Where to for Super Rugby?

[stoff]

So the $5.1 is a conflated historical figure used for convenience of argument as all franchises will receive the equal amount of the "distribution".

So the difference you claim seems to be very different according to my maths: $1.6 due the Rebels over the next few years compared to the $1.7 due all the rest of the franchises including the Force. Hmmm. Not quite $5.1mil.

It could be also worth adding what the Force do have and the Rebels don't which is the largest major sponsor of all clubs worth $1.5mil a year. On top of that is there minor sponsors and if they remain and the "share float" goes ahead that would add $10mil.

No, the figures I provided are operational costs. Start up, facility costs etc are exclusive of those figures. So feel free to add that to the Rebels costs.

Over the five years of the current TV deal the Rebs get $6m, all other franchises $8.5m. The Rebels got a higher amount year 1 of $2.6m so there is $3.4m to come. I have explained this a few times now. Look back around post 1100 and I go into detail.

For clarity not all franchises receive equal distribution. The Rebels receive less. Would a fan owned Force do the same?

On the sponsorship front you have highlighted one sponsorship deal out of all the force's sponsorships. Nobody knows what each franchises total sponsorship revenue is worth so it is not a reliable measure of income.

We should probably move this discussion over to the Rebels thread if we want to continue as we have strayed from the topic of this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NTT]

Give it a rest Moono, I have been posting about incompetence, corruption and nepotism to all and sundry for a decade and got very little support in the main. To think that any Rugby RU in Australia would have the organisational and managerial skill to pull off a conspiracy of the sort you are alleging is just beyond the realms of plausibility. They are just too incompetent to achieve it. Not to mention the fact that they couldn't manage to keep their mouths shut long enough to pull it off.

Some people were amazed that the ARU managed to keep silent about the London meeting, IMHO the ARU are basically paralysed and are waiting for something, anything to make the decision for them. They have nothing to leak, they made no decision, their consultations with stake holders obviously doesn't involve the actual players and clubs. So what are they doing?.... Precisely what I said above.... nothing.

Nobody said it was an ARU, or other governing bodies, generated conspiracy. We have quite clearly stated it is a Sydney newspaper led conspiracy. Another in a well documented, long line of media led attacks on the Force.

If you're gonna join in the bashing of posters on here, how about you kick at the same goalposts and not twist the wording into something we are not even talking about?

 

[NTT]

Pandaram has obviously received information from a source he believes credible enough to run the story, and publish asap to get the exclusive......

Whether or not it turns out to be true is another thing......

The conspiracy talk is quite far fetched.

How is the conspiracy talk far fetched? No matter the source the intention of the arcticle is to kill off the Force. Even Sinderberry thinks its a media led cheap shot.

 

[Braveheart81]

How is the conspiracy talk far fetched? No matter the source the intention of the arcticle is to kill off the Force. Even Sinderberry thinks its a media led cheap shot.

It isn't an opinion piece. Most journalism involves unnamed sources. What makes the journalist's intention anything other than reporting on the situation?

Should journalists not print material that could be construed negatively by one or more parties?

Or as the biggest rugby story this year evolves, should journalists only reproduce official press releases as they come out but otherwise say nothing?

 

[mst]

Over the five years of the current TV deal the Rebs get $6m, all other franchises $8.5m. The Rebels got a higher amount year 1 of $2.6m so there is $3.4m to come. I have explained this a few times now. Look back around post 1100 and I go into detail.

For clarity not all franchises receive equal distribution. The Rebels receive less. Would a fan owned Force do the same?

On the sponsorship front you have highlighted one sponsorship deal out of all the force's sponsorships. Nobody knows what each franchises total sponsorship revenue is worth so it is not a reliable measure of income.

We should probably move this discussion over to the Rebels thread if we want to continue as we have strayed from the topic of this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your post @1100 doesn't seem to be there. Anyway, most are aware of the financial dealings and that the ARU front-loaded the deal and part of the agreement with Cox was predicated on both parties being cognisant of the $3.5 the season prior the ARU tipped in to franchise which steadied the ship and the lack of start up costs for Cox and no layout on facilities. So your figures are not reflective of the arrangements and are selective.

There has been sufficient reporting about major sponsors to get a pretty good idea on figures and the bottom line reporting also gives us a good indicator.

The topic is relevant as its in response to your previous posts where you cited figures:

It will cost less to keep the Rebels.$3.4m over the remain 3 years, against $5.1m for the Force. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The $5.1m is the distribution of $1.7m per year all the other franchises receive. It has been fairly widely reported. The Rebels made a small loss last year. The challenge this year will be to cover the drop in ARU revenue this year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TOCC's post at #1418 questioned if you citing those figures actually had any relevance until you compared the operational cost of each franchise.

The savings to the ARU are hypothetical as you highlight above "if" the Rebel can cover the the drop in ARU revenue and the impact to other franchises (such as gate takings) if the Rebel perform poorly (as they are currently).

From above: "The Rebels made a small loss last year. The challenge this year will be to cover the drop in ARU revenue this year". So putting this in to context the Rebels need to over come a "small loss" and $1mil less ARU revenue?

I am merely highlighting a differing point of view based on the information I can find in the media that indicates the difference in savings between axing the Force and Rebels is marginal at best on paper, and even more marginal based on benefits the the game overall.

The key difference IMHO is the contractual obligations to Cox means they have no choice but to pay; the viability of the Rebels is a different consideration beyond that and may need the Force to be cut to save money help prop up the Rebels.

I appreciate that people will argue from many points of view including in support of there team, and I have no issue with that. As in this situation, if I am unsure about information i seek clarification and am happily corrected. I simply prefer that the arguments be factual and transparent.

 

[Slim 293]

No matter the source the intention of the arcticle is to kill off the Force.

But it's not the intention of the article, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.........

 

[Inside Shoulder]

How do you make those two new teams competitive?

How do you deal with existing contracts when your ability to pay those contracts drops substantially?

The commercial realities are the biggest problem.



Surely the ARU has a preferred outcome and then outcomes they're willing to settle for.

Clearly no one is happy with the existing Super Rugby format because fans are turning away and teams are haemorrhaging money.

Is it hard to imagine that the preferences the ARU has are as follows:

1. A Trans-Tasman comp (but also realising that is incredibly unlikely to be a reality within the current broadcast deal)
2. Remain at 18 teams but redistribute it into 3 groups of 6.
3. Drop to 15 teams with SA losing two and Aus losing one.

Whilst clearly they could use their veto power to prevent option 3, if it is a case of the competition remaining exactly as is versus the drop to 15 teams then perhaps that is seen as the lesser of two evils.

If nothing at all is done to restructure the competition they might consider the consequences for the five teams collectively to be worse than a more workable competition with one less team.

Hopefully we get at least one year with 3x6 conferences in 2018 and see whether that improves things.

Good sense in all that as usual.........but I still say first sack all the ARU board members

 

[moa999]

So if we end up at 3x6 or 3x5 which seem to be the two options what are the preferred season/finals options.

I'm hoping for 3x6
With proper H&A in each conf (10 games) and then 6 games against other conf.
Total 16 - 8 home, 5 within conf away, 3 out of conf away (which limits SA games for the Oz teams)

Finals I'd change up also - quarters are stupid in a 15/18 comp - almoat everybody gets a prize

I think we need 1v2 in each conference for Conference Champion title - and make this a big deal domestically.
Highest winner straight to Super Championship with hosting rights, other two play off.
(I had thought of bringing in a 4th team being the highest placed conf championship loser but want to avoid a NZvNZ final)

 

[Braveheart81]

8 out of 18 teams isn't an overly high proportion of teams making the finals on any sort of scale (whether domestically or internationally).

8 out of 15 is and potentially then we could go back to a 6 teams final series (but 6 out of 15 is a low percentage).

 

[chibimatty]

I'd like to see the 3x6 option, but isn't there an issue that neither SA nor NZ want that many local derbies?

 

[Dan54]

As I have said before, NZ players will probably veto a 3x6 conference system, which really doesn't stop the problem of teams from a weak conference making finals and probably better teams not. I not sure that a conference system will ever work,don't really know of any that do, as I still think we somehow have to have everyone playing each other once. Though I am starting to think it maybe just a dream, and we may end up with a less then ideal comp still. I still like the idea of SA being part of super rugby, but am starting to wonder how we can keep them in and it to work.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

As I have said before, NZ players will probably veto a 3x6 conference system, which really doesn't stop the problem of teams from a weak conference making finals and probably better teams not. I not sure that a conference system will ever work,don't really know of any that do, as I still think we somehow have to have everyone playing each other once. Though I am starting to think it maybe just a dream, and we may end up with a less then ideal comp still. I still like the idea of SA being part of super rugby, but am starting to wonder how we can keep them in and it to work.

You sure that the wit and charm of we aussie posters is not overcoming your instinct for what NZ wants?

 

[Omar Comin']

I'm not sure that a conference system will ever work,don't really know of any that do.

Well the NFL is the richest sporting league in the world and it has a more complex conference structure (though it is more symmetrical than the current Super Rugby set up).

 

[Slim 293]

Well the NFL is the richest sporting league in the world and it has a more complex conference structure (though it is more symmetrical than the current Super Rugby set up).

Nearly all US sports function within a conference system, and the Heineken Cup all the teams are drawn into pools........

I actually like the idea of a conference system, but the one we currently have is just dumb.

 

[Gnostic]

Nobody said it was an ARU, or other governing bodies, generated conspiracy. We have quite clearly stated it is a Sydney newspaper led conspiracy. Another in a well documented, long line of media led attacks on the Force.



If you're gonna join in the bashing of posters on here, how about you kick at the same goalposts and not twist the wording into something we are not even talking about?

Well you'd need to be a bit clearer about your "goalposts". You conspiracy seemed to me to be an all encompassing one supported by the media, not created by the media. Yes that makes much more sense, the media even Uncle Rupert's biased version are highly interested in destroying a minor sporting club in a minor competition (in this country and in their readership) because that will sell papers and advertising. Perhaps it is just individual journo's that "hate" the Force? And of course those Journo's must be Sydney based.......

Mate as with most things in life the simplest answer is the correct one, the ARU is incompetent and has for many years been support by a sycophantic media brigade more interested in ensuring their ongoing unfettered access to players and coaches than actually performing a real critique of the game away from the obligatory game reviews. They are guilty as are many fans, because the permissive attitudes and continual "trust" given to the ARU and other RUs have allowed the game to reach this current nadir. Perhaps if a greater critique and higher actual performance required of management we would not have reached this impasse.

 

[Dan54]

You sure that the wit and charm of we aussie posters is not overcoming your instinct for what NZ wants?

Could well be what's happening IS, hell I'll be talking funny soon if I not careful!!!!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

How do you make those two new teams competitive?

How do you deal with existing contracts when your ability to pay those contracts drops substantially?

The commercial realities are the biggest problem.



Surely the ARU has a preferred outcome and then outcomes they're willing to settle for.

Clearly no one is happy with the existing Super Rugby format because fans are turning away and teams are haemorrhaging money.

Is it hard to imagine that the preferences the ARU has are as follows:

1. A Trans-Tasman comp (but also realising that is incredibly unlikely to be a reality within the current broadcast deal)
2. Remain at 18 teams but redistribute it into 3 groups of 6.
3. Drop to 15 teams with SA losing two and Aus losing one.

Whilst clearly they could use their veto power to prevent option 3, if it is a case of the competition remaining exactly as is versus the drop to 15 teams then perhaps that is seen as the lesser of two evils.

If nothing at all is done to restructure the competition they might consider the consequences for the five teams collectively to be worse than a more workable competition with one less team.

Hopefully we get at least one year with 3x6 conferences in 2018 and see whether that improves things.

WhatvI'm essentially suggesting is that both the QRU amd NSWRU run two squads each. When a player signs with either province they could be actually signed to the Union. They can then be distributed among the squads. Similar to what already occurs with Brisbane City and Qld Country.

What we'll have is something very similar to the NRC. Which was fairly competitive across the board with a very similar set up.

Either that or we look to invitea few of the Top League's top teams. Allow them to sign whoever they want as a means of being competitive and go from there. Sure it wouldn't be a purely domestic competition but every single game would be in our ideal timezones.

 

[Dan54]

Nearly all US sports function within a conference system, and the Heineken Cup all the teams are drawn into pools....

I actually like the idea of a conference system, but the one we currently have is just dumb.

Yep Slim, not sure we can compare the Heineken Cup, as it is pools rather than conferences, and I could live with that system here as they don't have all the teams from each country in one pool!! Not sure if all the yanks are that pleased with conference system in NFL either (well the ones I have spoken too, which is not many).

 

[Dan54]

Actually quickly thinking about it Pools would be great system, and think I suggested something similar earlier in thread, but got howled down!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Actually quickly thinking about it Pools would be great system, and think I suggested something similar earlier in thread, but got howled down!

It's fairly similar to the concept TOCC has been pushing. A two phased competition. First phase would be purely domestic with the second being international based. Via this method you could actually expand overall participation. We could have an Aus pool, a NZ pool, a SA pool, a Japan pool and a Arg pool.

We could look to include Fiji as per the NRC arrangement, Japan could take the top 6 from the Top League, SA can keep their six and Argentina could use their Compenato structure. A 6th team to fill the final spot in NZ could be somewhat tricky but surely not insurmountable.

First phase would be a straight 10 games against your 'domestic' pool rivals to determine rankings before everyone is split into 5 x 6 'international' pools for the second phase. Teams can then play a straight round of 5 matches. Totaling 15 matches for the season. Unless of course they wish to play another double round of H/A for 20.

From there the top team from each plus the next best team based on points qualify for a 6 team finals series. All up going with the 15 game model it would run no more than 18 weeks.