Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Slim is spot on. If the Chef is shite all the best ingredients in the world will still only make a well presented but unpalatable gruel at best.
The gap of the bench guys is the issue of coaches not giving players opportunities and with the NRC in its infancy unlike the ITM, blooding them is a significant leap.
Smaller bucket for the well doesn't mean better quality. Also the less the well is dipped the lower the inflows,freshness and quality. The only way to get it back to where it should be is dip it and export - and that usually means the quality stuff.
The development pathways will bit lit by the lights of an aircraft isle headed north.
I am still struggling to comprehend the logic of if there are 5 broken pots how all the pieces will make 4 unbroken ones.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Bollocks it will.
2-3 points a game in Europe maybe.
It is a complete shallow review of the most heinous kind, not even skin deep, to be taking the suggestion that the ARUs belated policy change means concentratration of talent in the remaining franchises. Short term a bit. Long no medium term it is simple self mutilation.
Overall, Europe wins, and Australia severs a limb because it is cheaper than feeding it.
That work for you, Poido? Doesnt work for me.
Edit: and SANZAAR, including fricking NZ loses. Unless you think Australia has no long term future in Super Rugby. Because THAT is what these decissions mean, in a longer term assessment.
But it's worse than that. Because this also means that we are highly compromised in withdrawing to a domestic led so.ution as well.
"Short sighted" isnt in the discussion. "Rugby" isnt in the bloody discussion. Settling fiduciary responsibilities so that the Directors are safe, is front and foremost. Well done Clyne.
B
BLR
Guest
Maybe that's why Pulver hasn't been addressing the media, he booked in a few special massages during those times.
Poidevinfan
Bob McCowan (2)
I mean no harm and despite coming from NZ I want the best for Australian rugby so that we can continue to have epic test matches against you and hopefully epic super 15 games in the future as well.
I concede that I am not taking in the migration to Europe aspect accurately and probably don't have a good handle on its dynamics. But it just seemed to me that SOME of the better players of the Rebels or Force will end up in other Aussie teams. I read yesterday that the three guaranteed teams are in full scouting mode now and are even drawing up lists of who they want so they can swoop in quickly before Europe and each other do.
Mega scouts will be on hand this week for the respective teams but you are right some of those scouts will be overseas ones.
I hope your blokes show some desire to be Wallabies one day and remain on your shores. DHP has said he won't, if the Force folds he is going to Europe.
B
BLR
Guest
I would liken it to joining the red coats after seeing them burn your village to the ground.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
What are the chances that ARU back down and keep 5 teams until 2020. At what point do the savings get chewed up by legal challenges and disastrous PR.
When the Storm were penalised by the NRL for salary cap issues, the anti-Sydney rhetoric and publicity increased the Storm crowds when they were on the slide.
Wonder if similar anti-Sydney sentiment and a call to arms may actually help Rebels and the Force.
When the Storm were penalised by the NRL for salary cap issues, the anti-Sydney rhetoric and publicity increased the Storm crowds when they were on the slide.
Wonder if similar anti-Sydney sentiment and a call to arms may actually help Rebels and the Force.
B
BLR
Guest
I know many people have invested in the Own the Force campaign who may have waited it out because of this bs from the East.
Boomer
Alfred Walker (16)
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/s...lbourne-rebels-should-go-20170414-gvkzus.html
Well, today's the day to buy a lotto ticket........
Matt ("You Don't Get to Comment if You Didn't Play") Burke wants the Force to stay.
Yes, that same rabid 'Tah Man who perhaps thinks that Australia stops at Parramatta, and who a couple of weeks back begged for the ARU to bone the best from the West.
Stunning.
Well, today's the day to buy a lotto ticket........
Matt ("You Don't Get to Comment if You Didn't Play") Burke wants the Force to stay.
Yes, that same rabid 'Tah Man who perhaps thinks that Australia stops at Parramatta, and who a couple of weeks back begged for the ARU to bone the best from the West.
Stunning.
dru
David Wilson (68)
I understand that you are not trolling. But imo you have a pretty simplistic view as to how this works out. To be fair, you are not on your own.
Make no mistake though, Aus rugby is a lessor force after these decissions, and as that matter sheets home, a couple of years maybe, it will be obvious to Kiwis.
By which time you will be on to the next version of "Super" with Aus gradually folding.
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
a re post of my post on the WF thread
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Rebels statement is a good thing for the WF, it shows that for all intents and purposes they are in the same situation as the WF.
For mine on the sustainable criteria of Finance, High performance, Governance and Sponsorship the WF is well ahead and the easy best bet for the short to med term at least.
It is also a decision that I think the majority of Rugby people would be happy with. Judged on the overwhelming number of pro WF comments that I have seen. Making this decision even easier.
But, also for mine the ARU finds it difficult to just step away from the potentially large Melb market. There could even be some broadcaster arrangements that they are not telling us about.
The problem the WF has is that the Melb market is potentially very big, tho also a very hard nut to crack.
The problem for the Rebels is imo their private ownership structure, which adds another layer of complexity for what seems no financial advantage, in fact to date a large negative financial advantage.
With the added issue that they might just walk away at anytime. This would not be the case with the typical rugby structure we see in all other states and whose main driver is being involved in rugby.
From a top down medium term solution, to the immediate problems faced by the ARU, I would much rather deal with the simple rugby structure than a private owner. Therefore keep the WF.
Then in due course re enter the Vic market via the VRU to realise the longer term objectives.
Edit: maybe a simple solution to this impasse, assuming you want the keep WF solution, would be simply the last on first off criteria. Cannot be argued against and takes the perceived bias out of the decision.
Sustainability Criteria:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...n-after-avoiding-the-axe-20170413-gvkkg9.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Rebels statement is a good thing for the WF, it shows that for all intents and purposes they are in the same situation as the WF.
For mine on the sustainable criteria of Finance, High performance, Governance and Sponsorship the WF is well ahead and the easy best bet for the short to med term at least.
It is also a decision that I think the majority of Rugby people would be happy with. Judged on the overwhelming number of pro WF comments that I have seen. Making this decision even easier.
But, also for mine the ARU finds it difficult to just step away from the potentially large Melb market. There could even be some broadcaster arrangements that they are not telling us about.
The problem the WF has is that the Melb market is potentially very big, tho also a very hard nut to crack.
The problem for the Rebels is imo their private ownership structure, which adds another layer of complexity for what seems no financial advantage, in fact to date a large negative financial advantage.
With the added issue that they might just walk away at anytime. This would not be the case with the typical rugby structure we see in all other states and whose main driver is being involved in rugby.
From a top down medium term solution, to the immediate problems faced by the ARU, I would much rather deal with the simple rugby structure than a private owner. Therefore keep the WF.
Then in due course re enter the Vic market via the VRU to realise the longer term objectives.
Edit: maybe a simple solution to this impasse, assuming you want the keep WF solution, would be simply the last on first off criteria. Cannot be argued against and takes the perceived bias out of the decision.
Sustainability Criteria:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...n-after-avoiding-the-axe-20170413-gvkkg9.html
B
BLR
Guest
L
Leo86
Guest
Mega scouts... mega agents more likely rubbing their palms together.
Come east away from home. Earn little and sit on the bench. Hear all about how we are Australia that does not have a west coast...
Or
Come to Europe first 15, big money
I wonder what agents with their commisions would push. The extra coin or the you might play with the Wallabies, you know when you get noticed as an impact player for 20mins of rugby (Quade Cooper recently...)
B
BLR
Guest
Interesting comment by the Kings captain about hopefully Mampimpi finds a good place to play Super Rugby next season....he has obviously accepted they are off.
- Status