swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
or at least "just a very naughty boy"
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think you need to familiarise yourself with the English club academy system before attributing their strength to "private" schools and university connections.
A typical story (from the billets we've hosted): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsore...880796/how-do-you-get-into-rugby-academy.html
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Perhaps, but I see it's absence as a major factor in the current position in which we find ourselves.
Poidevinfan
Bob McCowan (2)
Hi thanks for the welcome after my first post.
1) I noted that other people also chimed in that maybe a Rebels / Brumbies solution was the answer. I have been debating the advantages of a merger vs a takeover.
With a merger if the ARU does it right there is a chance they can give a percentage ownership to Cox and avoid buying him out (Legalities would need to be looked into).
With the takeover the Brumbies would vastly prefer this but Cox would ask an exorbitant sum of money for the buy out. Forcing the matter to court and letting a mediator settle an amount may be better for the ARU.
2) I was wondering about that London meeting. Someone must have asked "Why not go the whole hog and go back to Super 12?"
What we have next year is effectively a Super 12 again plus three expansion teams. One from Australia, one from Japan, one from Argentina.
You can argue that the Force and Rebels are not expansion teams given their history and longevity. But given their winning records and raison d'etre they are basically there to grow the game and as such are expansion teams as well.
Perhaps, and no rotten tomatoes thrown at me here, the ARU did ok by retaining one expansion team amidst a desire to cut back drastically. Remember that SA are cutting back two teams at the same time.
3) There is hardly any reason at all to keep the Japanese team. It will take another generation of players before they contend in the playoffs for the Super Rugby championship. This appears to be a very "christian" move (speaking of Easter) to help improve their game by 5% so that they put in a half way decent showing at the world cup. Look for them to get the heave ho after the world cup if they are still dogging it.
1) I noted that other people also chimed in that maybe a Rebels / Brumbies solution was the answer. I have been debating the advantages of a merger vs a takeover.
With a merger if the ARU does it right there is a chance they can give a percentage ownership to Cox and avoid buying him out (Legalities would need to be looked into).
With the takeover the Brumbies would vastly prefer this but Cox would ask an exorbitant sum of money for the buy out. Forcing the matter to court and letting a mediator settle an amount may be better for the ARU.
2) I was wondering about that London meeting. Someone must have asked "Why not go the whole hog and go back to Super 12?"
What we have next year is effectively a Super 12 again plus three expansion teams. One from Australia, one from Japan, one from Argentina.
You can argue that the Force and Rebels are not expansion teams given their history and longevity. But given their winning records and raison d'etre they are basically there to grow the game and as such are expansion teams as well.
Perhaps, and no rotten tomatoes thrown at me here, the ARU did ok by retaining one expansion team amidst a desire to cut back drastically. Remember that SA are cutting back two teams at the same time.
3) There is hardly any reason at all to keep the Japanese team. It will take another generation of players before they contend in the playoffs for the Super Rugby championship. This appears to be a very "christian" move (speaking of Easter) to help improve their game by 5% so that they put in a half way decent showing at the world cup. Look for them to get the heave ho after the world cup if they are still dogging it.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
There RFU as so far ahead of us at just about every aspect of rugby management at the moment. 30 years ago the RFU was a moribund organisation run by the old school tie brigade, with little concept of moving beyond their niche market. They even resisted having a league structure until 1972 (by that I mean a competition with points, premiers, finals etc) as it might have led to professionalism. On the other hand, we used to be dynamic and innovative (first country to limit kicking out on the full to the 25).
Today, roles are reversed and we have become everything that we used to knock the poms for.
Whether it's programmes like you've highlighted or assistance provided to grass roots clubs in terms of floodlighting, synthetic turf etc, they are just so much more dynamic and innovative than us.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Not really, it's actually something which people from other sports snigger at and many rugby people cringe at.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
Agree with that break the connection to GPS, especially the Shore School.
This maybe all Elizabeth Broderick brings to the Board, in that her kids went to Shore. I can't see what other skills she brings to the Board.
Also to be evenhanded and I don't understand what a Real Estate Agent in Paul McLean, would bring to the Board. He is an ex Wallaby but we have far too many of them on the Board already. Just because you played the game (in the amateur days) doesn't mean you have any qualifications to run the game in the professional era.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
FFS some of us have been saying it for years. Its as obvious as a full moon on a cloudless night.
As for Papworth, he has been saying the same thing the only difference is the clarity that standing on the edge of the cliff if giving people. Think of basic communication theory, for communication to be effective the receiver has to be receptive. As I posted earlier, the compliant nature of most people has been the greatest hurdle in getting the message across because the "trusted" well educated moderate famous names on the ARU have been touting how great the NRC, Super Rugby and Wallabies have been, selectively quoting statistics to support their case. Those non-conformists yelling for a more rigorous assessment have been derided as negative and death riding the game and of course being self interested.
The proximity of the cliff and the certainty of the death of a team at least has caused a re-evaluation of the standing and "right to be heard" of the ARU and the very integrity of that body. The message from the non-conformists has changed and they have achieved no more "standing" but those perspective changes mean the message is now being heard.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
How many have run a successful sporting code? Being "successful" in the financial industry is not something to crow about and is certainly not something to admit to in a public place. Bankers are held in the same regard as Lawyers and Politicians for a very good reason and that does for a couple of other members. As for former Wallaby greats on the board, being a great bloke on the park and a good player certainly qualifies one to run the game and when they have undertaken other activities which provide for direct conflicts of interest they certainly manage to portray the ARU in the best possible manner, despite evidence being otherwise.
Results are what matters and the fact is that nobody on that board has done anything that has grown the game in any sustainable manner. It is on life support because they are in fact incompetent as shown by the results in all areas of the game.
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
Roux saying what we all know but don't want to face:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...x/news-story/3071759db829d5083aba4f246f94e1f8
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...x/news-story/3071759db829d5083aba4f246f94e1f8
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
I think the ARU releasing this magic "criteria" that they apparently evaluated the two clubs on would be interesting.
The fact that it hasn't been released or leaked leads me to believe it doesn'texist. or possibly that it would be incredibly damning to the ARU and the 3 "safe" teams. As well as show that due process to consolidate and evaluate was never even attempted, let alone followed.
The fact that it hasn't been released or leaked leads me to believe it doesn'texist. or possibly that it would be incredibly damning to the ARU and the 3 "safe" teams. As well as show that due process to consolidate and evaluate was never even attempted, let alone followed.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
^^^^these administrators + John O'Neill have 20/20 vision in hindsight.
It's rapidly becoming the most nauseating part of this schemozzle.
It's rapidly becoming the most nauseating part of this schemozzle.
T
TOCC
Guest
Correction... Its an issue that the NZRU, SARU and ARU don't want to face.. SANZAAAR have incorrectly bought into the concept that a return to the past when ratings and crowds were greater is the solution, it fails to address the evolving market and failed to address providing a product which is in line with modern taste.
Everyone has said from day 1 that culling a team ignores the elephant in the room, for the ARU/SARU it provides short term financial savings which are offset by long term economic loss and opportunity cost.
People on this forum, and Australia Rugby in general are outraged over the concept because few really believe that this will revive the competition, it does nothing to re-engage falling interest in the remaining markets.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
That is an extremely revealing article, quoting with extraordinary frankness the CEO of South African rugby.
Three big highlights:
- he says it's probable that Super Rugby 'should have stayed at 12 teams only'
- the hunt for more revenue drove the too-big expansion of Super Rugby (at the expense of game quality)
- (the biggest revelation) it was the major broadcasters driving the insistence for change as they saw the quality of Super product falling and more than hinted at 'contractual problems (with SANZAAR)' if SANZAAR did not take action to address the problems with product quality.......this has never been stated or admitted to before.
I had to chuckle at the last one above. I recall so well the coterie of status-quo-defended-and-excused-forever posters here (you know who you are boys) who, when I argued trenchantly that the ARU's national footprint would prove disastrous (as it has) kept rabbiting on about how good was all the extra media money we'd obtained just via having 5 Super teams and that this strategy was 'really profitable' for the ARU/Australian rugby.
The point is now independently verified - if it was ever needed to be - that the media organisations want secure, stable (ideally increasing) viewership and thus good product quality more than they want a greater quantity of games for its own sake just to gain short-term eyeballs that way. Thus the media organisations would be natural supporters of urgent reform to repair the diabolical S18 format. (And just btw: this latest Super reform may not yet be deep or radical enough.)
T
TOCC
Guest
I was certainly one who supported the additional Australian teams, i won't deny that, and i still believe that expansion is a good thing for Australian Rugby if handled correctly. The key point in that statement is "if handled correctly", and its obvious that since 2005 there have been a series of events and key decisions, in relation to expansion and development of the game which weren't handled correctly, in fact they were done incredibly poorly. I certainly overestimated the ARU's ability to govern then game through that period.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
If there is a push to go back to the S12 (which I loved originally) then surely that would be the signal for us to pull the ripcord and escape. If we're fair dinkum about wanting to grow the game in this country we can't go back to three teams. Four is already bad enough.
T
TOCC
Guest
Super Rugby needs to evolve to a Champions League, let countries run their own internal competitions, with only the top few from each country getting through to the eventual Champions League tournament.
Best of the best is what fans want to watch.
Best of the best is what fans want to watch.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
TOCC - just to your point and for the record - I have zero against 5 Aus Super teams per se, I'd love 5 teams.
My conviction was that _given the demonstrable poor calibre of our ARU and equally most if not all of the State RUs as were supported by the ARU_they the ARU could not and would not steer the Rebels and Force to success, in fact, they'd fuck them up via supporting or initiating poor management, coaching and local RU board/CEO appointments plus, importantly, investing far too little in underlying player and coach development Australia-wide.
Which is exactky what has occurred, sadly.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
I am not talking about their pathways, I am talking about the image of the game and the demographic of the supporters. Maybe things have changed since I lived and worked there, but the support base was overwhelmingly middle class and up.
That's why they are so farking rich as a sport, in England. And so conservative.
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
They are rich because they have high attendances and their ARU equivalent own Twickenham outright.
Edit: also their competition isn't a complete joke.
- Status