Where to for Super Rugby?

[p.Tah]

It's a proposal designed to look great on paper to people that haven't put feet on the ground. It has no legs out in the real world.

I thought this was a safe space and there are no such things as bad ideas

In a world where we have no control my outlet is to think of possibilities. It's cathartic.

It's just a suggestion with many flaws. However our options are to sit and rant at the ARU, take pot shots at each franchise supporter or we could pool our collective thinking and work off each others ideas. Will it come to anything? Would the ARU listen? Probably not but it may channel some energy away from the destructive conversations going on in this thread.

So where to for Super 18?

My hope is that all the legal action buggers up the Super 15 plans. The threat of downsizing spurs all 5 franchises to get their act together and become better self supporting freeing up funds for grassroots. We can only dream.

 

[amirite]

I thought this was a safe space and there are no such things as bad ideas

In a world where we have no control my outlet is to think of possibilities. It's cathartic.

It's just a suggestion with many flaws. However our options are to sit and rant at the ARU, take pot shots at each franchise supporter or we could pool our collective thinking and work off each others ideas. Will it come to anything? Would the ARU listen? Probably not but it may channel some energy away from the destructive conversations going on in this thread.

So where to for Super 18?

My hope is that all the legal action buggers up the Super 15 plans. The threat of downsizing spurs all 5 franchises to get their act together and become better self supporting freeing up funds for grassroots. We can only dream.

I did say it was a nice plan on paper! And it is.

Super 18 was a nice plan on paper too.

 

[I like to watch]

Super 18 was a nice plan on paper too.

You sure?

 

[amirite]

You sure?

On paper? As in the pitch being more teams, in more areas, and more opportunities for players?

I'm pretty obviously saying it was a good elevator pitch.

 

[swingpass]

re the merger of Brumbies and Rebels, if the Rebels hadn't been awarded a licence in 2011, the Southern Brumbies, based initially in Canberra but eventually in MELBOURNE was a certainty, all the parties involved wanted it and had more or less agreed to it. i cant see it happening now, but short of keeping 5 franchises, to me it is the least worst option. cue howls of derision.

 

[Slim 293]

re the merger of Brumbies and Rebels, if the Rebels hadn't been awarded a licence in 2011, the Southern Brumbies, based initially in Canberra but eventually in MELBOURNE was a certainty, all the parties involved wanted it and had more or less agreed to it. i cant see it happening now, but short of keeping 5 franchises, to me it is the least worst option. cue howls of derision.

A certainty?

All parties wanted it?

I don't think so.........

 

[amirite]

re the merger of Brumbies and Rebels, if the Rebels hadn't been awarded a licence in 2011, the Southern Brumbies, based initially in Canberra but eventually in MELBOURNE was a certainty, all the parties involved wanted it and had more or less agreed to it. i cant see it happening now, but short of keeping 5 franchises, to me it is the least worst option. cue howls of derision.

Based on a quick Google I can't find anything on this beyond fan written articles.

Unless you're very senior in rugby I think you're reading too much into speculation.

 

[NTT]

I dont know why some people are tearing apart the suggestion that the Brumbies and Rebels merge. It fits all of the ARUs "cull criteria". It gives both clubs financial sustainability, a bigger catchment and development footprint, access to the bigger sponsorship market in Melbourne, bigger potential for growth, it helps fix Melbournes development pathways. It makes more sense than merging the Brumbies/Rebels with the Force.
Combine that with the plans to privatise the Force and we have 2 potential super clubs out of what is currently being proposed. We could scrap a team and completely ruin rugby in a state or we can consolidate what we have and have 4 major clubs. Reds, Waratahs, Melbourne Brumbies and Western Force. Melbourne and Perth will have millionaire investors to pump money into rugby administration and academies and Reds and Waratahs can continue to drain the ARU of money. Everybody meets the ARUs "criteria for survival" and the game of rugby comes out the other end in a far more solid position financially then the ARU could ever have managed.
Apart from parochialism, there is very strong argument for why this all could work.

 

[The Honey Badger]

but it may channel some energy away from the destructive conversations going on in this thread.

So where to for Super 18?

My hope is that all the legal action buggers up the Super 15 plans.

Here here.

I think you are right. 2 very big shit fights in 2 countries. Don't think the mess will be cleaned up in time and we may well end up with 3 conferences of 6.

That will make most people happy, just hope the ARU can continue to finance it.

 

[amirite]

I dont know why some people are tearing apart the suggestion that the Brumbies and Rebels merge. It fits all of the ARUs "cull criteria". It gives both clubs financial sustainability, a bigger catchment and development footprint, access to the bigger sponsorship market in Melbourne, bigger potential for growth, it helps fix Melbournes development pathways. It makes more sense than merging the Brumbies/Rebels with the Force.
Combine that with the plans to privatise the Force and we have 2 potential super clubs out of what is currently being proposed. We could scrap a team and completely ruin rugby in a state or we can consolidate what we have and have 4 major clubs. Reds, Waratahs, Melbourne Brumbies and Western Force. Melbourne and Perth will have millionaire investors to pump money into rugby administration and academies and Reds and Waratahs can continue to drain the ARU of money. Everybody meets the ARUs "criteria for survival" and the game of rugby comes out the other end in a far more solid position financially then the ARU could ever have managed.
Apart from parochialism, there is very strong argument for why this all could work.

Apart from parochialism, there is no argument for the merger.

Basing a team across two cities, when all the players, infrastructure, and most of the staff are in one is just lip service. Nobody calls the Sunwolves the "Japanese and Singaporean team" because they play a couple of games in Singapore.

The fact you acknowledge access to a larger sponsorship marketplace in Melbourne, the growth potential, and catchment area size just makes an argument for a team in Melbourne - and there already is one.

You could maybe, MAYBE, make a debate for rolling in the Brumbies with the Tahs if your goal in genuinely coverage of Australia and not just saving the Force, but have fun with that shit fight.

 

[NTT]

Apart from parochialism, there is no argument for the merger.

Basing a team across two cities, when all the players, infrastructure, and most of the staff are in one is just lip service. Nobody calls the Sunwolves the "Japanese and Singaporean team" because they play a couple of games in Singapore.

The fact you acknowledge access to a larger sponsorship marketplace in Melbourne, the growth potential, and catchment area size just makes an argument for a team in Melbourne - and there already is one.

You could maybe, MAYBE, make a debate for rolling in the Brumbies with the Tahs if your goal in genuinely coverage of Australia and not just saving the Force, but have fun with that shit fight.

Like i said, parochialism is probably the only impediment here and an inability to see the bigger picture. Financial sustainability is the ARUs "criteria" here. This whole proposal would put rugby on a whole new level of financial sustainability.

 

[Slim 293]

Like i said, parochialism is probably the only impediment here and an inability to see the bigger picture. Financial sustainability is the ARUs "criteria" here. This whole proposal would put rugby on a whole new level of financial sustainability.

You're right, the Force should merge with the Sunwolves.............

Unless of course, parochialism?

 

[NTT]

You're right, the Force should merge with the Sunwolves.....

Unless of course, parochialism?

Financial sustainability is the criteria not whatever you are going on about.

 

[Killer]

if your goal in genuinely coverage of Australia and not just saving the Force, but have fun with that shit fight.

I would be surprised if the WF aren't safe now. Aside from their desperation to stay in the competition and the rugby reasons. It seems they have plenty of money now and massive support both locally and nationally especially in Sydney.
The 2 wildcards in the whole scenario are, for mine, what are Mr Cox's intentions ref personal investment in the Rebels and if there is a Foxtel component we are unaware of.
As The Honey Badger said it's looking more and more like a stalemate?

 

[Slim 293]

Financial sustainability is the criteria not whatever you are going on about.

I would imagine the financial opportunities in Tokyo would be far greater than that in Perth's crumbling economy?

Similar time zone........ the Sunwolves could play some of their games in Perth too.

 

[NTT]

I would imagine the financial opportunities in Tokyo would be far greater than that in Perth's crumbling economy?

Similar time zone.... the Sunwolves could play some of their games in Perth too.

Im basing my posts on what is the criteria announced by the ARU, financial sustainability. Snyde remarks, while cute and oh so hilarious, do not address financial sustainability.

 

[Slim 293]

Relocating the Force to a more lucrative market doesn't address financial sustainability?

 

[swingpass]

A certainty?

All parties wanted it?

I don't think so...

Based on a quick Google I can't find anything on this beyond fan written articles.

Unless you're very senior in rugby I think you're reading too much into speculation.

so this is based on conversations on two separate occasions in 2011 with people from within the Brumbies organisation (one coaching, one administration) at the time. it was in the unlikely scenario that Melbourne wasn't going to be awarded the next Super licence. it formed the basis of the MOU between the VRU and ACTRU/Brumbies, and was to initially play some Brumbies games in Melbourne and eventually move the franchise. Both parties i spoke too were pretty adamant that the Brumbies would have to move at some stage in order to survive. Whether the two men i spoke with were playing to the crowd, i don't know, however the impression i was given was that talks were well advanced.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Here here.

I think you are right. 2 very big shit fights in 2 countries. Don't think the mess will be cleaned up in time and we may well end up with 3 conferences of 6.

That will make most people happy, just hope the ARU can continue to finance it.

Three conferences of 6 is what we should have had from day one of the expanded format. And is what we should have in the future.

 

[NTT]

Relocating the Force to a more lucrative market doesn't address financial sustainability?

Having 4 millionaire businessmen willing to underwrite the Force, Own the Force on track to raise $8 million, a 4 year naming rights sponsor worth $6 million and a privately funded academy are all examples of financial sustainability.
Having a private owner willing to underwrite the Rebels for the 20 year duration of his license is another example of financial sustainability.
Selling a piece of real estate and burning through the cash, no naming rights sponsor, 9 straight years of losses and living on past glories does not address financial sustainability.
Moving the Brumbies to a more lucrative market would give the Brumbies financial sustainability.