Where to for Super Rugby?

[BLR]

killer, I respectfully disagree. In this situation private ownership is the strong suit. Cox has a contract, the other party are opting to reneg, he'll sue for damages.

By the sounds of the Rebels statement he will sue for hurting the brand & then also sue the ARU for selling him a dud product.

Personally I think saying that they would seek damages to attempt to push through a decision backfires in the way that it makes them seem overly litigious which would be something I would think the ARU would want to avoid.

 

[dru]

The worst thing about this whole ordeal is that the ARU's ballpark financial figures regarding the viability of going it alone in Australia are probably now equal to what we will expect from Super Rugby come 2020.

Make no mistake, Super Rugby crowds will struggle to pass 10,000 next year in Australia due to the disillusionment of our supporter base.

There's been too much skin & respect lost, with no end in sight. The only way the average Joe can vote is with their wallet.

I have said it before but will repeat. The ARU justified cutting to three, not four.

They may be right. "How do we get there" is the question. Not "when". The ARU "strategy" is completely reactive. No strategy at all.

If of course they are NOT right, hell everyting is up for grabs.

3 or 4, I dont think it's important. HOW we concentrate talent, AND maintain National support. That is the question. One not being asked by the wonderful CVs of the directors of the ARU.

 

[moa999]

My view may be simplistic but it just seems to me that having 4 teams competing for players will lead to stronger teams than 5 teams competing for players.

For maybe a couple of years max.
And with the way the Aussie teams are playing this year, redistributing a few players ain't going to make much difference.

But long term you cut juniors and professional players by 20% which weakens the Wallabies and pathways for juniors. And you lose fans.

Our players need opportunities, and we need players coming through (IE. Focus on the damn grassroots and schools)

Moving to a 3x6 comp with 5 h&a, and 3 each from the other confs drastically cuts travel costs compared to current (and even to 3x5 which is 4 h&a plus 4 each)

 

[Forcefield]

killer, I respectfully disagree. In this situation private ownership is the strong suit. Cox has a contract, the other party are opting to reneg, he'll sue for damages. The Force simply cant do any of that. As i keep saying the ARU will decide whether a gauranteed short term loss may be less than on going haemorhage, they will presumably do the sums and decide.

This is where it is interesting. If the Rebels are cut, they'll sue and the Forcd breathe a sigh of relief. If the Force are cut, we'll sue for breach of the Alliance Agreement and I'd bet my right nut that Cox will sue for being embroiled in this saga. Better to just be sued once if you ask me.

 

[moa999]

I have said it before but will repeat. The ARU justified cutting to three, not four.
.

If their analysis is based on that chart handed out then we should cut to one team

The Wallabies will be ranked two places higher than NZ - NZ still at #1 (of course) but Wallabies at #-1.

High paid management consultants just draw straight lines, they don't live in reality

 

[wamberal]

Gee it's nice to think that there are so many people who love the game so much that they are willing to sue its arse off just to prove it.


I am beginning to think that they both should get the chop.

 

[wamberal]

High paid management consultants just draw straight lines, they don't live in reality

How many highly paid consultants do you know? And which firm do they work for?

Name some names. Any idiot can call himself a management consultant. But it does take a bit of ability to be "highly paid". That is, if we mean the same thing when we say "highly paid". Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[I like to watch]

Gee it's nice to think that there are so many people who love the game so much that they are willing to sue its arse off just to prove it.


I am beginning to think that they both should get the chop.

They are fighting for their survival.
Don't blame them if the ARU behaves in a manner that is contrary to what they agreed to,in writing.
Blame the ARU for being inconsistent.
Make them accountable for their poor decisions,

 

[Quick Hands]

Are any of these franchises sustainable without ARU bailouts/guarantees?

The whole thing seems like it's built on a foundation of sand to me.

 

[dru]

If their analysis is based on that chart handed out then we should cut to one team

The Wallabies will be ranked two places higher than NZ - NZ still at #1 (of course) but Wallabies at #-1.

High paid management consultants just draw straight lines, they don't live in reality

Yeah. It's rough. But OK let us Aussies grow up a bit. If one Super team is the right answer then we send out the WBs. If it's two, and not the easy five provincial rugby states - then we have some work to do.

And if the answer to that question is NSW and Qld, perhaps NSW x2, then the issue of east coast silver spoons is very real.

It is not 1990. Or 2000. Representational rugby in Aus is more than NSW and Qld. And ACT.

And if Super Rugby is not going to be representational of Aus rugby - ah hell. Too early for me to say I'm opting out. I can say right now I'm supporting WA and Vic. What is next? No idea. Whatever it is ARU gives me no confidence.

 

[Poidevinfan]

P: this is a very long thread and I understand it would be somewhat painfull to do the hard work and back track through the things already said. At the same time it might help your belated input over past discussions.

I am not going to keep this sub thread going on the basis of your wanting to seem fair but not wanting to do the work through the thread.

To be fair to me I read 1000 posts before making my first post and have read everything since Sunday night when the "announcement" was made.

However I am very mindful of not being some insensitive wanker from a country who is not directly impacted who is just making academic points so I will go back to lurking. For whatever reason this issue and this thread has caught my imagination. The topic is a cross section of business strategy, rugby, drama, with daily bombshells through press announcements or interviews.

All for now

Cheers

 

[Gnostic]

Perhaps, although we've spent a good part of the past 164 pages with the general view that we don't have enough talent for 5 teams and yet we seemingly have enough talent to let this guy go. Someone from the Crusaders obviously thought that he had something to offer. I just find it odd, very, very odd that the talent filled kiwis can find a place for him in one of their 5 franchises and we can't.

Yes Tahs much preferred the NZ prop Ta'avao , such great identifiers of talent.

 

[Gnostic]

How many highly paid consultants do you know? And which firm do they work for?



Name some names. Any idiot can call himself a management consultant. But it does take a bit of ability to be "highly paid". That is, if we mean the same thing when we say "highly paid". Somehow, I doubt it.

How about the ones that the ARU have hired to do their strategic reviews for them the last few times.

 

[Gnostic]

Are any of these franchises sustainable without ARU bailouts/guarantees?



The whole thing seems like it's built on a foundation of sand to me.

I came to the conclusion last year that Super Rugby out grew it's "Super" mantle when it left the Super 12. Super 14 was OK and could have grown into itself over time but further expansion from that point just killed it. I have to say though that just as the Rubaiyat says (The moving hand writes and all that) once the expansion was done it is not possible to go back, the costs are not just in terms of money, it is in the prestige of the tournament, the social capital invested by the fans who bought into the expansion sides. The damage is not repairable. For me Super Rugby is dead in Australia, it just won't be buried.

However that said the playing and coaching issues have predated the Super Rugby issue, which have exacerbated symptoms. They are structural in Australia and are both a legacy that the ARU inherited and one they actively cultivated.

 

[I like to watch]

Are any of these franchises sustainable without ARU bailouts/guarantees?

The whole thing seems like it's built on a foundation of sand to me.

They are all sustainable if they are paid their proper share of tv revenue.
When the tv revenue went up by 148%, it had nothing to do with any increased interest in test rugby, the ARU payments to each franchise didn't increase by 148%

If the ARU withhold revenue earned by the Super franchises, do fuck all for juniors. Wallabies & 7's programs both performing poorly.
What are they doing well?
Why aren't there massive surpluses?

 

[lou75]

They are all sustainable if they are paid their proper share of tv revenue.
When the tv revenue went up by 148%, it had nothing to do with any increased interest in test rugby, the ARU payments to each franchise didn't increase by 148%

If the ARU withhold revenue earned by the Super franchises, do fuck all for juniors. Wallabies & 7's programs both performing poorly.
What are they doing well?
Why aren't there massive surpluses?

IT's a two way street, they need their share of revenue, but they also need to be able to control the costs. This has been done in the past by many franchises

 

[dru]

To be fair to me I read 1000 posts before making my first post and have read everything since Sunday night when the "announcement" was made.

However I am very mindful of not being some insensitive wanker from a country who is not directly impacted who is just making academic points so I will go back to lurking. For whatever reason this issue and this thread has caught my imagination. The topic is a cross section of business strategy, rugby, drama, with daily bombshells through press announcements or interviews.

All for now

Cheers

Bloke you have not been insensitive. And all of us like that you are interested.

In the mean time I do feel you are asking about things already discussed. And I doubt you entered this discussion without thinking it would touch sensitivities.

But you seem to be wanting Aussie support for a thessis that cutting a team will be good for Aus.

Therein lies my issue. To now feign surprise is being disengenuous.

BTW, none of that devalues your input. Just dont expect my support.

 

[cyclopath]

Perhaps, although we've spent a good part of the past 164 pages with the general view that we don't have enough talent for 5 teams and yet we seemingly have enough talent to let this guy go. Someone from the Crusaders obviously thought that he had something to offer. I just find it odd, very, very odd that the talent filled kiwis can find a place for him in one of their 5 franchises and we can't.

We shouldn't disregard what the player wants either. Maybe the lure of developing in a set up like the Crusaders appealed too. I don't know the details but we can't assume all players automatically want to stay in Oz rugby against other options.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[I like to watch]

IT's a two way street, they need their share of revenue, but they also need to be able to control the costs. This has been done in the past by many franchises

Hasn't every franchise needed bailing out at some time?
As we all know both the Rebels & Force were bailed out in recent years.
The Brumbies would have also needed bailing out if they didn't haveover $10M to burn through.
The Reds have also been bleeding money.
The Tahs were pretty much saved by regenerating interest when they won the comp.

That suggests to me, that to be competitive and solvent, all the planets must align.
One little thing goes wrong, and things fall apart quickly.
That just confirms the funding is insufficient.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

We are trying to compete with Europe with their successful domestic competitions as yes they have bigger populations etc...but reality is unless we can create a super rugby product that is akin to a team based long form competition where either a) strong first up domestic component where just then conference playoffs or b) players involved regardless of country of origin, can have the opportunity to play for any team, then without a) or b) this competition will struggle and just die a slow death.

Just imagine if we had have been more accommodating to make changes to our game to not have the league splinter off from rugby all that time ago....and now the NRL has what we want.....a strong domestic competition...point being rugby needs to show gumption to be willing to change to meet current day needs and demands to be relevant.