Where to for Super Rugby?

[waiopehu oldboy]

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

So they lose five or six games that cost money to broadcast but which rate poorly therefore likely break even at best. Of course they'd say they wanted Australia to keep five teams but even a cursory look at the "TV Ratings" thread tells us they're probably not too upset with the outcome.

 

[Twoilms]

So they lose five or six games that cost money to broadcast but which rate poorly therefore likely break even at best. Of course they'd say they wanted Australia to keep five teams but even a cursory look at the "TV Ratings" thread tells us they're probably not too upset with the outcome.

There is no possible way you could substantiate that claim. Not to attack you or anything, but how could you compare the values of the cost of broadcasting 6 games versus the income from the 6 games without the figures in front of you? Or perhaps more to the point, without the historical figures before you to make a future estimate?

 

[RedsHappy]

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


.

That was an impressive, calm and highly articulate defence of the Force's 'keep us' case by its President Sauer.

Whatever one's views on this matter, it's very well worth listening to.

 

[Tex]

That was an impressive, calm and highly articulate defence of the Force's 'keep us' case by its President Sauer.

Whatever one's views on this matter, it's very well worth listening to.

I haven't listened yet, but I despair about the radio silence from Rebels HQ. I get that the behind the scene's discussions are where this will be decided, but it's another way of screwing the fans who are looking for leadership and a bit of comfort.

 

[RedsHappy]

I haven't listened yet, but I despair about the radio silence from Rebels HQ. I get that the behind the scene's discussions are where this will be decided, but it's another way of screwing the fans who are looking for leadership and a bit of comfort.

Mate don't forget Cox said he was assured some weeks ago by a 'senior ARU person' that the Rebels were safe in this culling process.

He's thus stated that he reacted with absolute shock when on Monday Clyne announced the 'fast due process' evaluation with both the Rebels and the Force involved prior to the ARU deciding in 72 hours which franchise would be culled.

Would he say that the ARU had prior assured him of the Rebels continuity if it was a bare-faced lie? I doubt it.

 

[TOCC]

So they lose five or six games that cost money to broadcast but which rate poorly therefore likely break even at best. Of course they'd say they wanted Australia to keep five teams but even a cursory look at the "TV Ratings" thread tells us they're probably not too upset with the outcome.

No.. Foxtel wanted to retain 5 Oz teams

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

As much as I hate this process I have to say with the Force being my 2nd team I'd rather we keep them in place than the Rebels. Nothing against Melbourne. Just going with my allegiances here.

What I wonder is, would it be possible fpr the ARU to divert some of the savings made from cutting the Rebels toward perhaps funding a Melbourne side in one of the major club competition? Say the Vic U20s as a means of maintaining the pathway.

I understand losing the franchise would be a bitter pill to swallow but I still think it's important to provide defined pathways fpr young guys to make it in the game.

 

[Omar Comin']

As much as I hate this process I have to say with the Force being my 2nd team I'd rather we keep them in place than the Rebels. Nothing against Melbourne. Just going with my allegiances here.

What I wonder is, would it be possible fpr the ARU to divert some of the savings made from cutting the Rebels toward perhaps funding a Melbourne side in one of the major club competition? Say the Vic U20s as a means of maintaining the pathway.

I understand losing the franchise would be a bitter pill to swallow but I still think it's important to provide defined pathways fpr young guys to make it in the game.

I posted in the NRC section yesterday about potentially turning the NRC into an all season competition held over 20+ weeks both during and after Super Rugby. Then you could keep the cut team in at least a reasonable competition and work on building the NRC into something decent.

With only 4 teams there won't be as many regular super rugby players coming into the NRC after the end of the Super Rugby season so that wouldn't be too disruptive. The best current club players would get to participate in a higher level all season and guys contracted to Super Rugby but who don't usually make the 23 would get a lot more game time at a good standard.

 

[amirite]

I posted in the NRC section yesterday about potentially turning the NRC into an all season competition held over 20+ weeks both during and after Super Rugby. Then you could keep the cut team in at least a reasonable competition and work on building the NRC into something decent.

With only 4 teams there won't be as many regular super rugby players coming into the NRC after the end of the Super Rugby season so that wouldn't be too disruptive. The best current club players would get to participate in a higher level all season and guys contracted to Super Rugby but who don't usually make the 23 would get a lot more game time at a good standard.

Fark, and people think the current NRC has killed club football.

 

[Dominic Stovold]

Interesting.....

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

 

[chibimatty]

I actually think that with the Force cut, there will probably be no Perth Spirit in the NRC either, it might be a bit like the old NSL in soccer, where Perth was considered too far to travel for this level of competition. What we did then was join the Singapore League, I actually reckon we should do a similar thing here and have RWA sound out Japan about Top-League entry.

 

[BLR]

I actually reckon we should do a similar thing here and have RWA sound out Japan about Top-League entry.

And then expand through Asia, through Kokoda, starting with a side in Darwin until the ARU are forced to creat a 'Brisbane Line' of sorts.

 

[chibimatty]

We can have 2 rival offices in Darwin, just the ARL/Super League war days.

I keep hearing all this talk of how New Zealand would rather play South African teams and shot down a Trans-Tasman competition etc, (a trans-tasman competition I'm not actually for anyway.) So let's go from the not-so-sublime to the ridiculous. Let NZ and South Africa have that competition, less redundant local derbies and no arguments about travel disadvantages.

The other three Super Rugby countries, with the largest economies, go their own way in a Pan-Pacific competition. Australia's five teams survive, maybe Western Sydney gets a look in too, Japan brings in it's two biggest sporting franchises, the Yomiuri Giants and the Hanshin Tigers, to create the "Tokyo Giants Rugby" and "Kansai Tigers Rugby" plus a team in the Yakuza rugby heartland called the "Kyushu Gangsters." Argentina brings along it's Buenos Aires Jaguares, Los Tucumanos del Noroeste and Los Gauchos de las Pampas. We all get jet-lag and have a magnificent party. Later on we bring in Uruguay, Chile, Hong Kong, Hawaii and conquer the world.

etc...

 

[moa999]

I actually think that with the Force cut, there will probably be no Perth Spirit in the NRC either, it might be a bit like the old NSL in soccer, where Perth was considered too far to travel for this level of competition. What we did then was join the Singapore League, I actually reckon we should do a similar thing here and have RWA sound out Japan about Top-League entry.

Because Japan is so much closer to Perth.

 

[KOB1987]

What happens if/when the SARU come out and say they've had a rethink and they aren't going to cut 2 teams anymore?

 

[chibimatty]

Because Japan is so much closer to Perth.

Well it's in the same time zone. Of course, we could just sit here and do nothing.

 

[Leo86]

Because Japan is so much closer to Perth.

ARU think its part of Australia...

 

[Quick Hands]

Having a COO would seem an admission of the inadequacies of the CEO.

The sheer depth and breadth of the incompetence is actually sending me dizzy - and we are only talking about one issue (super rugby). The same brand of organisational incompetence extends the length and breadth of the game.

I don't think that I can adequately express it all, but here goes:

1. they admit a 5th team, knowing that it's unsustainable
2. They institute the ARC - knowing that it's also unsustainable
3. They go along with the Super 18 concept even though they are given two separate reports saying that it will be a disaster for Australian rugby
4. Despite apparently "looking for an excuse" to revert to 4 teams, they don't do so during the S18 implementation process
5. They trumpet the S18 as being a triumph for the ARU, in particular the negotiating skills of BP and state that it will be the saviour of Australian rugby
6. The costs of implementing S18 almost chew up all of the increased broadcast revenue
7. In July 2015 they get a private owner to take control of the Rebels, but seemingly retain extensive liabilities
8. In Feb 2016 they effectively take over the Force and enter into a legally binding alliance with RWA
9. Points 7 and 8 both seem to contain binding agreements for the Force and the Rebels to stay in Super rugby unitl 2020?
10. They go to the London meeting publicly stating that the want to retain 5 teams
11. They now say that they really went there with a proposal to cut one team and go to four
12. After at least 8 months warning of a possible restructure they have no objective criteria on which to base the extinction of either the Force or the Rebels
13. They announce a farcial 72 hour consultation period, but are forced to back track after RWA file a Supreme Court injunction
14. This process could go on for "weeks or months"
15. Still no objective criteria on which to base the decision announced.

Have I missed anything?

 

[Leo86]

What happens if/when the SARU come out and say they've had a rethink and they aren't going to cut 2 teams anymore?

Relief would be felt

SARU would gain respect, even though it would be for their own reasons id have to think they care more for rugby in Aus then the ARU.

ARU will hide when really they should put clubs on notice and say they have to 2020 to sort it out, hopefully with ARU doing their jobs and assisting not sabotaging

 

[chibimatty]

Just one little enquiry to that, was it the NRC that is unsustainable or the old ARC that was unsustainable?

Having a COO would seem an admission of the inadequacies of the CEO.

The sheer depth and breadth of the incompetence is actually sending me dizzy - and we are only talking about one issue (super rugby). The same brand of organisational incompetence extends the length and breadth of the game.

I don't think that I can adequately express it all, but here goes:

1. they admit a 5th team, knowing that it's unsustainable
2. They institute the NRC - knowing that it's also unsustainable
3. They go along with the Super 18 concept even though they are given two separate reports saying that it will be a disaster for Australian rugby
4. Despite apparently "looking for an excuse" to revert to 4 teams, they don't do so during the S18 implementation process
5. They trumpet the S18 as being a triumph for the ARU, in particular the negotiating skills of BP and state that it will be the saviour of Australian rugby
6. The costs of implementing S18 almost chew up all of the increased broadcast revenue
7. In July 2015 they get a private owner to take control of the Rebels, but seemingly retain extensive liabilities
8. In Feb 2016 they effectively take over the Force and enter into a legally binding alliance with RWA
9. Points 7 and 8 both seem to contain binding agreements for the Force and the Rebels to stay in Super rugby unitl 2020?
10. They go to the London meeting publicly stating that the want to retain 5 teams
11. They now say that they really went there with a proposal to cut one team and go to four
12. After at least 8 months warning of a possible restructure they have no objective criteria on which to base the extinction of either the Force or the Rebels
13. They announce a farcial 72 hour consultation period, but are forced to back track after RWA file a Supreme Court injunction
14. This process could go on for "weeks or months"
15. Still no objective criteria on which to base the decision announced.

Have I missed anything?