Where to for Super Rugby?

[amirite]

Has anyone heard a reason why the Sunwolves have been largely excluded from this whole debate?

I imagine it's a TV revenue thing, no? I'd love to know just how lucrative they are. It must be, to use a scientific term, 'fucking lucrative'.
.

If we're being forced to cut a team, while the Sunwolves get to stay for purely financial reasons, I hope the ARU are pushing like hell for some extra kind of compensation. We'll sure need the cash considering the almost inevitable legal action from the cut franchise.

We're not being forced to cut a team, the ARU actually WANT to cut a team. For financial reasons like you say. Whereas the Sunwolves are on someone else's dime.

If/when they get their selection/preseason process right (they would need to change the dates for the top league), they should become competitive. That could be next year, that could be in 5 years, or that could be never.

Sunwolves are not being kept at the expense of an Aussie side. It's two separate discussions.

 

[Omar Comin']

Yet after many many years it has not. It is quite telling. It is not as if your average Australian doesn't like this game. He/she/it dislikes it.

I think the ceiling is much lower here in Aus that you think.

There's never been a professional rugby structure in Australia that suits this country, while all the competing codes use a model that does. They all have competitions built around tribalism, geographic reach and a high amount of local content where multiple Australian teams make the finals each year and one of them wins.

To say the ceiling is low here isn't accurate IMO, there is a lot of latent or casual support that the ARU has just never been able to turn into more regular support. The 2003 Rugby World Cup final remains one of the highest rating events in Australian television history, no rugby league or aussie rules game has ever rated higher. The 2011 world cup final is still THE highest rating event in Fox Sports history (and this was simulcast on FTA). That broke the record previously held by the Reds vs Crusaders grand final the same year.

So the ceiling is high, rugby has just never been able to get beyond being a bandwagon sport because it's structured to be a bandwagon sport. Most people don't hate rugby they're just indifferent. And those that do dislike it primarily dislike the perceived snobbishness and private school boy image the sport still has in this country.

 

[Twoilms]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/a...e/news-story/4a26b5922883039a217b751c88c6962b

THE ARU has opted to give the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force more time to mount their cases for Super Rugby survival beyond 2017.

“The ARU will undertake due process to ensure that both the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force are given adequate opportunity to present their business case before the Board makes a final decision on which team to be removed,” Clyne said in a statement on Tuesday.

“We maintain our commitment to reaching resolution on this matter as soon as possible, however the timeline that we initially anticipated of 48-72 hours will not apply.

They should both forgo participation in the 'process' to kick off individual civil claims against the ARU. A legal challenge is a safer bet than putting your life in the hands of the fucking ARU board.

 

[Twoilms]

So the ceiling is high, rugby has just never been able to get beyond being a bandwagon sport because it's structured to be a bandwagon sport. Most people don't hate rugby they're just indifferent. And those that do dislike it primarily dislike the perceived snobbishness and private school boy image the sport still has in this country.

The ARU have done a lot to maintain the 'snobbish' image of the sport in this country, to the point were people are right to deride it on that basis.

We can't even engage all of Sydney, let alone effectively engage rural communities, indigenous communities, islander communities, etc.

 

[The Snout]

Australia doesn't need to go into a Trans Tasman comp with a partner which is blackmailed or bought there kicking and screaming.

If it isn't the #1 choice for both parties then it wouldn't be a workable relationship long term.

New Zealand is a pretty small place. Much better to offer $100K for the lot and turn it into a Federal Australian territory. From there we can have our national comp.

 

[The torpedo]

So our master plan is:

1, Win Bledisloe
2, ..
3, Profit!

Excellent! That'll learn our Kiwi brothers

Only semi-seriously: it would be funny as hell to win the Bleddy back and then say "Yeah thanx fullahs we're off..". We're probably never winning back the trophy so that cunning plan will probably never eventuate. Bugger.

We need to send over a sleeper agent.

I have the perfect candidate:

 

[Melchior]

Australia doesn't need to go into a Trans Tasman comp with a partner which is blackmailed or bought there kicking and screaming.

If it isn't the #1 choice for both parties then it wouldn't be a workable relationship long term.

New Zealand is a pretty small place. Much better to offer $100K for the lot and turn it into a Federal Australian territory. From there we can have our national comp.

well the constitution still gives NZ the ability to join if they vote so they should keep the $100k in their pocket.

I only want the south island though. The north is poo.

 

[Jon]

Of all the ludicrous hypotheticals posed in this thread, Jon, us 'having the Bledisloe' is easily the most far-fetched

it's funny cos it's true

 

[lou75]

ARU give Western Force and Melbourne Rebels time to mount Super Rugby survival case -

I am not surprised that the incompetent ARU would think the Force would roll over like a sick puppy, shake hands with smarmy Rob Clarke and Todd Day and brush the dust off their shoes and go home. I guess Pulver just got mugged by reality now that he has to face legal challenges and his old boy network can't just cover up his stupidity anymore.

 

[blues recovery]

They should both forgo participation in the 'process' to kick off individual civil claims against the ARU. A legal challenge is a safer bet than putting your life in the hands of the fucking ARU board.

Ok so now the future direction of Australian Rugby will be decided by which legal action will cost the ARU the least .
Seriously you couldn't make this stuff up . Clowns in suits

 

[Rebels3]

RE: barbarian, I see some of your point, but I think the reality is just different.

Some NZ fans will argue they value the SA rivalry more; the reality is that it is not valued more than the Aus game.

The Wallabies game consistently rates higher than the Boks game in NZ, and the attendances are stronger too. The fans that value it more are in the minority.

We have a tough choice: go it with South Africa, controlled by a black supremacist government, and watch our code die a slow and painful death, or ride out and get some balls. The Bledisloe Cup is invaluable to the NZRU, SkySports and other related vendors.

We propose that South Africa be given a chance to play the champions or something like that, in a game with actual interest.

The other thing to note is that Australian Super Rugby teams are much more valuable to NZ - a NZ team playing in AUS receives pareto SUPERIOR ratings to that of an NZ team playing in SA. I believe the SA games only get ~20,000 people, possibly less watching (this was in the heyday of 2011). By comparison I believe Aus games rate in the vicinity of ~120,000. I believe (but have no figures on me atm) that the attendances are also stronger.

NZ has much more to lose from Australia than South Africa. Jam them. Stop being nice to Steve Tew (who has treated us like pure shit, and is a nasty man), and come ready to negotiate and stomp on their heads.

My family is of a Kiwi background, infact i am the only Aussie in my direct family. What i have dound is that you'll find the rivalry between NZ and Aus & NZ and SAF is split these days. The younger generations lean more towards the AUS v NZ rivalry as they have grown up being bombarded with trans-tasman clashes on TV in a variety of sports. The older generations still definitely perceive the NZ v Boks rivalry as the yard stick. Overall the NZ v Boks reigns supreme still but it isn't the be all end all that it used to be. Perhaps a resurgence in either Aus or Bok fortunes will see the other move forward in preference.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Someone wondered aloud earlier why the broadcasters would be willing to pay the same money for less content. By my reckoning the current content split is:

SA 45 matches
Australia 38 or 37
NZ 37 or 38
Argentina 8 or 7
Japan 7 or 8, less those played in Singapore

Under the new model it'll be:

NZ 40
SA 32
Aus 32
Arg 8
Jap 8 less those played in Singapore

So really it's mostly the SA broadcaster losing content & as I understand it they're the one most affected by shithouse ratings & falling subs. So from their POV they're losing a bunch of games that were always going to struggle for viewers but for which now won't incur any broadcast costs. Clearly they think it's an acceptable trade-off, as do Fox in respect of the five or six fewer games they get.

Sky NZ's boss said this morning they're comfortable with the new model & dont expect it to hurt their viewer numbers, subs, etc. Looking at the numbers above, I can see why he'd say that.

 

[RedsHappy]

ARU give Western Force and Melbourne Rebels time to mount Super Rugby survival case -

I am not surprised that the incompetent ARU would think the Force would roll over like a sick puppy, shake hands with smarmy Rob Clarke and Todd Day and brush the dust off their shoes and go home. I guess Pulver just got mugged by reality now that he has to face legal challenges and his old boy network can't just cover up his stupidity anymore.

The ARU has had no less than _8 months_ to think this entire process through - after all they up-front volunteered to SANZAAR a desire to cull one Aus Super franchise*.

They could thus, with all leisure, consider and carefully assess every nuance and possible eventuality arising from this requested culling commercially, HR-wise, legally, 'due process' etc etc.

So they solemnly declare on Monday just gone a '72 hour due process of review' so's to decide which of 2 Aus Super teams to cull. (This is after heavy prior leaks to journos in News Corp that the Force would be dispensed with*.)

Then within one day, and the threat of legal action, their 'definitive and fast due process' as it was called by the ARU Chairman is radically altered to an 'open' due process that may take weeks of presentations and review to reach a point of ARU decision.

This is beyond any kind of joke, it's wildly unprofessional and lacking in any form of proper competency and consideration given the huge sensitivity of the issue at hand for all the persons humanly affected wrt to job security, families and so on, and equally for the legitimate interests of the entire Australian rugby community.

*Another extraordinary revelation in this process is this: in the last 24 hours it's been openly communicated that (a) the ARU recommended the culling of a Super franchise as part of the latest SANZAAR review that commenced in August 2016 and yet remarkably (b) RugbyWA has disclosed that the infamous ARU-RugbyWA 'Alliance Agreement' legally guaranteed the Force's existence through 2020 and this document was signed in, wait for it, August 2016 and then (c) it's obvious that the ARU has been leaking from March 2017 to News Corp journos that it would definitely be the Force culled in 2017.

These are the people directly in charge of the fate of rugby in Australia.

 

[The torpedo]

These are the people directly in charge of the fate of rugby in Australia.

Well hopefully they all do the honourable thing and resign

 

[Tex]

The ARU has had no less than _8 months_ to think this entire process through - after all they up-front volunteered to SANZAAR a desire to cull one Aus Super franchise*.

They could thus, with all leisure, consider and carefully assess every nuance and possible eventuality arising from this requested culling commercially, HR-wise, legally, 'due process' etc etc.

So they solemnly declare on Monday just gone a '72 hour due process of review' so's to decide which of 2 Aus Super teams to cull. (This is after heavy prior leaks to journos in News Corp that the Force would be dispensed with*.)

Then within one day, and the threat of legal action, their 'definitive and fast due process' as it was called by the ARU Chairman is radically altered to an 'open' due process that may take weeks of presentations and review to reach a point of ARU decision.

This is beyond any kind of joke, it's wildly unprofessional and lacking in any form of proper competency and consideration given the huge sensitivity of the issue at hand for all the persons humanly affected wrt to job security, families and so on, and equally for the legitimate interests of the entire Australian rugby community.

*Another extraordinary revelation in this process is this: in the last 24 hours it's been openly communicated that (a) the ARU recommended the culling of a Super franchise as part of the latest SANZAAR review that commenced in August 2016 and yet remarkably (b) RugbyWA has disclosed that the infamous ARU-RugbyWA 'Alliance Agreement' legally guaranteed the Force's existence through 2020 and this document was signed in, wait for it, August 2016 and then (c) it's obvious that the ARU has been leaking from March 2017 to News Corp journos that it would definitely be the Force culled in 2017.

These are the people directly in charge of the fate of rugby in Australia.

Infuriating.

 

[TOCC]

So ARU sets 72hr deadline, and less then 24hrs later they scrap said deadline...

Pretty much sums up the level of ineptitude that has been rampant through this whole debacle.

 

[TOCC]

Someone wondered aloud earlier why the broadcasters would be willing to pay the same money for less content. By my reckoning the current content split is:

SA 45 matches
Australia 38 or 37
NZ 37 or 38
Argentina 8 or 7
Japan 7 or 8, less those played in Singapore

Under the new model it'll be:

NZ 40
SA 32
Aus 32
Arg 8
Jap 8 less those played in Singapore

So really it's mostly the SA broadcaster losing content & as I understand it they're the one most affected by shithouse ratings & falling subs. So from their POV they're losing a bunch of games that were always going to struggle for viewers but for which now won't incur any broadcast costs. Clearly they think it's an acceptable trade-off, as do Fox in respect of the five or six fewer games they get.

Sky NZ's boss said this morning they're comfortable with the new model & dont expect it to hurt their viewer numbers, subs, etc. Looking at the numbers above, I can see why he'd say that.

Foxtel said they wanted to retain 5 teams, that was their preference

 

[Lee Grant]

ARU give Western Force and Melbourne Rebels time to mount Super Rugby survival case -

I am not surprised that the incompetent ARU would think the Force would roll over like a sick puppy, shake hands with smarmy Rob Clarke and Todd Day and brush the dust off their shoes and go home. I guess Pulver just got mugged by reality now that he has to face legal challenges and his old boy network can't just cover up his stupidity anymore.

As mentioned in a couple of other threads - just in case it is missed.

Interesting radio interview this morning between the President of Rugby WA Hans Sauer and Alan Jones, a shock-jock for 2GB Sydney (and ex-Wallabies' coach) - sent to me by Yeatsey.

​

http://www.2gb.com/podcast/hans-sauer/​

Give it a click.

Whoa - can't reformat the above properly but it probably makes sense
.

 

[Tex]

As mentioned in a couple of other threads - just in case it is missed.


.

For those at work Lee, could you summarise the key points?

 

[Quick Hands]

The ARU has had no less than _8 months_ to think this entire process through - after all they up-front volunteered to SANZAAR a desire to cull one Aus Super franchise*.

They could thus, with all leisure, consider and carefully assess every nuance and possible eventuality arising from this requested culling commercially, HR-wise, legally, 'due process' etc etc.

So they solemnly declare on Monday just gone a '72 hour due process of review' so's to decide which of 2 Aus Super teams to cull. (This is after heavy prior leaks to journos in News Corp that the Force would be dispensed with*.)

Then within one day, and the threat of legal action, their 'definitive and fast due process' as it was called by the ARU Chairman is radically altered to an 'open' due process that may take weeks of presentations and review to reach a point of ARU decision.

This is beyond any kind of joke, it's wildly unprofessional and lacking in any form of proper competency and consideration given the huge sensitivity of the issue at hand for all the persons humanly affected wrt to job security, families and so on, and equally for the legitimate interests of the entire Australian rugby community.

*Another extraordinary revelation in this process is this: in the last 24 hours it's been openly communicated that (a) the ARU recommended the culling of a Super franchise as part of the latest SANZAAR review that commenced in August 2016 and yet remarkably (b) RugbyWA has disclosed that the infamous ARU-RugbyWA 'Alliance Agreement' legally guaranteed the Force's existence through 2020 and this document was signed in, wait for it, August 2016 and then (c) it's obvious that the ARU has been leaking from March 2017 to News Corp journos that it would definitely be the Force culled in 2017.

These are the people directly in charge of the fate of rugby in Australia.

Assuming that the ARU are being truthful, it would seem that some parts of the ARU have been working in the opposite direction to other parts.

Don't these people sit in the same office? Do they actually meet each other to discuss strategy? Is the CEO actually incontrol or are people running separate agenda?

It would seem that the ARU have bound themselves to legally binding agreements, at least some of which are mutually exclusive.