Where to for Super Rugby?

[TOCC]

I think New Zealand enjoys playing the South Africans from the perspective of playing a nation which features a unique and renowned physical style, it challenges there teams and help there teams to compete at a real physical level. Australia doesn't offer that, not on a consistent level at least, Australian attempts to replicate New Zealand but we often do it poorly.

What Australia does offer, is a time zone aligned to New Zealand's and strong economic cross-over between the two countries. What Australia doesn't currently offer, is an effective way to leverage that and convert it into a professional competition.

 

[kiap]

I think New Zealand enjoys playing the South Africans from the perspective of playing a nation which features a unique and renowned physical style, it challenges there teams and help there teams to compete at a real physical level.

Yep.

However, move those games to an end of season champions cup. Otherwise the comp remains a disjointed basket case for fans and players alike.

How did the Reds play in Buenos Aires … erm, … crap? They might be a mediocre side but when you add in the number of flying hours and jetlag miles for their boring tour (watched by no one), they went from ordinary to garbage.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Signed.

In all the discussions about culling a coupla teams here or there no mention has been made about the Sunwolves' future. I fail to understand why this artifice was ever included in the first place; surely the architects of the S18 labyrinth were too sensible to be seduced by the temptations of time and money. No? Developing rugby in Japan and other parts of Asia isn't SANZAAR's responsibility, it's the iRB/WR (World Rugby)'s.

I sincerely hope some sort of top-level pro competition involving a Japanese side gets up in the future, possibly including Hong Kong and Singapore, and the AliBaba fella from China. But it's not our job to get this up.

Sorry mate, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this. It would be irresponsible for SANZAAR not to look to cultivate new markets and Japan and by extension Asia offers a huge market that we and NZ in particular are perfectly placed to do so.

I would honestly prefer to see the SARU being allowed to keep their current 6 and add the Jaguares plus a 2nd Argentine squad and play a 14 round Atlantic league while we go with NZ, the Sunwolves plus a 2nd Japanese squad (Wild Knights) and play a 16 round Asia-Pacific league and have the top 4 from each enter a play off series.

We should be looking to embrace Asia. In fact we should be looking to assist in eventually establishing a Asian conference down the track to integrate into Super Rugby.

 

[Twoilms]

^^^
Agree on all of the but the conference part. They need their own league and we all need to interact via Champions League. It's the obvious model. It allows for the intrigue of international club games whilst maintaining a high number of domestic games/derby's.

 

[swingpass]

the ARU of course have a massive conflict of interest in this situation, given the competing priorities of developing Rugby in Australia ( 5 teams please) and funding that development with money from SANZAAR (a viable Super and TRC). i suspect the ARU board see this as a very difficult choice.

in reality, if the priority is to have strong Australian sides in Super, then why not cull two or three, warehouse all the talent and perform better, possibly help with ratings and crowds at the two remaining franchises but do diddly squat for Oz rugby as a whole. if the ARU's priority, and it should be, is to develop Rugby in Australia then Super rugby's woes, whilst important in the sense of revenue raising, are of secondary importance.

as many others have mentioned i'm appalled at the (apparent) lack of balls from the ARU in visibly standing up for rugby in Australia. it would seem the master plan is to let the SARU implode and keep the status quo in Super 18, or 17, or 16 or ?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

the ARU of course have a massive conflict of interest in this situation, given the competing priorities of developing Rugby in Australia ( 5 teams please) and funding that development with money from SANZAAR (a viable Super and TRC). i suspect the ARU board see this as a very difficult choice.

in reality, if the priority is to have strong Australian sides in Super, then why not cull two or three, warehouse all the talent and perform better, possibly help with ratings and crowds at the two remaining franchises but do diddly squat for Oz rugby as a whole. if the ARU's priority, and it should be, is to develop Rugby in Australia then Super rugby's woes, whilst important in the sense of revenue raising, are of secondary importance.

as many others have mentioned i'm appalled at the (apparent) lack of balls from the ARU in visibly standing up for rugby in Australia. it would seem the master plan is to let the SARU implode and keep the status quo in Super 18, or 17, or 16 or ?

Frankly at present I would prefer to see us just take our 5 amd link up with Fiji and run our own thing than deal with this crap anymore. It would take a little bit of creative scheduling but it could work.

 

[stoff]

Australian Rugby Union Funding Melbourne Rebels' Owner To Keep Club Afloat

Published April 1, 2016​

Font Size Resize SmallResize NormalResize Large | Print | Share | ​

The Australian Rugby Union has given the Melbourne Rebels’ private Owner, Andrew Cox, financial support worth more than A$6M ($4.6M) "for five years to stop the bleeding from a club" that has cost the game between A$15M ($11.5M) and $20M ($15.3M) since its inception, according to Wayne Smith of the THE AUSTRALIAN. Because the deal is front-end loaded, it is understood the Rebels are being paid A$2.6M ($2M) for '16, "the initial year of the deal, but that payments are reduced considerably in value over the remaining four years." The other four Australian Super Rugby clubs -- the Waratahs, Brumbies, Queensland Reds and Western Force -- are allocated A$1.7M ($1.3M) a year for the five-year term of December’s A$285M ($218.5M) broadcast agreement with Fox and Ten, rising by A$50,000 ($38,337) a year. The Rebels "also receive any additional money the ARU periodically gives the clubs," such as the A$50,000 they each received to help with marketing. While the Rebels might receive an additional A$900,000 ($690,000) from the ARU in the initial year of the arrangement, "the deal peters out so dramatically that in year five," the Melbourne club will receive only A$100,000 ($76,675). The benefit for the ARU is that "it is now not faced with propping up a club that, on average, was losing" $3.5M ($2.7M) a season. Cox has "insisted the deal with the ARU was entirely proper and transparent." ARU CEO Bill Pulver said that it was in the ARU's interest for "Cox to succeed and prove that private ownership worked in Australia." Pulver: "The funding arrangement expires after five years and Cox will get what every other Super Rugby club gets. But we chose to go with him because he has a proven record of turning distressed businesses around. We desperately want him to be a success. He can become a role model for other entrepreneurs" (THE AUSTRALIAN,





There is the whole arcticle i put the link for. Where is the figure of $8.5 million from? The article quite clearly states the Rebels will receive an additional $6million on top of what the clubs receive from the broadcast deal. Even acounting for the proposed $50 000 a year increase, of which the Rebels will also receive that is still only $200 000.
Are you on drugs or is english not your first language?

I believe playing the man is against the rules here.

The article says the other four clubs are allocated $1.7m for five years. 5 times 1.7 is 8.5. As it states the other four clubs it is safe to assume that the Rebels don't get this. They get their $6m instead. There is the maths and the reading comprehension explained for you. I don't follow your maths on the $200k. Could you please explain it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stoff]

What am i missing? Each club gets $1.7 million a year from the broadcast deal plus the Rebels get an extra $6 million over the first 5 years of the sale deal. No where does it state the other franchises receive $8.5 million more than the Rebels over the next 5 years. Are you saying the Rebels receive no money from the ARU broadcast deal?

Actually, you may need to re-read some of my other posts as well. I never said $8.5m more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NTT]

I believe playing the man is against the rules here.

The article says the other four clubs are allocated $1.7m for five years. 5 times 1.7 is 8.5. As it states the other four clubs it is safe to assume that the Rebels don't get this. They get their $6m instead. There is the maths and the reading comprehension explained for you. I don't follow your maths on the $200k. Could you please explain it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are still assuming that the Rebels do not get their share of the broadcast revenue which is false. The two deals are separated. The $6million you claim the ARU is lowballing the Rebels is tv revenue. It is not. It is for administrative support to offset losses that may be incurred. The $8.5 million is the other clubs share of tv revenue and does not include extra administrative funding like is allocated to the Rebels.
Whatever the figures say, there is a distinction between the two fundings that is confusing you.

 

[NTT]

Actually, you may need to re-read some of my other posts as well. I never said $8.5m more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your central argument is the Rebels are disadvantaged by funding from the ARU. This is completely false.

 

[NTT]

So is Pandaram going to share any other "top secret ARU documents" about the ARUs contingency planning around Super Rugby. It has been reported that the ARU has several plans ready to take to SANZAAR or is the Force the only one that gets them the facebook likes they are chasing?

 

[Braveheart81]

So is Pandaram going to share any other "top secret ARU documents" about the ARUs contingency planning around Super Rugby. It has been reported that the ARU has several plans ready to take to SANZAAR or is the Force the only one that gets them the facebook likes they are chasing?

If he had other similar documents he would clearly be doing a disservice by not writing about them.

I find the concept that a journalist should sit on material like this that they are satisfied came from a reliable source to be pretty confounding.

I get that you are upset with everything that is going on, but shooting the messenger seems to be pretty misguided.

 

[stoff]

In no way, shape or form has the Rebels ever been disadvantaged by receiving less money than the other franchises. The figure they have received extra that no other team has is the Rebels have needed $13 million in extra funding to stay viable. To now run a narrative of poor us we are so disadvantaged is completely misleading and total garbage. No other club has received anywhere near that sort of sum and the fact that the ARU has had to add a $6 million sweetener for administrative cost funding to ofset short term losses just to sell the franchise is ridiculous.
All of the clubs receive an equal share of the broadcast revenue. All of the clubs until the sale of the Rebels received the same total grant to run administration. To twist the two different revenues into one of such falsity and victimization is wrong and absolutely untrue. To say and repeat that the Rebels will receive less revenue than the other clubs from tv money is wrong.

If you had said to me the Rebels will receive less money than the other franchises for administrative support funding over the next 5 years, as is actually the case i thought you would have made, i would have agreed with that seeing as it is now a private business set up and run how the investor wants, with investor money. There is a distinction between the two types of funding that has been blurred and needs to be correctly represented.

Assume this is still directed at me. You have inferred a hell of a lot into what I said. All I ever sought to do was clarify actual numbers around the Rebels as there were some pretty wild interpretations flying around. Based on your last paragraph, I think we are on the same page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Snout]

So what's the feeling in SA these days with the fans ? I mean they are screwing around deciding if they will cut 2 teams, are the fans there up in arms ? Or are they a bit over Super Rugby as well with teams disappearing for weeks.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^^^
Agree on all of the but the conference part. They need their own league and we all need to interact via Champions League. It's the obvious model. It allows for the intrigue of international club games whilst maintaining a high number of domestic games/derby's.

That would work as well.

 

[Rebels3]

Assume this is still directed at me. You have inferred a hell of a lot into what I said. All I ever sought to do was clarify actual numbers around the Rebels as there were some pretty wild interpretations flying around. Based on your last paragraph, I think we are on the same page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6mil for 5 years. 2.6mil upfront that leaves 3.4 mil for the remaining years. Ok that's easy. Then according to the article it once again clearly states the other clubs are over the same period getting 1.7mil a year (1.7 x 5 = 8.5).


Because the deal is front-end loaded, it is understood the Rebels are being paid A$2.6M ($2M) for '16, "the initial year of the deal, but that payments are reduced considerably in value over the remaining four years." The other four Australian Super Rugby clubs -- the Waratahs, Brumbies, Queensland Reds and Western Force -- are allocated A$1.7M ($1.3M) a year for the five-year term of December’s

The reason the Rebels would accept less money is because getting more upfront could help reduce costs of other facets that were sucking cash up. eg loans. Remember the golden rule of business - a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow

While the Rebels might receive an additional A$900,000 ($690,000) from the ARU in the initial year of the arrangement, "the deal peters out so dramatically that in year five,

2.6 - 1.7 = 0.9

 

[NTT]

Assume this is still directed at me. You have inferred a hell of a lot into what I said. All I ever sought to do was clarify actual numbers around the Rebels as there were some pretty wild interpretations flying around. Based on your last paragraph, I think we are on the same page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Mr Cox aquired the Rebels he took over the funding to the administrative costs of the Rebels. Each club receives $1.7 million a year for administrative funding from the ARU. It is now Mr Coxes obligation to fund this $1.7 million a year. Mr Cox also, as part of the sale deal would receive $6 million over 5 years to offset restructuring and potential losses. So over the next 5 years, Mr Cox contributes (ill say $8.5million as its the common amount provided to all) $8.5 million and the ARU contributes $6 million for a total of $14.5 million towards administration. Thats an average of just under $3 million a year for the Rebels administrative funding. The other franchises still under the original funding agreement receive $1.7 million a year.
There is still an advantage to the Rebels in administrative funding over the next 5 years.

Salary cap of $5 million is still funded to each club by the ARU.
ARU still provides equal funding for marketing to all clubs as stated in the articles.
Wallaby top ups are still provided by the ARU.
All of these 3 fundings come from the broadcast agreement.

The only thing i inferred from your statement is the Rebels are disadvantaged by ARU funding. This is clearly not the case. I just did not present it coherently.

 

[Braveheart81]

 

[NTT]

Thats my last response to the funding argument. We should be pulling together for the future of Australian Rugby in all states of Australia not splintering and turning on each other (unless its Sydney, they can still get stuffed).
Everyone wants the 5 franchises to survive as growing rugby as a national sport, with equal opportunities for all aspiring players and participants, is what is right.
I might continue on a silly anti Waratahs dialogue but i want them to survive and flourish as much as i want my beloved Force to survive and flourish.
I accept criticism and derision for my views on the Sydney media led anti Force "conspiracy" and was even called crazy for saying there was a vested agenda behind it and it would be far fetched to suggest the ARU is in on it. Thanks to Mr Pandarams 3 articles this week on "top secret ARU" documents i feel validated that there is a move by the ARU to work towards culling the Force, no matter how incompetent and disorganized some have suggested they are.
That an ARU board member, who just happens to be from WA, is not aware of or privy to the "top secret document" raises more questions and points to a secret agenda by some ARU board members to act in a selfish way.
All we want in WA is an equal and fair opportunity to grow and develop our players to contribute to a stronger Australian rugby player pool. The programs are in place, the WA government supports it, private donors sustain our academy program and the WA community supports it. We have never had that equal and fair opportunity over the 120 year history of WA rugby and when we do get the opportunity and are starting to make it really work, it is going to be taken from us through secret back room deals by the same interests who have always placed the needs of their own state ahead of the needs of national growth.

 

[NTT]

Nawwww, whats wrong? Feeling left out because no one gives your contributions any acknowledgement?