• 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.

stoff

Phil Hardcastle (33)
I had that down in the $2.5m saving. ARU funds the other provinces $8.5m over the same period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T

TOCC

Guest
I think a winning side would change those issues


yes you 'think', you can't guarantee that anything will change, there's as much chance as a merged team playing as wel as the teams this year... it doesn't solve the coaching pathways, it doesn't fix the talent idenfiticaiton issues in Australian Rugby and it doesn't provide a product that the public are able to engage with or support anymore then they do now... in fact the only guarantee that you have is that it will kill Rugby Union in Canberra, it will destroy one of the best rivalries in Australian Rugby and remove a team with rich history and heritage because other markets are failing.

Let's not kid ourselves, merging the Brumbies and moving them to Canberra is a hostile takeover, Cox would either have to be reimbursed a significant amount or he assumes control of the new organisation... why would you want one of Australian Rugbys few shining lights be taken over and absorbed into an organisation like the Rebels, which has shown no improvement in 5 years of Super Rugby.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Mate, we can't continue the way it is going, all the teams a bleeding and losing.

Whatever happens will be painful, but it is clear that what we have now is not working.

We expanded too quickly
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
FP and others who want to see one of our franchises disappear. IMO that would be the worst outcome, long term, as it would limit the opportunities for players coming through to develop at that level and higher. It would almost certainly, immediately see an exodus of Super Rugby standard players from the country as they field better offers from Europe etc.

But, in the dire circumstances that one side is axed, common sense says it must be the Rebels. They have been probably the biggest drain on the ARU's funds since their introduction and they show no indication they will ever tap into the consciousness of millions of residents of Melbourne nor the commercial interests down there. They are more likely to continue to be a drain on the purse, and as soon as their present owner realises that he will be gone courtesy of his get out of jail free card.

The way forward must be to reconstruct the Super Rugby conference system, and for the ARU to start being serious about taking control of coaching systems around the country. Either a trans Tasman competition or a three conference competition as have been described by many on this thread together with some proper management and financial oversight by the ARU based on five Aus franchises are better bets for Aus rugby in the future. Ditching any of the present franchises will see things go backwards, no matter which side is cast aside, but worst case would be for either the Brumbies or Force to disappear.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Mate, we can't continue the way it is going, all the teams a bleeding and losing.

Whatever happens will be painful, but it is clear that what we have now is not working.

We expanded too quickly

Sure something needs to happen...

But I certainly don't agree with this sentiment that the Brumbies should pack up and move to Melbourne because it represents a larger market, a larger market means absolutely nothing if the product you are trying to sell doesn't engage with the market. And I'm not talking about the style of the Rugby or their win percentage, I'm talking about a competition which people understand, a comp where people know who the opposition is, where they're from and are able to watch that team week in week out on tv..not the current state of affairs

Cutting a team whilst everything else remains the same is ignoring the elephant in he room, and it will do more damage then good....
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I have also posted this in the declining participation thread. However it can not be ignored in this discussion.

Its a participation analysis by the Roy Morgan group.

Its scary actually and in total contradiction to what the ARU have been saying for years.

I suggest everyone open the link. Rugby is on it.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7...cipation-australia-december-2016-201703200905

I think that last year was the first time that the ARU actually admitted the numbers were in decline. 12.7% was the figure in their annual report.

The also decline to specify their grass roots spend, unlike the RFU.
 

Twoilms

Trevor Allan (34)
I have also posted this in the declining participation thread. However it can not be ignored in this discussion.

Its a participation analysis by the Roy Morgan group.

Its scary actually and in total contradiction to what the ARU have been saying for years.

I suggest everyone open the link. Rugby is on it.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7...cipation-australia-december-2016-201703200905

-63% in the last 15 years at number 26 just above fucking archery. Jesus.

Together this leaves an estimated three in 10 Australians who don’t do any regular sport or fitness activities at all—not even a brisk walk.
National health issue.

Edit: I wonder how much of this correlates with a contracting economy, a loss of disposable income and increase in average work hours for the average person.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Remember those numbers are 14 and above. Doesn't count Jnr numbers which are huge.

That's why sports that have strong masters type focuses are big there.

I'd love to see afl jrn numbers for regular participants. Not Auskick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
No way there is 118,000 people Rowing in this country. No god damn way. Terrible figures for Rugby but those figures have always been rubbery.

Yeah, just looking at Sydney alone there are about a dozen rowing clubs, and how many rugby clubs, including subbies, most with multiple grades?? Out here where I am there are about 200 rugby players 14+ and 0 rowers!

Regardless of the rubberiness of any specific sports' figures, the general trend shows an increase in the participation of lower impact sports (archery, badminton, soccer) at the expense of high contact sports like union and league. Whilst the increase in soccer is no doubt partially related to marketing efforts, (as is the decline in union) the overall figures are in part due to multiculturalism and because our society is becoming softer - parents are getting their kids to play sports where there is less risk of injury.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Union dropped 148,000 to 55,000. Wow. How does that compare with the ARU figures on participation?

From the 2015 ARU report:

706K participants in 'rugby experiences'
267K participants in competitions of 5 games or more.

Whilst those figures are no doubt sugar coated I'd like to see the figures from the Archery body annual report too.

EDIT: from the Rowing Australia website:
"Rowing is a sport for life, accessible to people of all ages, genders, fitness and skill levels, and currently enjoyed by over 60,000 participants and 25,000 active members ranging from young rowers at school through to those at universities and in the wider community right through to masters rowing."
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Remember the ARU are stating all participants there aren't they? Juniors? I'd say most of our participants are under 14.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The torpedo

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Remember those numbers are 14 and above. Doesn't count Jnr numbers which are huge.

That's why sports that have strong masters type focuses are big there.

I'd love to see afl jrn numbers for regular participants. Not Auskick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, based off my experience, a lot of kids leave after u'15s due to academic/school sport/cultural/other reasons
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Remember the ARU are stating all participants there aren't they? Juniors? I'd say most of our participants are under 14.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would you say 80% though? That's the inference from the figures if you assume Morgans to be correct. Just a rough split of the figures from our club:

7s: 50
9s: 40
11s: 40
13s: 40

15s: 25
17s: 25
19s: 25
Seniors: 100

SO thats about 50/50, don't know how representative that is of other clubs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top