Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

P.tah actually posted an interesting poece over on The Roar proposing a Brumbies/Rebels merger. I certainly think either organisation ruling it out would be unfortunate as it would tick a number of boxes for both. Melbourne maintains a presence and a pathway while the Brumbies access a larger market and deeper talent pool. He also suggests looking to bring the likes of Sth Aus and Tas under the Sthern Brumbies banner.

I think it's something that would sound decent in a boardroom presentation, and looks good to neutrals, but ultimately probably wouldn't work as it just ends up alienating two sets of fans.

Hopefully with this added support behind the Force and with Cox holding his ground the ARU have no option but to change their decision and we keep 5 teams.

 

[mst]

^^^^ Agree with the merger sentiments. taking two small supporter bases, alienating them which would probably cut the support in half at best is ridiculous, let alone the logical first question of where would they be based which will automatically further disenfranchise half the already halved support at the "2nd home" and minimise advertising and sponsorship as they will most likely have to be split across locations and demographics and then there is additional travel and administration arrangement, accommodation costs etc etc so it would be a more expensive proposition having a merged club.

But we can only hope so to keep the 5, but I fear Cox is just playing the required business games to get the $$$ to get out.

His investment has now been devalued, The Rebels general support is near an all time low, no major sponsor and a relationship with the ARU that is at minimum damaged if not irreparable, the ARU are wanting the Super Rugby profits, and he now knows that in by 2020 there is an agenda to potentially cut more teams.

 

[BLR]

Just a thought, the argument that overseas the Brumbies name is associated with success....there is around 400k population in the ACT, would a Brumbies fan from the UK or whatever care about them locating to Melbourne?

So you would be disenfranchising 9k or so fans that rock up to the games but for the rest of them, would they actually give a toss as they still get to watch the Brumbies at the end of the day.

 

[Slim 293]

Just a thought, the argument that overseas the Brumbies name is associated with success..there is around 400k population in the ACT, would a Brumbies fan from the UK or whatever care about them locating to Melbourne?

So you would be disenfranchising 9k or so fans that rock up to the games but for the rest of them, would they actually give a toss as they still get to watch the Brumbies at the end of the day.

It depends on whether you'd like to open that can of worms.......... would you really like the answer when you take another team with a smaller overseas fan base, and disenfranchise their smaller home crowds in the same scenario?

 

[Slim 293]

P.tah actually posted an interesting poece over on The Roar proposing a Brumbies/Rebels merger. I certainly think either organisation ruling it out would be unfortunate as it would tick a number of boxes for both. Melbourne maintains a presence and a pathway while the Brumbies access a larger market and deeper talent pool. He also suggests looking to bring the likes of Sth Aus and Tas under the Sthern Brumbies banner.

I generally find reading the Roar to be unfortunate, but I've also been following this thread soooooo..........

 

[amirite]

I think it's something that would sound decent in a boardroom presentation, and looks good to neutrals, but ultimately probably wouldn't work as it just ends up alienating two sets of fans.

Hopefully with this added support behind the Force and with Cox holding his ground the ARU have no option but to change their decision and we keep 5 teams.

Agreed. The summary looks good.

But, Perth is just a plane trip from Canberra, just like Melbourne. Maybe they should merge? A plane trip is a plane trip, right? Once you factor in getting too and from the airport the difference between 1.5 and 3.5 hours in negligible.

Obviously, this is BS. But it's not much less logical than the Melbourne-Canberra proposal.

I mean, what's even the point?

• To keep a fan base engaged? The secondary city would only get a couple of home games a year, and the first city's memberships would be worth less.
• To keep a pathway? If all the elite coaches, facilities, etc. are in one city, try telling the other city that they're just as valuable.
• To keep the youth engaged? How can players do community engagement in city #2 if they spend 95% of their time in city #1.
• The Brumbies network of great people could do great things in the Melbourne market? Bernie Larkham, as an example, has VERY boldly expressed how little he's interested in this.

It's a proposal designed to look great on paper to people that haven't put feet on the ground. It has no legs out in the real world.

 

[KOB1987]

I have a feeling that today will be an interesting day.

 

[mudskipper]

Clyne confirmed the Brumbies were safe because the club met a range of metrics used to determine their sustainability.

"The Brumbies met all the criteria, financial, governance, high performance outcomes, future sponsorships, a range of issues that indicated they would be a sustainable presence and therefore would not be needed to be considered for elimination," Clyne said.

Brumbies are an Australian rugby success story... The Brumbies IP is proudly owned by the province and supported by th AIS, universities, the australian military colleges based around canberra and most importantly local government which plans to build a CBD covered stadium in coming years.
Brumbies represent the ACT and third of country NSW...
People love and play rugby outside of the big cities...

 

[mudskipper]

Agreed. The summary looks good.

But, Perth is just a plane trip from Canberra, just like Melbourne. Maybe they should merge? A plane trip is a plane trip, right? Once you factor in getting too and from the airport the difference between 1.5 and 3.5 hours in negligible.

Obviously, this is BS. But it's not much less logical than the Melbourne-Canberra proposal.

I mean, what's even the point?

• To keep a fan base engaged? The secondary city would only get a couple of home games a year, and the first city's memberships would be worth less.
• To keep a pathway? If all the elite coaches, facilities, etc. are in one city, try telling the other city that they're just as valuable.
• To keep the youth engaged? How can players do community engagement in city #2 if they spend 95% of their time in city #1.
• The Brumbies network of great people could do great things in the Melbourne market? Bernie Larkham, as an example, has VERY boldly expressed how little he's interested in this.

It's a proposal designed to look great on paper to people that haven't put feet on the ground. It has no legs out in the real world.

I really dont know WHY the Brumbies people have to go down and save the Rebels.. Frankly get it together, do it your selves or close the club!

 

[mudskipper]

I generally find reading the Roar to be unfortunate, but I've also been following this thread soooooo....

So ge thinks the Brumbies should de responsible FOR rugby in Vic Tas South australia and the Act and southern NSW... Why not western australia too...

 

[I like to watch]

There's no 'pain money' involve it's always 'OPM' (Other Peoples Money).

Anyway reading between the lines of the article below gives an indication of why there was a change of CEO at NAB and what the incoming CEO was tasked with.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...t/news-story/7410b671d217f3e786a5f7001d8a38a3

Nah, that's standard operating procedure when a new guy comes in.
Write off everything that might possibly be a problem.
If you do it now, it's the last plonkers fault, if you wait 12 months, then you're the plonker,

 

[amirite]

I really dont know WHY the Brumbies people have to go down and save the Rebels.. Frankly get it together, do it your selves or close the club!

If you think that the Rebels are pitching the Brumbies to come down and save them you're certainly creative.

It's just people writing stories, and those people aren't from Canberra or Melbourne.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The Brumbies Financial Issues went away when they hired an ARU man as the new CEO. Using marvellous ARU financial management techniques everything pertaining to past investigations and management was closed and could not be discussed due to legal non-disclosure agreements etc. Thus a new day dawned and it was good and all discussions must speak only of the new day and its greatness and positivity. All naysayers are to F%$#^ off because nothing that may or may not have happened can be discussed and because it can't be discussed it may not have happened any way. Just as the same manager may or may not have been in charge of an investigation when a player may or may not have sent some text messages and a coach and staffer lost their jobs. The only FACT that is now not in dispute is the coach and staffer no longer work for their former employer, why, how and timelines are irrelevant as they happened before another such legal non-disclosure agreement and as such may or may not have happened. Newspeak is alive and well..

So you see nothing to see here, and they are winning the Australian Conference whilst having played 1 NZ side and still only managing a very small positive PD (which is at least positive as opposed to the embarrassing PDs of the rest of the Conference, but I note that this WILL change greatly as they play the NZ sides and they will be as embarrassing as the rest).

Facts, please Gnostic. They've played both the Crusaders and the Highlanders, with a losing bonus point in each.

But I fear your fearless prediction over the next few weeks will be fearfully spot on.

 

[Rebels3]

If you think that the Rebels are pitching the Brumbies to come down and save them you're certainly creative.

It's just people writing stories, and those people aren't from Canberra or Melbourne.

There certainly is some creative minds and theories on this thread!

UFO spotting's, yeti's, the great East v West ARU conspiracy, the evil money hungry private investor, the no talent Brumbies and Atlantis, to name a few.

 

[sidelineview]

As wamberal notes that's not an easy question to answer, mostly because NZRU employ all the players & staff.

Player-wise salaries are set according to where they sit in the "journeyman squad member" to "All Black great" spectrum but only to a max of $195K plus any number of top-ups depending on things like length of service to their Province (those with six years service were recently awarded a $50K loyalty bonus, for example), selection for AB training camps & squads, etc.

Franchises can pay players over & above the $195K, but must stay within an overall cap of $4.65Mn or be "fined" $3 for every $1 overspent. So the figure of $9.52Mn in NZRU's report would only relate to salaries before the various top-ups.

Short(ish) version here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...-our-best-players-in-country-under-salary-cap

There are, quite literally, Uni theses being written on the subject.

A very interesting article. Cheers.
It would be even more interesting to locate a correlating article about Australian rugby.

I understand it's not an easy question to answer; it's a bit like comparing granny smith apples with delicious apples: same, same but different, or maybe apples with oranges, but the similarities are there, so it's a good question to ask.
It's a bit off the immediate topic but what will the problems be in Australian rugby in 10 years time?

It's obvious Australian rugby needs to take a different direction and adopt different strategies.

On the subject of parochialism, and how fans are at each other regarding this issue, it's no surprise.
Tribalism is what makes fans tick and what strengthens a Club/team.
There is however, a lot of opposition from fans from all clubs about chopping one Super Rugby team, but if it's going to happen it's not going to be their team.

It also makes any proposed mergers hugely unpopular with fans and minimises much hope of those proposed mergers being successful.
That was a lesson learnt from the Super League war.

 

[p.Tah]

So ge thinks the Brumbies should de responsible FOR rugby in Vic Tas South australia and the Act and southern NSW. Why not western australia too.

Nope. Every current Union looks after their current areas. They just feed up to the Brumbies. You can read the article if you want more back ground.

I want the 5 teams to remain. It's just a possible solution amongst many others.

 

[RedsHappy]

It's NZ. It's always NZ

Nah.

The real enemy of all passionate rugby loving posters here is and should be:

The entire current institutional framework and system for running Rugby Union in Australia combined with most of the board members who currently occupy senior positions within that framework.

This entire thread in aggregate brilliantly analyses why this institutional framework has (a) over many years now grievously betrayed the interests of the Australian rugby community and (b) requires radical, root-and-branch reform and not minor adjustments and yet more tinkering.

 

[mudskipper]

Nope. Every current Union looks after their current areas. They just feed up to the Brumbies. You can read the article if you want more back ground.

I want the 5 teams to remain. It's just a possible solution amongst many others.

Feeding up still means development work in these areas... recruiters will visit all areas when possible.

 

[TOCC]

Feeding up still means development work in these areas. recruiters will visit all areas when possible.

Right, they fly in, sprinkle some magic fairy dust around and boom, Brumbies appear?

 

[amirite]

Feeding up still means development work in these areas. recruiters will visit all areas when possible.

The closest thing to a recruiter is a DO. And no, they stick to their own area.

Most recruiting is done by film and reference nowadays.