Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

Yes amirite I have come to the same conclusion as you that state of financial affairs means we now have no choice but to cut a side. Disgusted that allowed to get to this but yes no choice. We need to fix our governing body with key appointments and restructure of aru as we can't continue to accept the gross incompetence and poor leadership they have displayed over the last 15 years.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I haven't listened yet, but I despair about the radio silence from Rebels HQ. I get that the behind the scene's discussions are where this will be decided, but it's another way of screwing the fans who are looking for leadership and a bit of comfort.

Not a claim, more an educated guess based on viewer stats & various reports quoting the broadcasters being alarmed by falling viewer numbers & some games becoming not worth the cost of broadcasting.

No.. Foxtel wanted to retain 5 Oz teams

Agreed. But there will be some savings under the new model so I don't think they'll be unhappy about that.

 

[lou75]

Nope it's all good as long as long as Eales disclosed the conflict, was absent from the discussion about whether to use International Quarterback and refrained from voting.
From the fascinating case of Fitzsimmons v R.

I'm sure its all good, just pointing out the old school guidelines, which this administration, as we know from other acts from the boys club, anything goes e.g.: Nick Farr Jones and handling of money, all good in the end; Pulvers sale of Rebels to Cox and subsequent $6 m + secret payment to Cox, all good in the end; Pulvers promises - too many to list, but rest assured, all will be good in the end.

 

[fatprop]

Yes amirite I have come to the same conclusion as you that state of financial affairs means we now have no choice but to cut a side. Disgusted that allowed to get to this but yes no choice. We need to fix our governing body with key appointments and restructure of aru as we can't continue to accept the gross incompetence and poor leadership they have displayed over the last 15 years.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

But how many are still there that made those original decisions? or would have actually made different decisions without the pleasure of 20/20 hindsight?

Will a HQ restructure actually do anything except payout a few contracts and make few disgruntled happier to see further pain inflicted on the decision makers?

I am a tad cynical about these things, a few wins and everything is forgiven, there was no "poor leadership" when we were winning comps and I expect "head office" was doing exactly the same things.

Sometimes you just have to have a go, take a big chunk and chew like hell. (I see the decision to bring in an extra team in this way)

But when things aren't going right, you also have to be brave enough to change things

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If by ok, you meant mandatory, then yeah

Phew - I have just never seen such a remarkable coincidence in any successful organisation.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

SARU's Franchise Committee has decided the criteria on which their four Super Rugby teams will be determined:

"The agreed headline criteria, which have been weighted, are: financial and economic sustainability; sustainable support base; team performance; and stadium and facilities. These criteria were further broken down in sub-criteria and measurement mechanisms for each of these were also set and agreed upon."

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/sa-rugby-set-criteria-for-super-rugby/

Process from here is SARU collate the data; Franchise Committee recommends to Executive Council who should stay; and General Council makes the final decision, so still plenty of opportunities for politics to get in the way. No real time frame other than the Franchise Committee have their next meeting in 2-3 weeks.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

well,there are many lawyers on this site-all with differing opinions,no doubt!

but few with intimate knowledge of the deals done. I have a feeling that the Force's injunction which has slowed things down (even further) suggests that there is a little more to the Force agreement of last year than we know.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ARU has not only cornered itself with both the Force and Rebels but Sanzaa and the broadcasters and therefore will inevitably end up paying dollars

 

[TOCC]

The sticking point is the contract between RugbyWA and ARU which stipulates that the Force must remain part of Super Rugby until 2020.

By the time the ARU pay out legal fees, redundancy packages and other contractural obligations there won't be much money saved.

 

[dru]

SARU's Franchise Committee has decided the criteria on which their four Super Rugby teams will be determined:

So for those perturbed minds wondering if there could possibly be a more confused and tortuous organisation than the ARU - this just might be it.

 

[Quick Hands]

SARU's Franchise Committee has decided the criteria on which their four Super Rugby teams will be determined:

"The agreed headline criteria, which have been weighted, are: financial and economic sustainability; sustainable support base; team performance; and stadium and facilities. These criteria were further broken down in sub-criteria and measurement mechanisms for each of these were also set and agreed upon."

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/sa-rugby-set-criteria-for-super-rugby/

Process from here is SARU collate the data; Franchise Committee recommends to Executive Council who should stay; and General Council makes the final decision, so still plenty of opportunities for politics to get in the way. No real time frame other than the Franchise Committee have their next meeting in 2-3 weeks.

In contrast to the absence of any objective criteria published by the ARU.

 

[Twoilms]

The sticking point is the contract between RugbyWA and ARU which stipulates that the Force must remain part of Super Rugby until 2020.

By the time the ARU pay out legal fees, redundancy packages and other contractural obligations there won't be much money saved.

I cant think of a reason why they wouldnt have to pay out the contract for every single player.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

Like many, I have found it hard to avoid blowing my stack and keeping cool. Thought I'd have a go at hunting for positives. Or strengths maybe. Or just understable actions.

1. The ARU Board does look like a decent board. You'd hope they care, and are not simply adding to their CVs.
2. Clyne stood by Pulver publically during the recent media interview. There are plenty of Chairmen who would have left him under the bus. I suspect that Pulver has had to wear this more than once in the past.
3. They understand their solvency responsibilities. Basic I know, but fundamental.
4. They clearly have spent time considering the issues. They seem intelligent enough.
5. The Kiwi conspiracists (mea culpa) can stand down. ARU has made a firm statement cutting a team is an Australian decission.
6. At this stage, income is theoretically unchanged.
7. In the absence of expected leadership from Africa they stood up.
8. Clyne gave a good explanation of the SANZAR relationship, and a response to "calling NZ's bluff". That discussion around would the Kiwis fly over (to SA) and leave Aus on its own. Not a "bluff" to be taken lightly. I agree.
9. The decission to spend savings in the grass roots - it may be political but it's a good call.
10. I recognise there will be alternate views, but I dont disagree with having courage of our convictions in relation to Japan and Argentina.
11. Yes they did test NZ on a trans tasman Super.

We can (and will) comment on the process and how we got here, but the ARU position was cogent and decissive. And they took the time to spell it out.

Now do I think that means everything is rosy? Not by a long shot, I remain touch and go furious. There is however some consistency and competance in the ARU here.

 

[wamberal]

Adding to their CVs? Are you serious?


There are some heavy hitters on the Board, we are bloody lucky to have them. There are no brownie points on offer for people who put themselves in this sort of position in this country.


JON and Matt Carroll did okay for themselves. That's it. As for the current crop, they are all in a lose-lose situation. The best they can do is to ensure that the game does not disappear.

 

[Omar Comin']

For me the anger over this is still very high and I'm hoping the legal ramifications leave the ARU no choice but to backflip on their decision.

To me it comes down to this: Australian rugby is going to shrink, and basically give up on a large region of this country - including thousands of fans and grassroots participants, to stick with a competition model that has proven itself to be a financial drain and that has never given us much chance of competing with the other codes domestically.

And by cutting a team now we reduce our ability to change strategy after 2020. We're even more locked into a competition model that has seen rugby declining in this country, despite it booming around the world.

 

[The Snout]

8 more fuck ups and you have a game day 23

Pissed myself laughing. Well done mate.

 

[barbarian]

I understand your argument but respectfully disagree. The decision to cut a side will not over the medium to long term do much at all to keep the ARU solvent. As others have said, if the system is broken you need to fix the system, this decision does nothing to fix the system which brought us to this point. What do they do when it gets back to this point again? Cut another team? There is a very finite amount of times this can work!

I think the issue is there may not be a medium or long term if the current situation continues.

Last year they sunk so much cash into Super teams, we lost the vast bulk of the $35m TV deal sugar hit. Just was sucked straight in to the black hole of Super Rugby debt.

It is only going to be worse this year. And then we get to 2019, a World Cup year, and we're up shit creek without any inbound tests.......
.

 

[Quick Hands]

Like many, I have found it hard to avoid blowing my stack and keeping cool. Thought I'd have a go at hunting for positives. Or strengths maybe. Or just understable actions.

1. The ARU Board does look like a decent board. You'd hope they care, and are not simply adding to their CVs.
2. Clyne stood by Pulver publically during the recent media interview. There are plenty of Chairmen who would have left him under the bus. I suspect that Pulver has had to wear this more than once in the past.
3. They understand their solvency responsibilities. Basic I know, but fundamental.
4. They clearly have spent time considering the issues. They seem intelligent enough.
5. The Kiwi conspiracists (mea culpa) can stand down. ARU has made a firm statement cutting a team is an Australian decission.
6. At this stage, income is theoretically unchanged.
7. In the absence of expected leadership from Africa they stood up.
8. Clyne gave a good explanation of the SANZAR relationship, and a response to "calling NZ's bluff". That discussion around would the Kiwis fly over (to SA) and leave Aus on its own. Not a "bluff" to be taken lightly. I agree.
9. The decission to spend savings in the grass roots - it may be political but it's a good call.
10. I recognise there will be alternate views, but I dont disagree with having courage of our convictions in relation to Japan and Argentina.
11. Yes they did test NZ on a trans tasman Super.

We can (and will) comment on the process and how we got here, but the ARU position was cogent and decissive. And they took the time to spell it out.

Now do I think that means everything is rosy? Not by a long shot, I remain touch and go furious. There is however some consistency and competance in the ARU here.

I'll give you 3, 6, 8, 9 & 11

EDIT: And Clyne is the only one of them that I rate

EDIT 2: And Geoff Stooke

 

[amirite]

I think the issue is there may not be a medium or long term if the current situation continues.

Last year they sunk so much cash into Super teams, we lost the vast bulk of the $35m TV deal sugar hit. Just was sucked straight in to the black hole of Super Rugby debt.

It is only going to be worse this year. And then we get to 2019, a World Cup year, and we're up shit creek without any inbound tests...
.

I largely agree.

To frame it a bit differently, getting rid of the team is not an incompetent act in isolation, but everything that led to this point probably was. This was all forecasted.

 

[Scooter]

I heard Stirling Mortlock on the radio this morning. He gave the ARU a whack about the lack of transparency and the length of time that the process has taken.

 

[amirite]

I heard Stirling Mortlock on the radio this morning. He gave the ARU a whack about the lack of transparency and the length of time that the process has taken.

In all fairness, there's only one other direct case study and that's SA Rugby. They're taking just as long as the ARU.