Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
One thing the ARU has become very good at is getting the supporters of the different provinces to band together against them.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
B
BLR
Guest
Maybe the teams come June test time can say certain players have been 'injured' in training so can't go to the Wallabies.
European football seems to be pretty good with this method.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Not sure where it begins or ends, but I assume that the hoped-for position of RWA is that the only liability that the ARU will have will be the annual grant to all super franchises. Where they are with this, I'm not sure. If they are able to become self-funding, not only would it be good for RWA and the ARU, but perhaps a model for the others to follow.
There was also talk at some point that they would raise enough to pay $5 million to buy out Andrew Cox.
I think it's a great pity that this has all come about at the 11th hour. It will probably work, but is there enough time to get it all together?
I must also add that I think that Cameron Clyne is the right man to be leading us. Again, it's a great pity that he wasn't in his current position 2 or 3 years ago, as I doubt that the ARU would have entered into some of it's arrangements with him in the chair.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Totally agree, the code is fortunate to have him in his current role.
He's usually the smartest man in the room.
B
BLR
Guest
Not a huge fan how in the Alan Jones podcast Clyne goes on about how the Force got themselves in this position to begin with, true but the lack of funding from the ARU compared to other states certainly didn't help, especially for an expansion side.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Very impressive on both tKick & Chase and on Alan Jones. His lack of a temper may explain why he didn't go further in the game - I would have walked out if Jones treated me like he treated Clyne.
However - where did the $770,000,000 the ARU has run through its books (according to Jones) since 2007 go?
We know JON got $2m but what about the other $768m?
Poidevinfan
Bob McCowan (2)
NZ fan here who has been lurking in this thread for the past 3 days. You guys are the hub of the Internet with regards to this issue. Plus planet rugby to a much lesser extent. Thanks for the informative thoughts I have been glued to each post.
After reading so much I felt compelled to post and I hope I don't say anything offensive as I know this is a rough thing to go through.
1) Although the ARU may have wanted to 4 teams at a minimum the NZRU would have been quick to agree with them. I personally have been involved in numerous pub discussions over the past 5 years with Kiwi fans wanting Australia to have 4 teams so that games can be more competitive. You can bet the NZRU wanted that too.
2) The spending the money on grassroots thing is an idea being touted to appease you guys. And I hope for the good of Australian rugby that the ARU renegs on this promise and pours the money into retention of top flight talent and helping high performance programs instead. Every study I have seen on sport shows that the performance of a national team is what gets kids playing the sport. In NZ by memory we have 450 000 people playing rugby out of 4.5 million people. Cricket by memory has 150 000 people (because we don't win as much internationally is a core reason).
Take whatever money you save and let each of the remaining clubs lure a star Aussie player back from Europe is one thought for an alternative use of the money. Grass roots sports is used to running off the smell of an oily rag, they would be thrilled to have more money but getting the Wallabies winning will get more kids playing than incentives at grass roots.
3) I hesitate to have rotten tomatoes thrown at me, but a point in favour of having four teams, is that the winning percentage of the remaining four teams will increase. Why? A) they will get some of the folded teams players next year b) they can pay their players more due to the terms of the broadcasting deal and retain their stars from leaving more effectively. It is possible point that the additional kids who take up the game in the 4 remaining areas due to their teams WINNING more will outweigh the kids who leave the game due to disenfranchisment that their local team has lost. Kids play sports because they idolise successful winning sportsmen.
I like the Wallabies and have chosen one of your star players from the 80s as my username. I have no idea as to whether the Force or Rebels should be cut and I don't envy who is making the decisions there at all. The few Kiwis I have spoken to favour some sort of Brumbies takeover or merger with the Rebels as perhaps 2 to 3 home games in Melbourne is enough to keep a footprint there and then the damage is minimised as at least everyone in your core cities will continue to see super rugby games they can attend.
Sorry for length!
After reading so much I felt compelled to post and I hope I don't say anything offensive as I know this is a rough thing to go through.
1) Although the ARU may have wanted to 4 teams at a minimum the NZRU would have been quick to agree with them. I personally have been involved in numerous pub discussions over the past 5 years with Kiwi fans wanting Australia to have 4 teams so that games can be more competitive. You can bet the NZRU wanted that too.
2) The spending the money on grassroots thing is an idea being touted to appease you guys. And I hope for the good of Australian rugby that the ARU renegs on this promise and pours the money into retention of top flight talent and helping high performance programs instead. Every study I have seen on sport shows that the performance of a national team is what gets kids playing the sport. In NZ by memory we have 450 000 people playing rugby out of 4.5 million people. Cricket by memory has 150 000 people (because we don't win as much internationally is a core reason).
Take whatever money you save and let each of the remaining clubs lure a star Aussie player back from Europe is one thought for an alternative use of the money. Grass roots sports is used to running off the smell of an oily rag, they would be thrilled to have more money but getting the Wallabies winning will get more kids playing than incentives at grass roots.
3) I hesitate to have rotten tomatoes thrown at me, but a point in favour of having four teams, is that the winning percentage of the remaining four teams will increase. Why? A) they will get some of the folded teams players next year b) they can pay their players more due to the terms of the broadcasting deal and retain their stars from leaving more effectively. It is possible point that the additional kids who take up the game in the 4 remaining areas due to their teams WINNING more will outweigh the kids who leave the game due to disenfranchisment that their local team has lost. Kids play sports because they idolise successful winning sportsmen.
I like the Wallabies and have chosen one of your star players from the 80s as my username. I have no idea as to whether the Force or Rebels should be cut and I don't envy who is making the decisions there at all. The few Kiwis I have spoken to favour some sort of Brumbies takeover or merger with the Rebels as perhaps 2 to 3 home games in Melbourne is enough to keep a footprint there and then the damage is minimised as at least everyone in your core cities will continue to see super rugby games they can attend.
Sorry for length!
B
BLR
Guest
Well it is all very hypothetical, there is the $4.75m odd buy out of Cox (Pulver spoke to him today, whether it was about terms or to just re-assure him that the Force will be the ones cut) & then there is the not even signed Bledisloes & Lions matches that the Victorian government will apparently pull funding for if the Rebels are cut, I think that runs at $8 million.
You essentially have the money threat of the Rebels/Victoria v the injunction of Rugby WA (with loss of OwnTheForce funds)
Can I just say, "top first post"! I don't fully agree with all of it, but damn, it is great to get a new poster jump in with some well thought out ideas. Welcome aboard. I sort of agree with the theory of getting the "top" working well to get the interest building from below. It seems to me, that having been around for a while, the big peaks in interest in the game here have been when the Wallabies are at or near the top. That said, some more funding directly at grass roots level is an important thing we need to see too.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
But the $8M that might be under risk with Vic Gov, can be recouped from other states.....
Both matches are portable
Both matches are portable
B
BLR
Guest
That's what RugbyWA told the fellas from ARU on Monday, generously offering to take those games off their hands.
T
TOCC
Guest
Less competition means a lower price, Victoria was and still is, the state with the largest marketing budget for attracting events like the Bledisloe, EPL matches, Socceroos etc. it will have a massive impact on what other states are prepared to spend, there are really only 4 realistic bidders for Wallabies matches, Melbourne been one of them.
L
Leo86
Guest
Poidevinfan, as ive said it is good to hear from the third party perspective, but in regards to your comment
"It is possible point that the additional kids who take up the game in the 4 remaining areas due to their teams WINNING more will outweigh the kids who leave the game due to disenfranchisment that their local team has lost. Kids play sports because they idolise successful winning sportsmen."
I am WA born and raised, our media dedicates all its sport to AFL even when they have lift outs, the back pages are all AFL. Dont get me wrong i played and support afl still, but since the Forces inception i crave rugby more and more. These days i could name more super rugby players than AFL.
It took the 2003 world cup (no wallabies matches) for me to first even really here of rugby aside from the few kiwi blokes i went to school with.
Since we got the force our kids have got the local sportsmen to idolise. The team to follow, i cant see the wallabies winning and the once a year stop off in Perth enough to show the kids let alone convince them to pursue rugby.
We are in the midst of a generational change in Perth.
Years ago i couldnt discuss this foreign game rugby with anyone. Its completely different now. People understand it, they know players, scores, etc i love it. Its continuing to build more and more.
In regards to point 1. Wanting teams to be more competitive requires more depth. The number of WA players in the force now is showing what WA has to offer and will continue to rise. Taking a pathway away will only push these players overseas.
Still id like to see the force and rebels stay. Put in the hard yards now to reap the rewards later. The cynic in me sees what Tew said becoming a reality. They will change it up again in 2020, by then its irreparable damage across the nation and the sport for the kneejerk decisions of today
"It is possible point that the additional kids who take up the game in the 4 remaining areas due to their teams WINNING more will outweigh the kids who leave the game due to disenfranchisment that their local team has lost. Kids play sports because they idolise successful winning sportsmen."
I am WA born and raised, our media dedicates all its sport to AFL even when they have lift outs, the back pages are all AFL. Dont get me wrong i played and support afl still, but since the Forces inception i crave rugby more and more. These days i could name more super rugby players than AFL.
It took the 2003 world cup (no wallabies matches) for me to first even really here of rugby aside from the few kiwi blokes i went to school with.
Since we got the force our kids have got the local sportsmen to idolise. The team to follow, i cant see the wallabies winning and the once a year stop off in Perth enough to show the kids let alone convince them to pursue rugby.
We are in the midst of a generational change in Perth.
Years ago i couldnt discuss this foreign game rugby with anyone. Its completely different now. People understand it, they know players, scores, etc i love it. Its continuing to build more and more.
In regards to point 1. Wanting teams to be more competitive requires more depth. The number of WA players in the force now is showing what WA has to offer and will continue to rise. Taking a pathway away will only push these players overseas.
Still id like to see the force and rebels stay. Put in the hard yards now to reap the rewards later. The cynic in me sees what Tew said becoming a reality. They will change it up again in 2020, by then its irreparable damage across the nation and the sport for the kneejerk decisions of today
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Hi Poidevinfan, good first post though I disagree with you on some things.
Just wanted to respond to this part as while I agree with your underlying point I would say it's not necessarily the national team, but top end sport in general that inspires kids to play. National team success may be the best type of success to have but it isn't the only kind of top end sport.
The problem for rugby in Australia, which NZ doesn't face, is that we are competing with multiple sports that have top end sporting success every single year, because their top end sport is based around domestic clubs. People can be just as passionate about their club team as their national team, and every year there are multiple NRL, AFL and A League clubs that have good seasons. Therefore virtually every single year is a successful one for rugby league, AFL and soccer. And these clubs represent communities all throughout the country, while there isn't even a professional rugby team in a huge market like Western Sydney (and obviously soon there won't be one in either Perth or Melbourne).
Because the top end of rugby in Australia is entirely within international competitions, and mostly based around the Wallabies, we are guaranteed to have years of poor performance and even lean decades. And given rugby is growing around the world our international successes are more likely to become further apart than closer together in future. This isn't really much of a threat to NZ Rugby because even if at some point the All Blacks were only rarely number 1 in the world there is no professional sport in NZ that has anywhere near rugby's geographical reach and tribalism.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Although Perth has a brand new 60,000 seat stadium which it will want to fill as often as possible.
todd4
Dave Cowper (27)
Good question Blue, I'd be interested to hear the answer as well. Not sure if anyone really knows. How much could Cox claim as damages if the Rebels are kicked out?
- Status