Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
Cutting a team will be not only the death of that team and the sport in that state but the death of rugby in Australia. It will achieve nothing and will truly show what a basket case the ARU are... Sorry that would be the ESRU
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
If that is fair dinkum then I will a, throw my Wallaby jersey in the bin and b, never attend a Wallaby game again. I imagine that I'll never darken the doors of GaGR ever again either, because what would be the fucking point?
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
Statement from Force here https://www.westernforce.com.au/article/road-safety-western-force-statement
Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
At the end of the day, SANZAAR is a set of compronises. Australia gets extra teams to grow the game in WA and Vic. SA can field six teams and keep the NSC on side. Argentina get regular tests against quality opposition. The Sunwolves give Dismal Pillock extra material to work with.
The NZRFU still need funds to keep their heads above water. They might be in a golden era of on-field success, but they have a population similar to that of Queensland, but with about half the GDP - they rely on the TV revenue as much as we do. So they may well be calling on us and SA to drop teams, but that doesn't necessarily mean that two of the partners in SANZAAR are going to say 'yes, of course you are correct'. I expect that SA and Australia are probably more likely to listen to News Corp, and while Fox Sports might be making noises, I wonder if News necessarily want less games to air on their pay TV channels. Look at AFL, I expect they'll want to keep the Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast Suns around, even the player's families make up the bulk of their crowds.
As it is, I think a change back to the round robin system and making finals an actual meritocarcy again. Each team gets one crack against the others. The top teams in the finals get a home final against the bottom teams. Maybe the top two get a week off. It makes the final rounds important for the top and mid table teams. And the bottom teams can still potentially be 'banana skins' for the high flyers.
The NZRFU still need funds to keep their heads above water. They might be in a golden era of on-field success, but they have a population similar to that of Queensland, but with about half the GDP - they rely on the TV revenue as much as we do. So they may well be calling on us and SA to drop teams, but that doesn't necessarily mean that two of the partners in SANZAAR are going to say 'yes, of course you are correct'. I expect that SA and Australia are probably more likely to listen to News Corp, and while Fox Sports might be making noises, I wonder if News necessarily want less games to air on their pay TV channels. Look at AFL, I expect they'll want to keep the Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast Suns around, even the player's families make up the bulk of their crowds.
As it is, I think a change back to the round robin system and making finals an actual meritocarcy again. Each team gets one crack against the others. The top teams in the finals get a home final against the bottom teams. Maybe the top two get a week off. It makes the final rounds important for the top and mid table teams. And the bottom teams can still potentially be 'banana skins' for the high flyers.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
It's all about to start to get ugly. This is either going to be the best or worst couple of months in Australian rugby in a long time.
Some saying SAF government blocking the kings going, once again could be absolute garbage, but if true this is going to get very ugly. Brendan ventor also has come out saying SAF needs to leave Super Rugby.
In a strange way I might enjoy watching some of the potential carnage. I can't see much changing long term without it.
Some saying SAF government blocking the kings going, once again could be absolute garbage, but if true this is going to get very ugly. Brendan ventor also has come out saying SAF needs to leave Super Rugby.
In a strange way I might enjoy watching some of the potential carnage. I can't see much changing long term without it.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Ok, so here the question to consider alongside the rumour over the cutting of the Force.
So "allegedly" the ARU are justifying the axing of one Aussie Super Rugby team to cut costs and save the ARU money.
The Force have a 5 years sponsorship deal reportedly worth a $1mil+(ish) per year plus other smaller sponsors. They also have the supporter buy-in scheme so financially they are getting there.
The Rebels owner is still owed several million dollars by the ARU and then if the team is still financially un-viable the ARU will have to rescue it by tipping in more cash (reports are it was costing the ARU about $3.5mil a year) and / or again take ownership of it.
So, which one make more financial sense?
IMHO the answer is the ARU have clustered the deal with Cox and the Rebels and it has cost them so much it is why we are here now. The idiocy of the deal now has them locked in and to pull out it will cost them dearly, but staying in it will cost them just as much, the difference being the when.
So "allegedly" the ARU are justifying the axing of one Aussie Super Rugby team to cut costs and save the ARU money.
The Force have a 5 years sponsorship deal reportedly worth a $1mil+(ish) per year plus other smaller sponsors. They also have the supporter buy-in scheme so financially they are getting there.
The Rebels owner is still owed several million dollars by the ARU and then if the team is still financially un-viable the ARU will have to rescue it by tipping in more cash (reports are it was costing the ARU about $3.5mil a year) and / or again take ownership of it.
So, which one make more financial sense?
IMHO the answer is the ARU have clustered the deal with Cox and the Rebels and it has cost them so much it is why we are here now. The idiocy of the deal now has them locked in and to pull out it will cost them dearly, but staying in it will cost them just as much, the difference being the when.
GeeRob has finally caught up with the rest of the world and pumped out an article on this. The last few paragraphs are interesting reading.
Article here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...be-axed-from-super-rugby-20170327-gv7pty.html
Article here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...be-axed-from-super-rugby-20170327-gv7pty.html
N
NTT
Guest
Crap.
Written by Pandaram, usually means its true. This is gonna get ugly, very ugly.
Written by Pandaram, usually means its true. This is gonna get ugly, very ugly.
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
The massive hole in the plan is the political nightmare that is South Africa. The Kings can't be culled - the government will pull the whole country out before that happens. Unless they can overcome that hump, there'll be 18 teams again next year, in what will likely be the last year of Super Rugby.
Ulrich
Nev Cottrell (35)
SA Rugby and SA is being run into the ground.
The Bulls, after initially looking like they will adopt to a better game plan have reverted to type. On paper they are the best or close to the best side from South Africa but they suck and after having attended a primary school game today (Pretoria) I understand why.
The under 9s were talked up by the coaches to front up physically and drive low and the first kid to make a mistake in this manner by standing too high will be pulled from the game. 5 mins into the game and a kid is pulled.
By the time the middle of the second half arrived the rest of the bench were still there sitting on the splinters, every now and again being told they should not play with the ball on the sidelines because they may get injured. Go figure that rugby players are playing rugby by themselves due to a lack of opportunity in the game.
One kid near broke his nose so another bench player got an opportunity. That was the last of it. The rest had to watch from the sides and some of us who are parents had to attend a game in which our kids didn't even feature.
At this age everybody should be given a chance and if you're too conservative because you think you're weakening the team then the onus should be on you as coach to improve these kids dammit!
These kids are scrummaging and they have lineout calls, but fuck they can't pass or catch a ball. Ball presentation is non-existent. The opposition school was much better at least so there was some solace in that.
Pre-game the forwards are practicing lineouts and scrums while the backline players run forward and pass to one side only.
Tackling isn't practiced. Many a time a kid would run toward the attacker with the arms out. All of them were running sideways to the corners. Nobody had any sense of running into space.
So apart from the administrative bullshit and racial inclinations involved from the top, it doesn't look much better at the bottom-level. The kids are huge, they run hard and clobber into one another but their talent as footballers are wasted.
Meanwhile our high performance unit is suffering after Rassie Erasmus' departure as Director of Rugby. SARU have yet to announce who the Bok defense coach will be even though the Six Nations has concluded and the toutet Venter as supposed to be joining the management team thereafter.
Cobus Reinach is in the Springbok training squad for 2-4 April, but he only has 10 caps so after the French series he becomes ineligible to play for the Springboks until 2019 as he is heading to Europe.
Curwin Bosch is being touted as the next great thing and already at the tender age of 19 he is being stuffed around positionally like the much maligned Gaffie du Doit, Brent Russel, Hougaard and so on and so forth.
So to think anything good will come from this when SA is involved in the decision-making process is being delusional.
The Bulls, after initially looking like they will adopt to a better game plan have reverted to type. On paper they are the best or close to the best side from South Africa but they suck and after having attended a primary school game today (Pretoria) I understand why.
The under 9s were talked up by the coaches to front up physically and drive low and the first kid to make a mistake in this manner by standing too high will be pulled from the game. 5 mins into the game and a kid is pulled.
By the time the middle of the second half arrived the rest of the bench were still there sitting on the splinters, every now and again being told they should not play with the ball on the sidelines because they may get injured. Go figure that rugby players are playing rugby by themselves due to a lack of opportunity in the game.
One kid near broke his nose so another bench player got an opportunity. That was the last of it. The rest had to watch from the sides and some of us who are parents had to attend a game in which our kids didn't even feature.
At this age everybody should be given a chance and if you're too conservative because you think you're weakening the team then the onus should be on you as coach to improve these kids dammit!
These kids are scrummaging and they have lineout calls, but fuck they can't pass or catch a ball. Ball presentation is non-existent. The opposition school was much better at least so there was some solace in that.
Pre-game the forwards are practicing lineouts and scrums while the backline players run forward and pass to one side only.
Tackling isn't practiced. Many a time a kid would run toward the attacker with the arms out. All of them were running sideways to the corners. Nobody had any sense of running into space.
So apart from the administrative bullshit and racial inclinations involved from the top, it doesn't look much better at the bottom-level. The kids are huge, they run hard and clobber into one another but their talent as footballers are wasted.
Meanwhile our high performance unit is suffering after Rassie Erasmus' departure as Director of Rugby. SARU have yet to announce who the Bok defense coach will be even though the Six Nations has concluded and the toutet Venter as supposed to be joining the management team thereafter.
Cobus Reinach is in the Springbok training squad for 2-4 April, but he only has 10 caps so after the French series he becomes ineligible to play for the Springboks until 2019 as he is heading to Europe.
Curwin Bosch is being touted as the next great thing and already at the tender age of 19 he is being stuffed around positionally like the much maligned Gaffie du Doit, Brent Russel, Hougaard and so on and so forth.
So to think anything good will come from this when SA is involved in the decision-making process is being delusional.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
MST you and others keep quoting this. where is the evidence, it is my understanding that when the Imperium group bought the franchise, the agreement was that cold hard cash wasn't paid from them to the ARU, just that the Rebels wouldn't get the usual distribution from the ARU to the tune of $6 m over the three/four first years. so saving the ARU money.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Rugby, other sports and business have pulled in CEO's that have certificates, awards, and experiences in running large operations. They step into these positions on large salaries and work, with work there are results = good, bad, unchanged - they are praised or critisised.
How many of these executives have been involved in start ups and created something special?
- Who sets the direction,
- Who sets the targets,
- Who appraises the reviews,
I heard an alarming stat on Sunday - rugby is gone backwards 65% since 2001. So whilst the poplation is growing our code is going backwards.
No doubting they are completely different, but a start up club needs to find sponsorship, players, supporters, and has to be profitable. They review frequently to improve.
In kids rugby the players are charged rego's throughout the country through the ARU's rugby link and te ARU take a portion of the rego (and we lose a Soup team). So these grass roots clubs are operating on an oily rag to;
- give grass roots enjoyment,
- develop supporters, and future Rugby / Soup / Wallabies players
- their parents are often paying supporters at Soup & Test,
- and thus also insulating funding to the ARU in the process,
So becuase our code has gone backwards 65% over the last 15 years we are now strugbling on the field and are now loosing a team - is that correct?
Questions;
How many of these executives have been involved in start ups and created something special?
- Who sets the direction,
- Who sets the targets,
- Who appraises the reviews,
I heard an alarming stat on Sunday - rugby is gone backwards 65% since 2001. So whilst the poplation is growing our code is going backwards.
No doubting they are completely different, but a start up club needs to find sponsorship, players, supporters, and has to be profitable. They review frequently to improve.
In kids rugby the players are charged rego's throughout the country through the ARU's rugby link and te ARU take a portion of the rego (and we lose a Soup team). So these grass roots clubs are operating on an oily rag to;
- give grass roots enjoyment,
- develop supporters, and future Rugby / Soup / Wallabies players
- their parents are often paying supporters at Soup & Test,
- and thus also insulating funding to the ARU in the process,
So becuase our code has gone backwards 65% over the last 15 years we are now strugbling on the field and are now loosing a team - is that correct?
Questions;
- If we had maintained parity and not gone backwards would we be losing a team?
- If we showed 65% growth imagine what we would look like?
- What structues and programs have the ARU implemented to look at growth at grass roots (note JGC is elitist and is not a program those boys already play) so our market share is growing.
- Why are we losing a team?
Sauron
Larry Dwyer (12)
This is an absolute disaster. The ARU have lost me. I might come back to professional rugby if the Soup is canned.
Might pop down to my local club, but only because they (Parra) don't seem to be obsessed with the self-aggrandisement of the Eastern Sydney and North Shore clubs.
Might pop down to my local club, but only because they (Parra) don't seem to be obsessed with the self-aggrandisement of the Eastern Sydney and North Shore clubs.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
The deal reported in several media outlets involved a frontloaded deal over 4 years. IIRC it was $2.6 initially with the balance of the $6mil to be paid over the remaining term. The aru savings claim is hinged on the frontloaded payment reducing the residual. Thus why Cox can sue.
T
TOCC
Guest
I haven't seen bungling of professional sport as bad as this since the Super League wars... it will take years for Australia Rugby to recover, Rugby in WA will likely never recover and inevitably be lost to Rugby League.. Super Rugby as a brand has been tarnished.. it's a sad state of affairs all round
Well done ARU and SANZAAR, some heads better roll for this...
Well done ARU and SANZAAR, some heads better roll for this...
T
TOCC
Guest
I'm not dissapointed with him, he is only attempting for provide the answers that we have all been asking, questions we have been asking because the ARU have kept everyone in the dark about what is happening..
SANZAAR and the ARU have bungled this whole thing, people claim it's commercial in confidence that they can't comment on the decision.. So why then comment on the whole thing to start with? why did the ARU/SANZAAR fuel the initial speculation that a team will be cut and then make no further comment for 6 weeks, all whilst running adjacent to the first half of the Super Rugby season..
ARU and SANZAAR began this speculation frenzy 6 week ago when they leaked that a meeting was to be held to decide the competitions furture, if they were smart, and really concerned with the games future then they would have kept this quiet.. but they didn't, instead they've provided the perfect conditions for speculative articles and reporting to thrive in.. it's disgraceful by the ARU, not Jamie
- Status