Where to for Super Rugby?

[amirite]

Those kids will go to NZ, as Michael A'alatoa has done. Not good enough for the Waratahs, but seems to be going pretty well with the Crusaders

Not deemed good enough for any Aussie franchise. But, for every Ala'alatoa there is a Volavola.

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.

It was a short term bump, and there's anecdotally a few rugby fans who don't make games for this and that reason that seem to be keen to get down because of this whole debacle.

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.

I'd take him. I'd take their whole back 3. They have a crack and are a lot of fun to watch.

Sorry, I havent worked through the history or the references. Is that aimed at Rebels?

It's an Animal Farm quote - I think he basically means things are unfairly stacked for the Rebels despite this being pitched as a fair process. Clever.

 

[Killer]

You are assuming that those criteria apply to the Force and Rebels. The only criterium appplicable is which "culling" will cost the least amount - period. Thats the whole raison detre for getting rid of one of them.

depends on your timeframe, perhaps some additional costs to placate Mr Cox early are better than continuing losses longer term. From my reconning the last 4 yrs the Rebels have cost the ARU at least 15.8mil of that 28mil extra, why would that not continue?
I personally do not think Mr cox could claim that much considering he would have been well aware of the issues facing professional rugby and especially in Vic with the prev priv owner.

 

[brokendown]

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.

yes-and what a great brand of rugby they play-entertainment plus,what a strange rugby world we live in!

 

[lou75]

yes-and what a great brand of rugby they play-entertainment plus,what a strange rugby world we live in!

depends on your timeframe, perhaps some additional costs to placate Mr Cox early are better than continuing losses longer term. From my reconning the last 4 yrs the Rebels have cost the ARU at least 15.8mil of that 28mil extra, why would that not continue?
I personally do not think Mr cox could claim that much considering he would have been well aware of the issues facing professional rugby and especially in Vic with the prev priv owner.

Caveat emptor and all that

 

[BLR]

It's an Animal Farm quote - I think he basically means things are unfairly stacked for the Rebels despite this being pitched as a fair process. Clever.

Rebs are in this boat with us as well questioning what the criteria is. I mean the Brumbies especially are safe despite having multiple things against them surviving eg. growth potential + money.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not deemed good enough for any Aussie franchise. But, for every Ala'alatoa there is a Volavola.

Perhaps, although we've spent a good part of the past 164 pages with the general view that we don't have enough talent for 5 teams and yet we seemingly have enough talent to let this guy go. Someone from the Crusaders obviously thought that he had something to offer. I just find it odd, very, very odd that the talent filled kiwis can find a place for him in one of their 5 franchises and we can't.

 

[swingpass]

depends on your timeframe, perhaps some additional costs to placate Mr Cox early are better than continuing losses longer term. From my reconning the last 4 yrs the Rebels have cost the ARU at least 15.8mil of that 28mil extra, why would that not continue?
I personally do not think Mr cox could claim that much considering he would have been well aware of the issues facing professional rugby and especially in Vic with the prev priv owner.

no doubt. My post didnt mention whom they will choose only that the only consideation seems to be financial. Understandable but a great shame nonetheless. I also mentioned above that Cox should/would have done due diligence, it might of course depend on which set of books he was shown.

 

[Poidevinfan]

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.

Spell it out for me (without overdoing it) why I am short sighted. I would to learn plus I would like to learn your view.

Bear in mind my view is the view of the ARU, the NZRFU, SARU, and SANZAAR

Also a come back I have for you is how is 5 teams sustainable when viewership numbers are tanking this year due to the predictability of the outcomes (if necessary I will hunt for a quote for this). The Australian teams must start to win more.

What is an alternative solution that involves the Australian teams keeping 5 teams and winning more games? And if the answer is coaching why hasn't that been addressed already.

My view may be simplistic but it just seems to me that having 4 teams competing for players will lead to stronger teams than 5 teams competing for players. Again I am having trouble factoring in Europe here.

Sorry for the delay in responding dru I was having dinner.

 

[Quick Hands]

Rebs are in this boat with us as well questioning what the criteria is. I mean the Brumbies especially are safe despite having multiple things against them surviving eg. growth potential + money.

Unfortunately BLR, having objective criteria doesn't seem to fit with the ARU way of doing things.

I'd have thought that seeing they have said that they have been "looking for an excuse" to drop from 5 teams to 4 for some time, that they would have a set of objective criteria ready to go. It seems that this would be too much to expect from the great strategic thinkers on the ARU board.

EDIT: For example
1. Cash reserves
2. Sponsorship
3. Debt
4. On field results
5. Elite development structure
6. Number of clubs/juniors/schools playing in season long competitions

Weight them how you like, but at least have some measurable data on which to make decisions. But if we've learnt anything, it's that the ARU aren't big fans of measurable data when making decisions.

 

[blues recovery]

depends on your timeframe, perhaps some additional costs to placate Mr Cox early are better than continuing losses longer term. From my reconning the last 4 yrs the Rebels have cost the ARU at least 15.8mil of that 28mil extra, why would that not continue?
I personally do not think Mr cox could claim that much considering he would have been well aware of the issues facing professional rugby and especially in Vic with the prev priv owner.

Rubbish

 

[dru]

It's an Animal Farm quote

A, I realise that you think everyone who is not you is a philistine. It's not true though.

If this was a comment against either the Force or the Rebels it was actually offensive. After that it depends on the intent.

But dive in brother, all yours in your infinite wisdom

 

[Leo86]

I think he was just saying the franchises (animals) are all equal to the ARU but the ARU jus happen to favour some more than others.

 

[kiap]

More a comment against the (superficial) fairness and openness of the setup.

Not offensive.

 

[dru]

Spell it out for me (without overdoing it) why I am short sighted. I would to learn plus I would like to learn your view.

Bear in mind my view is the view of the ARU, the NZRFU, SARU, and SANZAAR

Also a come back I have for you is how is 5 teams sustainable when viewership numbers are tanking this year due to the predictability of the outcomes (if necessary I will hunt for a quote for this). The Australian teams must start to win more.

What is an alternative solution that involves the Australian teams keeping 5 teams and winning more games? And if the answer is coaching why hasn't that been addressed already.

My view may be simplistic but it just seems to me that having 4 teams competing for players will lead to stronger teams than 5 teams competing for players. Again I am having trouble factoring in Europe here.

Sorry for the delay in responding dru I was having dinner.

P: this is a very long thread and I understand it would be somewhat painfull to do the hard work and back track through the things already said. At the same time it might help your belated input over past discussions.

I am not going to keep this sub thread going on the basis of your wanting to seem fair but not wanting to do the work through the thread.

I will however try to sum it up for you.

Aus is not NZ. Its a big place. No honest a big place. We have invested heavily in getting rugby outside of its east coast heart land. That means Perth and Melbourne. They havent been going so well (nor really ACT, NSW and Qld) but we have invested.

We are (finally) seeing return in terms of player contributions to Super and WBs.

To cut either Melbourne or especially Perth, is not to bring the talent together in a tighter pool. It is to remove rugby from a seriously large chunk of Australia. We do not "concentrate" we sever. You know, axe chopping of an arm sort of stuff.

Sever does not simply mean the cut club and administration. It means the rugby fans and the ability to seek funds from the populace for rugby - in a very large chunk of Australia.

And in a very short time, we are where we are now but down 20% of rugby.

NZ rugby may very well survive without Aus. If they have any sense at all, this wont be seen as a win, but bringing forward a need to be able to survive without Aus.

Reds dont get stronger. Nor much Waratahs or Brumbies. But Aus rugby gets 20% weaker.

 

[BLR]

More a comment against the (superficial) fairness and openness of the setup.

Not offensive.

Spot on.

 

[Killer]

no doubt. My post didnt mention whom they will choose only that the only consideation seems to be financial. Understandable but a great shame nonetheless. I also mentioned above that Cox should/would have done due diligence, it might of course depend on which set of books he was shown.

The whole saga is just despicable, Aus Rugby fans deserve more than this.
But back to the specific issue at hand. For mine the Rebels Achilles heel is private ownership, see my post. Imo private ownership only works with a benefactor type owner such as Jack Bendat, the Perth Wildcats owner. They are wealthy enough to be able to put the sport ahead of any losses. Then some time down the track hopefully reap the rewards of a successful team or not. I do not know Mr Cox's situation but he does not seem to be a Jack Bendat?

 

[lou75]

The whole saga is just despicable, Aus Rugby fans deserve more than this.
But back to the specific issue at hand. For mine the Rebels Achilles heel is private ownership, see my post. Imo private ownership only works with a benefactor type owner such as Jack Bendat, the Perth Wildcats owner. They are wealthy enough to be able to put the sport ahead of any losses. Then some time down the track hopefully reap the rewards of a successful team or not. I do not know Mr Cox's situation but he does not seem to be a Jack Bendat?

In his own words, he is 'no Harold Mitchell' - the previous private owner who sunk millions into the Rebels before handing it back to the VRU

 

[swingpass]

killer, I respectfully disagree. In this situation private ownership is the strong suit. Cox has a contract, the other party are opting to reneg, he'll sue for damages. The Force simply cant do any of that. As i keep saying the ARU will decide whether a gauranteed short term loss may be less than on going haemorhage, they will presumably do the sums and decide.

 

[joeyjohnz]

The worst thing about this whole ordeal is that the ARU's ballpark financial figures regarding the viability of going it alone in Australia are probably now equal to what we will expect from Super Rugby come 2020.

Make no mistake, Super Rugby crowds will struggle to pass 10,000 next year in Australia due to the disillusionment of our supporter base.

There's been too much skin & respect lost, with no end in sight. The only way the average Joe can vote is with their wallet.

 

[Killer]

killer, I respectfully disagree. In this situation private ownership is the strong suit. Cox has a contract, the other party are opting to reneg, he'll sue for damages. The Force simply cant do any of that. As i keep saying the ARU will decide whether a gauranteed short term loss may be less than on going haemorhage, they will presumably do the sums and decide.

I think the WF have a strong hand contractually but even more so with their current sustainability criteria. They are far further down the track.

Mr Cox has a contract but imo I do not think his claims for losses can be that large? So to stay in the game he will need to put his hand deep into his pockets to either fund the Rebels or fight the ARU.
He is a businessman and I am not sure he will choose these options. We do not know, and there is the weakness V the WF, because there is no doubt that the WF just want to stay and play rugby regardless of the cost.