Where to for Super Rugby?

[Scooter]

Just wondering if there's anyone still at the ARU. We haven't seemed to have heard from them since:
- they announced there would be a 48-72 hour "consultation" process expecting to just go over to Perth and have the Force hand them the keys;
- then when RugbyWA served them a writ ARU said the outcome would take longer and they would go through "due process". (which the original process obviously wasn't).

Since then crickets from ARU. Where are they? In the underground disaster bunker at the ARU hoping for this all to pass?

Dear ARU, you are doing much more to drive away fans from the game and stuff up the game than any of the Super Rugby teams. You have fans that are disillusioned with the game and not attending games and fans of different clubs fighting amongst themselves. How about you man up and go back to SANZAAR and say we want to keep five teams and then do the honourable thing and fall on your sword.

#strongerasfive

 

[blues recovery]

Now I'll admit that this is second hand information but it is very close second hand information. Just to make the ARU dealings with the Rebels even murkier I'm told that at least three Directors on the Rebels advisory Board other than Cox have recently invested their own cash into the Club off the back of the assurances given to Cox by a recently departed ARU official that the Rebs were safe .
If true just adds further grist to the mill that the idiots in St Leonard's are well and truly fucked legally unless they can pull some miraculous rabbit out of the hat
I'd love to be a lawyer representing a range of the stakeholder effected parties here from players to employees to sponsors let alone owners and governments .
Wouldn't be really hard to prove that this incompetence has detrimentally effected your ability to earn a livelihood, your well being or in other cases your investment .
Get Slater and Gordon on the line I smell a class action !!

 

[wamberal]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?



I really do not understand some of the comments on this thread, I really don't.

 

[Twoilms]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?



I really do not understand some of the comments on this thread, I really don't.

This thread must be nearing the end of its life.

 

[Braveheart81]

These are the ones we can keep by letting the older ones go and not paying the Giteaus, Mitchell's, et al for coming back.

If the young guys know that no matter what they do, it's always possible for the Wallabies to bring an overseas player back, then it provides no real incentive for them to stay. On the other hand, if they see the older guys sign overseas (without the option to come back for the Wallabies), it gives them a big incentive to stay. Perhaps some short term pain, but long term it's a better way to operate IMO. (And this has been my consistent postion since the rule was first mooted)

It cuts both ways though. Giteau is a bad example because he has been overseas for years, but let's look at Genia and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and think that without the prospect of still playing for the Wallabies if based overseas, they may have remained in Australia and demanded some of the biggest contracts on offer.

Instead we still get the benefit of them being available for the Wallabies but the cost to the ARU is a fraction of what it would be if they solely played domestically.

That money can then be used to pay someone else.

It is the guaranteed contact money that locks people in to stay rather than the match payments for the Wallabies because certainty of income is hugely important.

I agree that if you don't allow foreign based players to play for the Wallabies there is a greater incentive for fringe players to stay because they will be further up the pecking order. By the same token, some of those players who would have gone overseas if they were still eligible for the Wallabies might decide to stay another year or two and soak up some of the biggest contracts available from the ARU and Super Rugby teams.

On one hand the Giteau rule puts more money back in the ARU's hands to sign locally based Wallabies and stop them heading overseas and on the other, it sends some Wallaby match payments to players not based on Australia which could have gone to a locally based player.

 

[daz]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?



I really do not understand some of the comments on this thread, I really don't.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm getting pretty close to the "if I can't have it, no one can" frame of mind.

 

[James Pettifer]

Instead we still get the benefit of them being available for the Wallabies but the cost to the ARU is a fraction of what it would be if they solely played domestically.

That money can then be used to pay someone else.

And perhaps that is an alternate option for the ARU to consider. Selecting any player whatever club they play at and letting clubs select whoever they want.

The will mean that we lose a number of big expensive names from Super Rugby but would have significantly more money to invest in the next level of talent. I don't think that this would detract from the Super Rugby brand (as it is already pretty bad) but would make it easier to equalise the talent across the teams (salary cap for each team is consistent with payments made for games), would result in better players being available for the Wallabies and would be likely to result in significantly lower costs.

For me, that is the club based approach to Super Rugby rather than the Wallaby generating approach. Currently we are doing something in between the two which is confusing and causing some of the disfunction.

 

[Rebels3]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?



I really do not understand some of the comments on this thread, I really don't.

But when its your village being bombed?? It's not like any of us from Melb or Perth can hop in a car for a short drive to see another team play. The other thing is, neither of us want to face the real reality that this is it, if our team gets cut there is a very real chance that we will never ever have a professional team to support again. Just think about that, not ever seeing professional rugby ever again. It'd never happen, but could you imagine not having the Waratahs to watch, ever! And the only way you could ever see a team play a professional game is to either hop on a plane or drive most of a day?

We all understand something needs to be done, but it doesn't mean we should all surrender in a piss weak manner. We are here to fight for our village as we (force and rebels fans) believe our villages can offer the surviving ones more than the other.

 

[No4918]

This thread must be nearing the end of its life.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Braveheart81]

And perhaps that is an alternate option for the ARU to consider. Selecting any player whatever club they play at and letting clubs select whoever they want.

The will mean that we lose a number of big expensive names from Super Rugby but would have significantly more money to invest in the next level of talent. I don't think that this would detract from the Super Rugby brand (as it is already pretty bad) but would make it easier to equalise the talent across the teams (salary cap for each team is consistent with payments made for games), would result in better players being available for the Wallabies and would be likely to result in significantly lower costs.

For me, that is the club based approach to Super Rugby rather than the Wallaby generating approach. Currently we are doing something in between the two which is confusing and causing some of the disfunction.

There's still a big incentive for the ARU to have the bulk of the best players playing in Australia. It means they're available for all the test matches and they're available for training and planning camps during the season.

With the Wallabies being the major revenue generator in Australian rugby I can't see the payment and contracting structure changing drastically to the detriment of the Wallabies.

 

[FiveStarStu]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?

Yep. The administration of rugby in Australia is beyond repair, and I'd consider it an honour if Melbourne helped bring it down so it could start again.

Just because this shambles doesn't affect you now, doesn't mean it won't later.

 

[James Pettifer]

There's still a big incentive for the ARU to have the bulk of the best players playing in Australia. It means they're available for all the test matches and they're available for training and planning camps during the season.

With the Wallabies being the major revenue generator in Australian rugby I can't see the payment and contracting structure changing drastically to the detriment of the Wallabies.

If this is the case, then they need to go to the Wallaby generating model. The aim of each team is to create a stronger national team. This should mean no private ownership and central control around player movements, coach appointments and even strategies.

I'm happy with this model as well. The problem is that no one trusts the ARU. Particularly anyone outside of NSW and based on the last couple of months, it is pretty clear that the current management of the ARU does not deserve any trust.

 

[I like to watch]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?



I really do not understand some of the comments on this thread, I really don't.

No carpet bombing like Vietnam.
More like smart bombs, targeted to minimise collateral damage

 

[Braveheart81]

Is the "running track" on top of the new ARU facility at Moore Park actually a helipad?

 

[TOCC]

So, just like the Yanks in Vietnam, you are all in favour of bombing the village so as to save it?



I really do not understand some of the comments on this thread, I really don't.

give us your solution then mate, let me guess, it's something like maintain status quo and change the rules?

 

[Proud Pig]

If this is the case, then they need to go to the Wallaby generating model. The aim of each team is to create a stronger national team. This should mean no private ownership and central control around player movements, coach appointments and even strategies.

I'm happy with this model as well. The problem is that no one trusts the ARU. Particularly anyone outside of NSW and based on the last couple of months, it is pretty clear that the current management of the ARU does not deserve any trust.

Can you picture that scenario with the current ARU? It would have the Waratahs looking like the Harlem Globetrotters while everyone else was the Washington Generals.

 

[James Pettifer]

Can you picture that scenario with the current ARU? It would have the Waratahs looking like the Harlem Globetrotters while everyone else was the Washington Generals.

But I thought that is how it currently is?

Except that the Globetrotters are playing like the Generals just on a lot more pay

 

[MarkJ]

There are plenty of other examples in professional sport in our country of teams that make this work (Hawthorn / Launceston , Kangaroos/Hobart, St George /Illawarra.) And in NZ Rugby teams that traditionally want to belt each other to death at provincial level (Otago /Southland ) all get behind the Highlanders whenever they come to their town .

I think the examples you've given pretty much show the problem with sporting co-locations, they're usually never an equal partnership. In each of those examples the team plays the vast majority of their games in one location, with a token game or two in the other location (often as a bit of a cash grab - yes I'm looking at you North Melbourne).

It's also a bit easier to send some of your games elsewhere in the AFL/NRL when you've got about a dozen home games compared to the 6 or 7 you get in Super Rugby.

Would you really have any connection to the Brumbies if they only played a pre-season game and one regular season game (probably against a less popular opposition team) down in Melbourne? I wouldn't if it was the other way round.

 

[James Pettifer]

I think the examples you've given pretty much show the problem with sporting co-locations, they're usually never an equal partnership. In each of those examples the team plays the vast majority of their games in one location, with a token game or two in the other location (often as a bit of a cash grab - yes I'm looking at you North Melbourne).

It's also a bit easier to send some of your games elsewhere in the AFL/NRL when you've got about a dozen home games compared to the 6 or 7 you get in Super Rugby.

Would you really have any connection to the Brumbies if they only played a pre-season game and one regular season game (probably against a less popular opposition team) down in Melbourne? I wouldn't if it was the other way round.

In general, one game probably not. 3 or 4 games yes.

If it were the Brumbies (not the Force), then I'd probably go to any game in Melbourne as they used to be my team prior to the Rebels.

 

[QLDHeeler1990]

I love rugby but I won't support a code that doesn't support me or my community, let alone treat it with the reckless abandon and disgraceful incompetence that the ARU has.

This decision burns bridges and it's about time everyone comes to terms with that.

I understand your pain, but you are taking it slightly too personal.