Where to for Super Rugby?

[Killer]

Yes, I understand there are all other bits of lawyery words on paper that will need addressing, but I have have heard nothing from the ARU to say anything else is a deal-breaker yet. Regardless of your or anyone else's opinion.

It may well turn out to be a thing, but as of right now, it is just noise.

yes the same for Mr Cox's contract, but the pt I'm making is the situation is stalemate which then has the potential to draw the Brumbies or even all the franchises into the mix to try and give a guise of fairness and thus not singling the Brunbies out.
Because like it or not based on future circumstances the Brumbies are probably in the weakest position?

 

[NTT]

Excellent strategy. Simultaneously tell me I'm making a bad point and nothing I've said is credible whilst not saying why. The Autocrats of the world would be proud.

Sadly, you're on a forum where people discuss stuff and multiple people think your ideas are similarly questionable.

Again a personal attack based on assumption and inference. Ive posted enough information to respond to your posts, how you process that information and what you infer from it is not my problem. Seeking only one line of narrative or one specific piece of information as a response to what i post is also not my problem. Also, making an assumption on my character and my thoughts based on hearsay is childish but your perogative.
Please explain to me how having a Western Force avatar automatically dictates that i am anti Rebels, anti Brumbies or anti anyone. I have never stated, posted or looked to make the argument that i am anti Rebels or anti anyone. I respond to what is posted with only one view point of many. That does not give anyone the right to interpret what i post into assumptions about me and what i believe based on the limited time i spend on here and the complete lack of personal information i have not provided to this site.
I have never made this a state vs state argument although ive been dragged into it. I am more concerned with what is best for Australian rugby not what is best for me. Ive chosen to post on financial sustainability deliberately as that is the major issue facing the sport of rugby in Australia as a collective. Information included in what I post may cover individual franchise circumstances but in no way implies that that is the only solution to this issue and my only point of view.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think it's just the Waugh/Smith scenario.
There are plenty of 50/50 calls in recruiting.
And if I'm a young bloke with ambition,with a Wallaby in front of me at my local franchise.
The Brumbies probably offer more opportunity and probably more money.
Where do I sign?

Classic example is the one you cite, but don't forget Hooper started at the Brumbies

 

[Leo86]

Yes, I understand there are all other bits of lawyery words on paper that will need addressing, but I have have heard nothing from the ARU to say anything else is a deal-breaker yet. Regardless of your or anyone else's opinion.

It may well turn out to be a thing, but as of right now, it is just noise.

Noise that changed an assassination within 48-72hrs to 1 out of 2 franchises.

Im not saying there aren't problems that need rectifying but I cant agree with this solution. The damage that has already been caused and will get worse once this is over.

There was/is a great rivalry between SA, NZ and AUS, where each have immigration from the others creating a great market. Super Rugby was our code, then the administration got greedy and introduced 2 other countries. Do i care about beating the Japs/Argies evdn if they were better sides. Not really.

The systems broken. 4 conferences was always a shit idea. 18 teams who knows with the right set up. Taking an aussie team away will make the other teams stronger... doubt it and if so only for a short time anyway.

Cost savings across all the administrations good idea if we could centralise, but wont see anyone else shaking hands with the ARU after they've pulled this crap.

Many more ideas, just the one chosen by our so called custodians is wrong.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

but wont see anyone else shaking hands with the ARU after they've pulled this crap.

Interesting and important point at many levels

 

[Quick Hands]

Maybe this is what the ARU planned all along, plant the seed of doubt and let a civil war decided who should be retained and who shouldn't.

It would be nice, in a masochistic sort of way, to believe that the ARU had the wit to plan such a thing. Alas, this is the product of years of having no long term plans or strategy in place.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ultimately the ARU will cut the team they want to cut unless there is a huge discrepancy in costs regarding who they cut.

Clearly their first choice was to cut the Force. The Force has had a stay of execution with the court injunction but it would seem unlikely to me that anything substantial is likely to change.

Unless it becomes substantially cheaper to cut the Rebels, I can't see how the Force get off the chopping block.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It's hard to avoid the perception that Muddied Oafs' deepest wounds have been self-inflicted. By worshipping on the altar of commercialism since the game turned professional, they've sacrificed their identity, their constituency, and ultimately their participation. More on that later.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/spo...uKE8nZnSgyFKknmG2OJPfYmPeXkblSWZZQEA#comments

Depressing.
Last one out turn the lights off.

 

[NTT]

Ultimately the ARU will cut the team they want to cut unless there is a huge discrepancy in costs regarding who they cut.

Clearly their first choice was to cut the Force. The Force has had a stay of execution with the court injunction but it would seem unlikely to me that anything substantial is likely to change.

Unless it becomes substantially cheaper to cut the Rebels, I can't see how the Force get off the chopping block.

The Alliance Agreement between RugbyWA and the ARU presents a significant legal hurdle the ARU must overcome before any decision is made.

 

[sidelineview]

Mergers schmergers ...

The only way a merger could be successful is if it was put to a vote to both sets of members and they voted in the majority.

It might sound good in theory but if the fans dont go for it, you're gone. A drop off in membership renewals and attendance sounds the death knell.

I wouldn't be putting my money on the Force staying, even though I hope they do and I hope they stick it up the ARU, but plenty of people didn't give South Sydney a chance of surviving during the Super League war either.

People power, financial backing and prolonged legal action ......... stranger things have happened.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Alliance Agreement between RugbyWA and the ARU presents a significant legal hurdle the ARU must overcome before any decision is made.

And the ARU will likely overcome that even if it costs them plenty of dollars.

Presumably the agreement details some of the consequences if the agreement is broken.

 

[Omar Comin']

Let's hope there is some sort of Christmas miracle and all five teams end up being retained (and the money promised comes to fruition) but it seems highly doubtful at this point and would need SARU to renege on dropping teams.

Why would the SARU have to renege on dropping teams?

If it becomes clear that cutting a team will cost more than it's worth for the ARU, or if new information makes it apparent their projections around financial stability were too pessimistic, then they still have the ability to veto cutting a team.

The solution could be either a 16 team competition (single round robin or two conferences) or the 15 team model with the Sunwolves going instead of an Australian team (maybe with some deal to get more Japanese players in Australian squads).

The ARU have said their decision is based on financial stability. Every other factor surely favours keeping 5 teams. So if there really is all this money behind the Force, and if Cox and Imperium are committed to the Rebels for the long term then perhaps there is more financial stability in 5 teams than they thought when making their decision.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why would the SARU have to renege on dropping teams?

If it becomes clear that cutting a team will cost more than it's worth for the ARU, or if new information makes it apparent their projections around financial stability were too pessimistic, then they still have the ability to veto cutting a team.

The solution could be either a 16 team competition (single round robin or two conferences) or the 15 team model with the Sunwolves going instead of an Australian team (maybe with some deal to get more Japanese players in Australian squads).

The ARU have said their decision is based on financial stability. Every other factor surely favours keeping 5 teams. So if there really is all this money behind the Force, and if Cox and Imperium are committed to the Rebels for the long term then perhaps there is more financial stability in 5 teams than they thought when making their decision.

SANZAAR seems intent on reducing the competition to 15 teams because they have haemorrhaged viewers in all their markets. They seem intent on keeping the Sunwolves.

I really don't see the ARU backtracking on the decision to cut a team unless something external changes and they no longer need to cut a team (which seems pretty unlikely at this point).

 

[amirite]

Again a personal attack based on assumption and inference. Ive posted enough information to respond to your posts, how you process that information and what you infer from it is not my problem. Seeking only one line of narrative or one specific piece of information as a response to what i post is also not my problem. Also, making an assumption on my character and my thoughts based on hearsay is childish but your perogative.
Please explain to me how having a Western Force avatar automatically dictates that i am anti Rebels, anti Brumbies or anti anyone. I have never stated, posted or looked to make the argument that i am anti Rebels or anti anyone. I respond to what is posted with only one view point of many. That does not give anyone the right to interpret what i post into assumptions about me and what i believe based on the limited time i spend on here and the complete lack of personal information i have not provided to this site.
I have never made this a state vs state argument although ive been dragged into it. I am more concerned with what is best for Australian rugby not what is best for me. Ive chosen to post on financial sustainability deliberately as that is the major issue facing the sport of rugby in Australia as a collective. Information included in what I post may cover individual franchise circumstances but in no way implies that that is the only solution to this issue and my only point of view.

I don't know what you're anti because your viewpoint shifts but you're certainly anti-discourse, plus a strange combination of hostile and professionally offended.

In your last post you suggested a merger, I highlighted how a merger was silly using examples of what a Force-Red merger might look like (admittedly, another user mentioned Sunwolves-Force first). Instead of gaining perspective ("Fuck, that merger would gut our local rugby community. I guess a merger would be a silly idea that would damage two other rugby communities"), you said there was no semblance of an argument but didn't say why.

Now you've restructured this into a state-by-state argument, which I've never referenced. Soon there will be a quick shift back to mastibation related comments, stuff about me being a trainee lawyer, who posts too much, etc., etc. Yet the posts keep on coming from your end too.

You're clearly fighting the good fight over something, but you don't seem to enjoy conversation about it, particularly when the conversation has dreaded citations!

Apparently chat about sporting business can only be emotive, but the emotions of others are also wrong.

 

[mst]

Just a thought, the argument that overseas the Brumbies name is associated with success..there is around 400k population in the ACT, would a Brumbies fan from the UK or whatever care about them locating to Melbourne?

So you would be disenfranchising 9k or so fans that rock up to the games but for the rest of them, would they actually give a toss as they still get to watch the Brumbies at the end of the day.

Ah, yes then UK fan can buy the memberships, gate tickets and merchandise and but the local products from the locally based sponsors.

Just a catch up point for you. The reason all the Super Rugby franchises and ARU are bemoaning the current format is the lack of home derbies as that gate takings are critical financially.

 

[mst]

SANZAAR seems intent on reducing the competition to 15 teams because they have haemorrhaged viewers in all their markets. They seem intent on keeping the Sunwolves.

I really don't see the ARU backtracking on the decision to cut a team unless something external changes and they no longer need to cut a team (which seems pretty unlikely at this point).

Really odd coincidence that nearly every major live sport globally has hemorrhaged TV viewers in all their markets in 2016. Reports are everywhere.

I only know of one sport going down the panicked self mutilation road. Care to take a guess who?

 

[Quick Hands]

Depressing.
Last one out turn the lights off.

Excellent article. Pretty much sumarises what some us have been saying for a long time.

Very depressing indeed.

 

[NTT]

I don't know what you're anti because your viewpoint shifts but you're certainly anti-discourse, plus a strange combination of hostile and professionally offended.

In your last post you suggested a merger, I highlighted how a merger was silly using examples of what a Force-Red merger might look like (admittedly, another user mentioned Sunwolves-Force first). Instead of gaining perspective ("Fuck, that merger would gut our local rugby community. I guess a merger would be a silly idea that would damage two other rugby communities"), you said there was no semblance of an argument but didn't say why.

Now you've restructured this into a state-by-state argument, which I've never referenced. Soon there will be a quick shift back to mastibation related comments, stuff about me being a trainee lawyer, who posts too much, etc., etc. Yet the posts keep on coming from your end too.

You're clearly fighting the good fight over something, but you don't seem to enjoy conversation about it, particularly when the conversation has dreaded citations!

Apparently chat about sporting business can only be emotive, but the emotions of others are also wrong.

So nothing about financial sustainability and how it pertains to the future of Australian rugby? Just more of the character assassination and the making of another parallel argument to suit some point of view you have convinced yourself of?
Where did i say a merger between the Force and Reds was a good or bad idea?
How have i restructured this into your state v state argument? Im posting about the possible scenarios facing Australian rugby. I have never stated anything i have posted to be an absolute. I have also never targeted any franchise.
What citations? Is this another parameter you have put on this discussion to change your position again? How does posting a link to another site where the information may or may not be true have any bearing on the notion that there "must be winner"?
Speaking of emotion, are you truly able to state that you have removed yourself from emotion when presenting your opinions? The constant need for dragging this out tells me that you have brought emotion to this.

Again, at no point have you made any semblance of an argument that regards the future financial sustainability of Australian rugby. You only want to attack my character like its a validation of your existence and like i said, go for it, attack my character, you have so much information about me that you must know me.

 

[amirite]

So nothing about financial sustainability and how it pertains to the future of Australian rugby? Just more of the character assassination and the making of another parallel argument to suit some point of view you have convinced yourself of?
Where did i say a merger between the Force and Reds was a good or bad idea?
How have i restructured this into your state v state argument? Im posting about the possible scenarios facing Australian rugby. I have never stated anything i have posted to be an absolute. I have also never targeted any franchise.
What citations? Is this another parameter you have put on this discussion to change your position again? How does posting a link to another site where the information may or may not be true have any bearing on the notion that there "must be winner"?
Speaking of emotion, are you truly able to state that you have removed yourself from emotion when presenting your opinions? The constant need for dragging this out tells me that you have brought emotion to this.

Again, at no point have you made any semblance of an argument that regards the future financial sustainability of Australian rugby. You only want to attack my character like its a validation of your existence and like i said, go for it, attack my character, you have so much information about me that you must know me.

Your Ctrl, C, and V keys must be pretty worn out.

I mostly find just find it funny that you artfully accuse me of "drawing it out" and "posting too much" whilst posting another reply - at least I have self awareness.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Really odd coincidence that nearly every major live sport globally has hemorrhaged TV viewers in all their markets in 2016. Reports are everywhere.

I only know of one sport going down the panicked self mutilation road. Care to take a guess who?

For those that haven't they have seen significant drops in viewership on TV. Take the NFL for example. Crowds were down last season but not enough to warrant a panic. Was does however was the overall drop in viewership which prompted the league to offer cut price deals for sponsors.

Honestly, I think we are seeing the beginning of a significant paradigm shift in not only broadcast TV (which has been occurring for some time now) but in how sports are perceived in regards to an entertainment option.

Cricket is an amazing case study for this. For all the dissent over the placement of T20 for such a stodgy game in terms of adminitration it has pivoted remarkably well to catch the evolving marketplace.

It something every professional sport will need to address in the near-ish future. The question will be around their respective agility to do so. Which makes me more than a little apprehensive when it comes to Rugby.

While I live in hope that the restructure will see a bump in attendance and viewership even though I'm less than keen on losing a franchise. I tend to believe that we are only at the very beginning of a fairly tumultuous transition.