the ARU have been/are incompetent apart from the year JON dudded our closest Union all those years ago.
But it's not all about $$, it's about growing/fostering the game.
The value of a Super club is not measured purely on their P/L statement each year.
That's where our players of the future, get their dreams.
How do you support a team that no longer exists?
If I lived in Perth, I'd probably have to follow the AFL for my sporting fix, then when the ARU bandwagon cones into town, I'd probably not bother any more.
Reducing local opportunities will have significantly more impact on players going O/S, than possibly increasing player payments here(invariably the most elite get the most benefit,the cusp players are still treated like they are lucky to be there.....)
For this CEO to suggest that they are killing a franchise, to enable a larger spend on grassroots is laughable!
dru
David Wilson (68)
Ulrich - that reads as massively political. The SA provinces more than ever turning into the have and have-nots. I'm trying to work my head around the implications through the decision making process regarding which franchises get chopped. It's a head spin but surely Free State RU will not be happy - hell same for the larger non-franchise unions.
And then what are the implications for developing (black) grass roots if the cash is focused on 4 only RUs?
I see over on PR that some are suggesting the cutting Kings is not the political issue that many of us assumed. Your thoughts?
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
My apologies.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
How did SANZAAR convince their broadcast partners to pay the same for much less content?
How did Pulver/SAFA convince SANZAAR that the distributions should remain the same despite supporting fewer teams?
Both of these suggest to me that Super Rugby - and especially the "lower rating games" don't bring all that much money in the door - and it's actually the TRC that's the big money spinner.
How did Pulver/SAFA convince SANZAAR that the distributions should remain the same despite supporting fewer teams?
Both of these suggest to me that Super Rugby - and especially the "lower rating games" don't bring all that much money in the door - and it's actually the TRC that's the big money spinner.
Decision of team to be cut now delayed which will surprise no one.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Decision of team to be cut now delayed which will surprise no one.
That'd be RugbyWA's injunction in action then......
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
That stands to reason though. More overall appeal for the international teams.
SH rugby has/is a powerhouse & arguably is setting the pace for the rest of the world. makes sense people tune in. I know i watch 6N but not the provincial games in the NH. I tune in when i can to watch the Eagles play as well.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Hopefully when all of this is over someone with nothing left to lose will leak the "Ten Year Vision" doc that SANZAAR commissioned last year & received at their now-infamous London meeting. I'm picking that will make a lot of what's happened since seem a little less random, esp as by then (most) people will have moved past the emotional reaction stage & be able to look at things a bit more rationally.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
The problem is that they're working on the assumption that 5 teams is the problem, rather than the nature and design of the competition itself.
Is it surprising that super rugby teams struggle financially when they're playing only 7 or 8 home games per season and 15% of their games in the middle of the night?
If we can't financially sustain 5 teams in a country as rich and large as Australia, while the A League can sustain 10 (and soon more) then the problem is the model.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Why does the NZRU not want a trans tasman competition?
ARU and Super Rugby are going to die long term without a trans tasman comp. The only thing that prevented it happening was the NZRU.
The SARU is run by the toxic South African government, which was behind the crazy push for the kings. Why are we cooperating with an organisation that's politically compromised.
Cam Clyde saying we couldn't call NZ's bluff, total bs. NZ would freak if they couldn't play the Bledisloe Cup.
Why are we so tolerant of the crazy SARU's demands, as well as the NZRU stomping on us and our interests? We send nice guys to negotiations! Tell Steve Tew to get fucked, he was the shit bloke that released that media release about the bug last year on game day. Tell him its trans tasman comp or them v sheep / politically compromised organisation
ARU and Super Rugby are going to die long term without a trans tasman comp. The only thing that prevented it happening was the NZRU.
The SARU is run by the toxic South African government, which was behind the crazy push for the kings. Why are we cooperating with an organisation that's politically compromised.
Cam Clyde saying we couldn't call NZ's bluff, total bs. NZ would freak if they couldn't play the Bledisloe Cup.
Why are we so tolerant of the crazy SARU's demands, as well as the NZRU stomping on us and our interests? We send nice guys to negotiations! Tell Steve Tew to get fucked, he was the shit bloke that released that media release about the bug last year on game day. Tell him its trans tasman comp or them v sheep / politically compromised organisation
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
Decision of team to be cut now delayed which will surprise no one.
"consultation process"
That's the biggest load of shit i have ever heard!
the "consultation process" was them flying into Perth to tell RWA and the force that they can fuck off.
even though the ARU had already entered into an agreement to maintain the force until 2020...
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Also, the ARU has a bad hand (it has also played that hand badly), but they are only 30% to blame here. THe biggest player is the evil South African government that told the SARU they'd lose their heads if there was no team in port elizabeth. They are an evil, evil government that belong in the 'axis of evil' list that used to get circulated. Hundreds of thousands of white people have fled SA on their watch and now they are getting their hands on Rugby and ruining our game. Fuck them!
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
It's only 15 fewer games in an 18-week comp so not really that significant?
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
It's nearly 20% (17%) fewer games
Edit - done my sums wrong - see Braveheart below
- Status