Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I didn't - it was a barb/joke intended to highlight a lack of organisation
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Don't forget one aspect: the Aus Super coaches - such redoubtable high performers all - will welcome this respite from the pressure they are under as one can sense their latest excuse-making has very recently taken a most convenient turn whereby they increasingly refer to 'look at the problems all Australian teams are having' as a nice deflection on Sunday morning after the latest negative instalment is booked in their respective w-l ratios.
Stiles and Gibson, subtly or otherwise, are leading the pack already with various references to 'the Australian malaise'.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I was pondering on the 'inconvenient' timing of it all when the Tweets came through last night.
Re the 'coaching summit'. Does anyone seriously think the ARU could organise such a thing??
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
The catering side, and limo transfers, absolutely yes.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
the result will be some elements of fixes suggested here weeks ago. Inclusion of such fixes will be contingent on them not costing anything.
So, no change.
What's to organise?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Ok book your ticket you're presenting at the summit
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
A story has come out today, reported in the Herald Sun and reposted by G&G with their usual "Victorian don't know rugby from league" comedy shtick, saying the ARU have offered the Rebels a buyout figure.
Story here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/melbourne-rebels/the-future-of-the-melbourne-rebels-continues-to-hang-in-the-balance/news-story/a9db208e3d2ae818b30d18b610928b9f&memtype=anonymous
My take is - Of course the ARU have offered a number to see if there's a get out easy route, it's just doing 'due diligence'. They'd be insane not to. And of course Cox has a price, like all men, but I think in all likelihood the ARU won't be able to go high enough.
More than likely it's just all quiet on the western front (pardon the pun) with news on this issue, so the media do the usual 'flip the narrative', it's happened before in this issue and it will happen again. The media needs content, and when you've flogged the crap out of every angle of "Force are getting unfairly booted" and "Rebels and Brumbies should merge", you need a fresh angle so you can keep getting eyeballs on your articles.
As fans we have to be careful not to make too much of this story, but also not too little either.
Story here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/melbourne-rebels/the-future-of-the-melbourne-rebels-continues-to-hang-in-the-balance/news-story/a9db208e3d2ae818b30d18b610928b9f&memtype=anonymous
My take is - Of course the ARU have offered a number to see if there's a get out easy route, it's just doing 'due diligence'. They'd be insane not to. And of course Cox has a price, like all men, but I think in all likelihood the ARU won't be able to go high enough.
More than likely it's just all quiet on the western front (pardon the pun) with news on this issue, so the media do the usual 'flip the narrative', it's happened before in this issue and it will happen again. The media needs content, and when you've flogged the crap out of every angle of "Force are getting unfairly booted" and "Rebels and Brumbies should merge", you need a fresh angle so you can keep getting eyeballs on your articles.
As fans we have to be careful not to make too much of this story, but also not too little either.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
Correct, but there's a narrative on this forum that everything Cox does is merely leverage for a better buyout.
Agree with you 100% on this one. Lindsay Cattermole has been investing in Rugby for a number of decades now. I recall when her old company, Aspect Computing, used to sponsor Box Hill. Granted her son played there, but to me, this demonstrated a long-term commitment to the success of Rugby in Melbourne.
To see that she is still involved today, and actively still attends matches (I last saw her at the Rising v Western Sydney Rams match ay 'Quins last year), shows she wants to see Rugby succeed in Victoria.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This is not consistent with the known form of the ARU
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
Time may prove me wrong, but my thoughts around Cox have always been he is a wealthy guy with a hobby. He understands he is going to need to throw some cash at it. He has also continued to mitigate his potential loss by getting the ARU to throw wads of cash at him. Right now he has a chance for his hobby to be funded by others for a bit longer by milking the ARUs saving on folding a team out of them, as well as maybe picking up some state government cash along the way. If he could extract an extra million a year from the ARU as a settlement, and a million a year from the government, things probably start to look pretty viable as a business as well. If there are four teams he can get a few more Wallabies meaning the ARU picks up a bit more of the tab.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
I agree.
It's also an open secret that somewhere in the vicinity of 1mil p/a additional community funding will be reallocated to the team remaining out of the Force/Rebels. This is government and not ARU money.
This doesn't sound like much, but it could literally double the staff of the community rugby employees at these unions.
The remaining team's development pipeline will benefit massively from this.
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
It would be incredibly childish to go to town on a name like this. Therefore I will just state, for the record, that mine aren't marks they are genital defects.
I thought it was your Kelleher / McAlister tattoos.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
Firstly, I would note that there is a strategic change that will impact all sports over the next 10 years with a massive reduction in money from television. This will have some benefits for Rugby as they are currently not getting that much from it compared to the NRL and Rugby in Europe. The next 10 years are going to be tough no matter what but by being proactive, we can put ourselves in a better position to rebuild. Otherwise, we will just be waiting for things to get worse.
Secondly, I would do a complete review of expenses. We need to be skinny.
Thirdly, announce 2 new mini competitions.
- A Championship club competition between the winners of the various club competitions.
- A direct copy of the FFA cup - knockout, open to any club around Australia
Fourthly, make a decision on what the point of Super Rugby/NRC is for Australia. Is it a feeder for the Wallabies, is it a club competition like the NRL or is it a provincial "state of origin" type competition. At the moment, I am not sure that the ARU have a clear view on this and I am sure that the various unions around Australia have different views. If it is to be a feeder for the Wallabies, then control needs to be centralised. If it is to be a club competition, then the salary cap / top up process needs to be equalised.
Finally, make a decision on whether Super Rugby has run its course. I have historically been a fan of the concept, but this has been a massive disaster. There are a number of big issues which include timing of games - the games in South Africa for the Rebels basically don't exist for me -, the availability of viewing - having it on Foxtel sucks and also the fact that we play a NZ team every bloody week (we would have the same problem with the A league if the teams happened to be playing Brazilian teams every week). I think that we need to stick out the rest of the contract. Tell SANZAAR that we are having 5 teams (and go for a full round robin rather than these dumb conferences). Take the opportunity to pull funding from some of the governments offering it. And then plan for a new and improved NRC to be the top competition for Australia from 2021. I'd be going for a streaming option for broadcasting (as per the NBA in the US) - say $100 per year (in line with the NBA). Hopefully with an aim to hit 200,000 subscribers a year. 1 game a week on FTA (someone must want it for free (at least initially)). Wallabies games still on FTA.
The alternative to the final option, is to pull a team; Watch the immediate decline of rugby in one state; Wait until 2020 and realise that removing a team hasn't helped; The broadcast deal collapses and we receive materially less money and are back to being reactive.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
stoff, even if you are right, hasn't the whole Rebels' business look-forward calculus darkened considerably with (a) the very poor 2017 levels of Rebels' crowds and (b) the matching poor Rebels w-l ratio, etc, etc?
The economic, cash flow and general risk impact of these negatives must be significant for the Rebels' owners not only via 2017's P&L position but equally 2018's (recalling that the ARU's cash subsidy to the Rebels reduces every year).
In the same context surely Cox knows that if the Rebels survive the ARU culling process, major changes in coaches and playing roster will be needed to revive the Rebels to economically and commercially viable levels. This all costs incremental cash flow and impacts business risk profile.
And it's not just money, it's a dauntingly big management and board task in both time and effort to have to re-transform a grossly underperforming rugby franchise especially when the code is in serious national trouble as well.
Cox has boldly told the players he will not sell his rugby licence. Despite no doubt realising that his valiant Rebels project is now definitely going to be harder and take longer and require much more cash than he budgeted for or knew back in 2015.
The meaning of all the above supports a theory - as you have outlined it above - that if Cox is sincere re 'no sale' he simply has to, no alternative, extract from this process both higher and longer cash subsidies from ARU and/or more State government support.
If he can't so extract he'll know that likely means: 'I have to put more personal cash in in the serious $s millions, or fold the Rebels business this year'.
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
Either way, they all fold under pressure.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
You can't completely fuck a team up by giving them a potential death sentence, then use the lower fan engagement because of that as reasoning for that death sentence.
Melbourne rugby fans (and there's a lot of them) come from the world over. Like it or lump it, they need to be engaged with good PR, advertising, engagement activities and PERFORMANCES. To get rid of them based on a year when they're had none of that, considering the MASSIVE upside in the Melbourne marketplace, would be ludicrous.
Sadly, with the fact the Rebels are 3 months + behind on staff and player recruitment because of this shamozzle, which means that if they get to stick around next year it'll likely be a tough one too.
You can't keep knifing the Rebels (and the Force) and then saying "look how bad they're looking, we should do away with them" because they're showing signs of being bloody and wounded.
- Status