• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
RedsHappy said:
You may be joking pT but assuming not for a moment, the Force CEO as above was the very opposite of knifing in public or 'keeping our powder dry', he was effectively defending the ARU board in public and affirming there would be neither a public knifing nor even anything approaching a private one come June 20.
Click to expand...
Yes it was tongue in cheek
I was very surprised by the change in tone from WA. Very different to previous narrative.
Something has seriously changed to prompt that response.
 
lou75

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
p.Tah said:
Yes it was tongue in cheek
I was very surprised by the change in tone from WA. Very different to previous narrative.
Something has seriously changed to prompt that response.
Click to expand...

well they are on the payroll and as such are prevented from paying out on their owner I imagine
 
B

BLR

Guest
p.Tah said:
Yes it was tongue in cheek
I was very surprised by the change in tone from WA. Very different to previous narrative.
Something has seriously changed to prompt that response.
Click to expand...

There has been no change. Sinders is on the ARU Payroll, if he came out and said the ARU were a bunch of muppets would he not be rolled by the ARU? Then I am sure they will put Rob Clarke into his position,

From all indications Sinders is very much for the Force and what goes on in public is completely different to what is happening in private.
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
^ BLR - why did he have to say anything about the AGM? He may be in a position that prevents him from calling them muppets, but that does not mean he has to support and be sympathetic to the ARU.

Im not reading this as a positive or negative for the Force. I'm supportive of 5 teams.
 
B

BLR

Guest
p.Tah said:
^ BLR - why did he have to say anything about the AGM? He may be in a position that prevents him from calling them muppets, but that does not mean he has to support and be sympathetic to the ARU.

Im not reading this as a positive or negative for the Force. I'm supportive of 5 teams.
Click to expand...

There were Q & A aspects of the meeting, perhaps he didn't want it to spiral into a witch hunt. It is very easy to do considering how most fans view the treatment of the Force since their inception especially compared to the Rebels.

There were concerns about this on the TWF (The Force Forums) which were promptly put to rest by RugbyWA board members.

The video is here.


EDIT: Starting from 16 minutes is the part about the board. Re-thinking after watching again Sinders gives credit for the ARU following the process but earlier says that originally they were planning to straight up cut the Force. Keeping in mind when the ARU henchman came to Perth for the 'consultation' they came with a folio of 'why the Force will be cut' making unfair assumptions which he mentioned. So hardly glowing.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Inside Shoulder said:
The changes are constant in the levels below the fully pro level. They have to be to accommodate the ARU's changing position, removal of funding and imposition of increasing costs.
I know its unpopular but look at the Shute shield Clubs as an example. They have limited FTA coverage, limited pay TV coverage and no press coverage (I bet you could open the SMH and it wouldn't even have today's games listed) and yet they manage to run a minimum $500k operation (for each club) essentially as far as I can see through sponsorship and unpaid labour. The comp is more watchable than the Oz super rugby teams.
Yet with all their money and full time employees its very hard to see what the ARU has done right in the last 10 years.
I know - its a broken record: but its as broken body.
Click to expand...

Interestingly in today's Daily Telegraph, there was a story on the Manly v Warringah game which covered more column inches that the super rugby coverage.
 
gel

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
Seriously, why not drop the reds out of super rugby?

WA and Vic (and probably the ACT - I don't really know) need the super rugby team for rugby to have some relevance for those states. And given time, they'll breed their own players (other than Act of course) and have decent local comps. Without the reds, these teams can pick freely from any of the qlders from the schools or premier competition. if the hypothesis is to condense the talent into 4 teams then those teams would also be more successful meaning greater awareness in those states.

QLD rugby schools will continue to play rugby and produce players.

Premiership rugby will still continue and produce players.

That's where the Qld players come from, and those two are divorced from the reds anyway.

The reds have demonstrated a clear inability over an extended period of time that they are incapable of running a successful sporting organisation. It's absolutely fucked up that the reds don't feature in the finals every year given the talent pool they draw from.

After the super rugby and prior to the rugby championship the QRU get to pick whichever qlders they want to form the reds who play against the Tahs (minus any qlders in their super rugby team) on a home and away series.

The reds go back to being a representative team. I don't care what or how the Tahs choose their team - they just can't use any of their qlders because that's their price to pay for getting to keep their super rugby team.

I (like most qlder rugby fans), will watch local rugby, wallabies, the occasional super rugby match with passing interest in whichever qlder is doing well for the brumbies, force or whoever - and then get fired up for the true Qld reds to beat the Tahs later in the year.

The loss of Qld ratings will be made up by the better performances of the professional and capable organisations across the country and the two big matches prior to the rugby championship.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
gel said:
Seriously, why not drop the reds out of super rugby?

WA and Vic (and probably the ACT - I don't really know) need the super rugby team for rugby to have some relevance for those states. And given time, they'll breed their own players (other than Act of course) and have decent local comps. Without the reds, these teams can pick freely from any of the qlders from the schools or premier competition. if the hypothesis is to condense the talent into 4 teams then those teams would also be more successful meaning greater awareness in those states.

QLD rugby schools will continue to play rugby and produce players.

Premiership rugby will still continue and produce players.

That's where the Qld players come from, and those two are divorced from the reds anyway.

The reds have demonstrated a clear inability over an extended period of time that they are incapable of running a successful sporting organisation. It's absolutely fucked up that the reds don't feature in the finals every year given the talent pool they draw from.

After the super rugby and prior to the rugby championship the QRU get to pick whichever qlders they want to form the reds who play against the Tahs (minus any qlders in their super rugby team) on a home and away series.

The reds go back to being a representative team. I don't care what or how the Tahs choose their team - they just can't use any of their qlders because that's their price to pay for getting to keep their super rugby team.

I (like most qlder rugby fans), will watch local rugby, wallabies, the occasional super rugby match with passing interest in whichever qlder is doing well for the brumbies, force or whoever - and then get fired up for the true Qld reds to beat the Tahs later in the year.

The loss of Qld ratings will be made up by the better performances of the professional and capable organisations across the country and the two big matches prior to the rugby championship.
Click to expand...

I'd happily have the Waratahs dropped from super rugby. For many of the same reasons.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Summary of last page:
Red supporters asking to be cut
Tahs Supporters asking to be cut
Force supporters asking to be cut
Prediction for next page:
ARU are dickheads
Provinces are no better
Shute Shield is on itself
 
dru

dru

David Wilson (68)
Agree! and actually I put something similar up a little earlier, only half tongue in cheek. NSW & Qld cut to make way for the ARUs successful 3 team Soup model. Rugby continues amyway in those two states, we keep a National footprint and keep growing in WA and Vic.

It wouldn't take long for the two Premier comps to cross the border and we have a quasi start to a domestic national comp.
 
dru

dru

David Wilson (68)
KevinO said:
And they would have officially invited two teams, just the second team won't be the Kings.
Click to expand...

Pro 12 may not be doing itself any favours then. Kings, for this early in their pro history, no provincial organisation behind them, on the back of political and financial debacle, are proving to be very solid.

If Soup stays with enough interest to keep me on board, I'll be saying "thanks Europe for leaving us the Kings. Have fun with the Cheetahs and Bulls."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top