Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Had a lot of experience in just those matters - chook raffle, sausage sizzle and players pay entrance to the game. Easy.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
A great summary Jamie.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
When do you think that they were doing a good job?
Please provide examples since 2003 of their success stories.
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
Bob Dwyer's views from that article:
"The ARU, a resource poor organisation, needs to be giving more resources to things it doesn't even control, community rugby, and not the resource-intensive arms of Australian rugby that generate its resources in the first place"
Contentious, but at this stage community rugby needs to learn to fund itself if they're not happy giving greater control to the ARU to allow the much-needed centralisation of rugby to occur. Shute Shield has learned this the hard way.
"The ARUs accusation of the Roy Morgan report being fake news is, in actuality, fake news.
Sure their research lead to different figures, but can you really trust that? And what do you mean what facts do I have to support my argument? I didn't like the way they worded their press release and thats all the research I need"
The best bit is where the article suggests that Dwyer thinks the ARU could look to the 1970s for best practice in todays market.
What a flop. Everything he writes and says is littered with logical fallacies and utter self-indulgent nonsense.
"The ARU, a resource poor organisation, needs to be giving more resources to things it doesn't even control, community rugby, and not the resource-intensive arms of Australian rugby that generate its resources in the first place"
Contentious, but at this stage community rugby needs to learn to fund itself if they're not happy giving greater control to the ARU to allow the much-needed centralisation of rugby to occur. Shute Shield has learned this the hard way.
"The ARUs accusation of the Roy Morgan report being fake news is, in actuality, fake news.
Sure their research lead to different figures, but can you really trust that? And what do you mean what facts do I have to support my argument? I didn't like the way they worded their press release and thats all the research I need"
The best bit is where the article suggests that Dwyer thinks the ARU could look to the 1970s for best practice in todays market.
What a flop. Everything he writes and says is littered with logical fallacies and utter self-indulgent nonsense.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I think the nostalgia glasses are on hard in Dwyers article.
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
1. I said Pulver.
2.
a. Implementation of a much needed 3rd tier (NRC) in a fashion that is cost-neutral (see the ARC and the financial shambles that ensued)
b. Pulver taking a self requested ~40% pay cut relative to JON.
c. Pulver negotiating a pay cut for all players with RUPA.
d. The entire ARU staff taking a pay cut (7%).
e. Unfortunately, ~25ish staff being made redundant at the ARU as the organisation was streamlined and made more efficient.
f. The ARU adopting many back-office tasks for the Super franchises which leads to greater margins for all parties.
g. A profit made for the ARU this year.
h. Construction of the Australian Rugby Foundation which has big implications for funds for numerous parts of rugby.
i. Viva 7s and other ways to get different demographics participating in a sport which traditionally has huge barriers to participation.
j. Clearer pathways (look at the annual report) for players and the Super 20s.
k. An emphasis on coaching development and pathways.
l. Increase in broadcasting revenue (although we're seeing the implications of that now).
m. Huge increase in social media presence since Pulver's appointment in 2011/2012.
At the Wallaby level:a. Runners up in the 2015 RWC.
b. Appointment of Mick Byrne as the Wallabies skills coach.
Going into a meeting now but theres been several good improvements and I'll add more to the list later.
I think they are doing some things well and some things poorly. The handling of the current dramas is hopeless.
My take is that people have had problems with the ARU leadership for 20 years and I don't think kicking them all out and starting again is really going to change much.
The NRC is the biggest success story of the ARU whilst Pulver has been CEO.
I think there are massive structural problems in rugby and many of them are hard to address now because of the financial position.
I think the worst period of leadership was the four or five years post the 2003 RWC where we burned through the biggest windfall profits the ARU will ever see from having the Lions Tour and RWC within three seasons and then squandering them with corporate largess and paying huge dollars to sign rugby league players (as well as overpaying many other Wallabies).
T
TOCC
Guest
ARU are also building the Australians rugby Development centre , but I believe it's a missed opportunity for Australian Rugby, and when compared to projects of similar value in the NRL and AFL it falls well short in facilities offered...
Below are some of the features that other professional teams have included, that the ARU doesn't have:
-No hydrotherapy
-No training fields
-No accomodation
-No altitude training
-No pool
It's biggest features as stated by the ARU, included a rooftop sprint track(i.e a 50m length of fake grass) and the indoor gym..
Below are some of the features that other professional teams have included, that the ARU doesn't have:
-No hydrotherapy
-No training fields
-No accomodation
-No altitude training
-No pool
It's biggest features as stated by the ARU, included a rooftop sprint track(i.e a 50m length of fake grass) and the indoor gym..
T
TOCC
Guest
Pulver and the board in some cases are wearing the mistakes of their predecessors, but in other circumstances, the mistakes and errors of judgement have been under their guideance and direction. they have made some positive moves in cost cutting and the NRC and clearer development pathways... however, they have fumbled atrociously in their dealing of the Super Rugby broadcast rights and also failed to deliver value for money in the Australians Rugby Development Centre IMO.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It may or may not suprise you, but I agree with these parts of your post.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Is this even a thing anymore?
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
I know you did.
You do realise that I wasn't responding to your post.
Holy moly Australian rugby and this forum has officially broken me.
I now know how Dismal feels.
Edit: you replied to my post with another and I saw your first post and assumed it was aimed at me. I feel somewhat more sane but the Doctor that's wheeling me down the aisle isn't convinced.
T
TOCC
Guest
It's a standard feature in many high performance training facilities.. it's also used quite extensively for rehab due to it generating more red blood cells to expedite the recovery.
Truly Winter must be upon as, for the folk from the North have proclaimed Ser Bob of House Dwyer as the man to unite the 7 kingdoms.
(For like the first time in forever!)
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
Indeed Ella wears the same pair
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
OK, I don't get it.
I don't get how leaving Super Rugby will make Australian rugby any better - particularly the Wallabies. 5 of the worst teams in Super Rugby this year (and 2-3 of the consistently worst teams in any given year) spreading themselves out even thinner to make 7-8 teams and playing against each other to see who is the best. Will anyone watch that knowing that these same teams will be the pool of talent that the Wallabies are picked from to play England, the ABs, SA Ireland etc?
I know it's probably not easy to admit but Australia doesn't have the depth to support 5 Super Rugby teams - and at least 2 consistently competitive enough to win.
I would get rid of the Rebels. I don't know what added value they have brought to Super Rugby or to Australia. The consistently lose and lose badly and that hurts Australian rugby.
The reason rugby here is struggling is easy - Australian teams don't win enough. Local derbies are popular because there is a 100% chance an Aussie team will win. People say they don't watch their team when they are in SA but I wonder how many Reds or Tah fans were watching when their teams were hot and on their way to winning Super Rugby? How many fans were either getting up to watch at 4am or at least recording the games?
Stop talking about leaving - it will make you weaker. NZ doesn't want to cut SA out because they know that it has been the constant playing away in SA that has helped sharpen and prepare players for higher honours.
If SA agrees to cutting 2 teams then I don't know why Australia shouldn't agree to cutting 1. A better, stronger Super Rugby and SANZAAR competition will make for a better, stronger Australian conference and Wallaby team.
NOT playing the best 'domestic' competition in the world doesn't make for better players. Look at all the players who go and play NH rugby - how many come back better or even as good as they were when they left? You can probably count how many on one-hand no matter if they are Aussie, Kiwi or SA - they come back shit.
Everyone here talks about how well rugby was going back in the 2003 era - that's because you were winning. Scrap a team and build at least 2 really consistently competitive squads that beat NZ and SA teams. That start becoming the base for your Wallaby team that beats the ABs (as much as I LOVE the current dominance over the Wallabies - Australian rugby NEEDS a couple of good wins over us ) and keep building the NRC/Shute Shield/John I Dent etc comps till another Australian team is warranted.
But just get a winning team for now.
I don't get how leaving Super Rugby will make Australian rugby any better - particularly the Wallabies. 5 of the worst teams in Super Rugby this year (and 2-3 of the consistently worst teams in any given year) spreading themselves out even thinner to make 7-8 teams and playing against each other to see who is the best. Will anyone watch that knowing that these same teams will be the pool of talent that the Wallabies are picked from to play England, the ABs, SA Ireland etc?
I know it's probably not easy to admit but Australia doesn't have the depth to support 5 Super Rugby teams - and at least 2 consistently competitive enough to win.
I would get rid of the Rebels. I don't know what added value they have brought to Super Rugby or to Australia. The consistently lose and lose badly and that hurts Australian rugby.
The reason rugby here is struggling is easy - Australian teams don't win enough. Local derbies are popular because there is a 100% chance an Aussie team will win. People say they don't watch their team when they are in SA but I wonder how many Reds or Tah fans were watching when their teams were hot and on their way to winning Super Rugby? How many fans were either getting up to watch at 4am or at least recording the games?
Stop talking about leaving - it will make you weaker. NZ doesn't want to cut SA out because they know that it has been the constant playing away in SA that has helped sharpen and prepare players for higher honours.
If SA agrees to cutting 2 teams then I don't know why Australia shouldn't agree to cutting 1. A better, stronger Super Rugby and SANZAAR competition will make for a better, stronger Australian conference and Wallaby team.
NOT playing the best 'domestic' competition in the world doesn't make for better players. Look at all the players who go and play NH rugby - how many come back better or even as good as they were when they left? You can probably count how many on one-hand no matter if they are Aussie, Kiwi or SA - they come back shit.
Everyone here talks about how well rugby was going back in the 2003 era - that's because you were winning. Scrap a team and build at least 2 really consistently competitive squads that beat NZ and SA teams. That start becoming the base for your Wallaby team that beats the ABs (as much as I LOVE the current dominance over the Wallabies - Australian rugby NEEDS a couple of good wins over us ) and keep building the NRC/Shute Shield/John I Dent etc comps till another Australian team is warranted.
But just get a winning team for now.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Bullrush,
- if we cut a team we won't be getting another one further down the track
- 5 teams isn't just about depth. It's more about having enough 'product' (I hate that term) to keep rugby in the national news. I don't care if we increase our quota of foreign players if that makes a 5th team more competitive.
- I have never got up to watch a Tahs games in SA. I rarely watch a recorded game either.
- if they cut a team we won't get stronger in the 4 other teams because we will lose more players overseas.
- if they cut a team. I will probably walk away from SANZAAR rugby. There are quite a few in Oz who feel the same. I'm over this crap.
- if we cut a team we won't be getting another one further down the track
- 5 teams isn't just about depth. It's more about having enough 'product' (I hate that term) to keep rugby in the national news. I don't care if we increase our quota of foreign players if that makes a 5th team more competitive.
- I have never got up to watch a Tahs games in SA. I rarely watch a recorded game either.
- if they cut a team we won't get stronger in the 4 other teams because we will lose more players overseas.
- if they cut a team. I will probably walk away from SANZAAR rugby. There are quite a few in Oz who feel the same. I'm over this crap.
- Status