Where to for Super Rugby?

[daz]

How much he actually invested though? Keep in mind the ARU gave him quite a bit of money to take it off their hands while writing off quite a bit off debt off the ARU's books to sweeten the deal.

I don't think he is a villian by any means but I personally believe there is too much trust in him coming from Vic without much indication besides what could turn out to be empty words.

Imperium, owned by Andrew and his wife, has $100m annual revenue, and the Rebels are probably just a way to advertise and funnel patrons to his TGIF chain of restaurants. Plus he gets his own sports team to play with. Man cave wet dream.

Losing $2m a year on the Rebs might be a tax-write off bit of pocket change.

 

[James Pettifer]

Imperium, owned by Andrew and his wife, has $100m annual revenue, and the Rebels are probably just a way to advertise and funnel patrons to his TGIF chain of restaurants. Plus he gets his own sports team to play with. Man cave wet dream.

Losing $2m a year on the Rebs might be a tax-write off bit of pocket change.

It is exactly what I'd do if I had that amount of money. Buy the Rebels and have fun.

The AFR interviewed him and stated "Cox took over the Rebels officially last week, along with Melbourne business identity Peter Sidwell, the founding chairman of A-League club Melbourne Heart (now Melbourne City), and says clubs like the Rebels can strive to at least break even from a fiscal point of view."

It is funny though, apparently it is ok for lots of people to throw money at an underperforming asset (Own the Force) but not ok for one person to throw money at an underperforming asset (the Rebels).

I will note that I personally would have contributed to Own the Force because I think WA deserve a team. But not at the expense of my team ...

 

[NTT]

It is exactly what I'd do if I had that amount of money. Buy the Rebels and have fun.

The AFR interviewed him and stated "Cox took over the Rebels officially last week, along with Melbourne business identity Peter Sidwell, the founding chairman of A-League club Melbourne Heart (now Melbourne City), and says clubs like the Rebels can strive to at least break even from a fiscal point of view."

It is funny though, apparently it is ok for lots of people to throw money at an underperforming asset (Own the Force) but not ok for one person to throw money at an underperforming asset (the Rebels).

I will note that I personally would have contributed to Own the Force because I think WA deserve a team. But not at the expense of my team .

I think where the doubt about Cox comes in the form of the losses already incured by the Rebels, some $20 million already and not looking like turning a profit this year or next. Rich people don't get rich by throwing money away, they are usually prudent people, Tinkler the exception. If Cox is committed to the long term than all to the power to him. RugbyWA is battling the ARU not the Rebels, just like the Rebels are battling the ARU not RugbyWA. Hopefully if we both battle hard enough we keep the 5 teams and force a major restructure of how rugby is run in Australia and we all come out the other end stronger than ever before with a unified approach to development and grassroots, and a shared approach to collaboration between the Super franchises.

 

[KevinO]

All this talk about Cox,

1) His got the ARU by the balls since they said they never believed 5 teams was sustainable.
2) His publicly said he wants to sign more foreign player, this will be used to cut a deal with the ARU because they can't afford to pay the damages.

 

[chibimatty]

I don't think they should be committing any public funds anyway. Not for a pro team.

I agree, but I think they may already do something similar with the WA Football Development Trust, which directly benefits the Eagles and Dockers now; rather than the old days when it was for the development of players for our State league (WAFL) and our State-of-Origin team.

Hell, we should have this done consistently. An efficiency test of sorts...
...The Force have been rotting since the Firepower thing went down, imagine if we had a look and re-structured the way we run things sooner instead of having to endure years of mediocrity?

Too bloody right!

 

[gel]

The problem for me is that I can never watch a game of NRC and see it as anything other than a selection trial

Because almost all marketing and media associated (even by rugby fans) refer to it as "third tier".

Even if the matches are played well, your notions are subconsciously reinforced that you are watching an inferior product.

The ARU have even used the term in their own media.

Is the NRL promoted as the third best behind state of orugin and international representative matches? Or do they elevate themselves up or above that level by reminding everyone that SOO and Tests need to be shifted out of season where they won't interfere with the truly important club fixture this Saturday?

 

[Quick Hands]

Because almost all marketing and media associated (even by rugby fans) refer to it as "third tier".

Even if the matches are played well, your notions are subconsciously reinforced that you are watching an inferior product.

The ARU have even used the term in their own media.

Is the NRL promoted as the third best behind state of orugin and international representative matches? Or do they elevate themselves up or above that level by reminding everyone that SOO and Tests need to be shifted out of season where they won't interfere with the truly important club fixture this Saturday?

I've made this point a number of times. Further proof (as if we need it) of the sub-optimal methods employed at the ARU across most things.

 

[RedsHappy]

I've made this point a number of times. Further proof (as if we need it) of the sub-optimal methods employed at the ARU across most things.

QH, I can tell you and gel that the ARU cannot even properly market and promote AB Tests in a key market like Brisbane; that being the case is it likely that they will have a clue, or the quality of marketing personnel, essential to the optimal marketing of the NRC?

 

[RedsHappy]

Imperium, owned by Andrew and his wife, has $100m annual revenue, and the Rebels are probably just a way to advertise and funnel patrons to his TGIF chain of restaurants. Plus he gets his own sports team to play with. Man cave wet dream.

Losing $2m a year on the Rebs might be a tax-write off bit of pocket change.

Daz, respect your perspective and team loyalty on this issue but I do think you underestimate:

- the severe cash losses that can start to accumulate when a State RU's financial and commercial performance badly deteriorates. The fixed costs are very high to run a full Super rugby department and team and you can't reduce them materially or you just run the risk of worsening the cash position with continued team failure, loss of sponsors, lowered gate income, etc.

- equally, from 2017's low base, the incremental (ie on top of current operating cash losses/investment) cash investment in a new coaching group, better squad etc etc that will be required to effect a credible turnaround plan for the Rebels, a plan that would require at least a 3 year investment horizon to justify let alone the obvious risks - both local and SANZAAR/ARU induced - entailed is so doing

IMO, an astute Cox will be privately very concerned over these factors. His inner attitude and assessment of them won't be just 'who cares, it's a fun hobby'. You don't build the sort of wealth he has by being happy about losing millions upon millions of your own capital via the continuous indulgence of commercial failure.

 

[Upthenuts]

interesting article,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11854985

The ARU has a plan?

 

[formerflanker]

Mark Ella has a great discussion piece in today's Australian (with another promised for next week) with several ideas on how to fix Australian Rugby. No specific comments on the structure of Super rugby, but he has several very good thoughts on how to develop players.
The title of his article is
It’s time to put some weight on recasting successful junior model

 

[kiap]

interesting article

It's Gregor Paul. Nuff said …

Hope has to be fading it's actually going to happen. Would anyone feel confident saying, for certain, that next year Super Rugby will have 15 and not 18 teams?​

Probably not - and the longer this state of uncertainty remains, the more it feels like this might have been the plan all along.​

Or at least, this may have been the Australian Rugby Union's plan " to progress in such a bumbling, haphazard way as to run the clock down on any other option being possible but to retain the status quo.​

Problem here, whatever the number of teams, is that the ARU execs implementing this so-called "plan" are going to have to depart their jobs. One is gone, but he won't be the last.

 

[Strewthcobber]

All this talk about Cox,

1) His got the ARU by the balls since they said they never believed 5 teams was sustainable.
2) His publicly said he wants to sign more foreign player, this will be used to cut a deal with the ARU because they can't afford to pay the damages.

Cox literally paid nothing for the Rebels - he might have a tough time convincing anyone that the ARU were "selling" a "sustainable" asset.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Cox literally paid nothing for the Rebels - he might have a tough time convincing anyone that the ARU were "selling" a "sustainable" asset.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, mate.

 

[TOCC]

Cox assumed ongoing liabilities of a company which was leaking $millions..

He assumed these costs under the assumption that he would be able to turn the Rebels around in the longer term. Cox has paid for the Rebels, regardless of whether the costs were upfront or ongoing.

If the ARU made this deal, knowing that 5 teams was unsustainable and sold him a dud product, then they are to be held accountable.

 

[I like to watch]

Imperium, owned by Andrew and his wife, has $100m annual revenue, and the Rebels are probably just a way to advertise and funnel patrons to his TGIF chain of restaurants. Plus he gets his own sports team to play with. Man cave wet dream.

Losing $2m a year on the Rebs might be a tax-write off bit of pocket change.

I was under the impression that $2M loss was a best case scenario?
In any event $2M is not chump change that can easily dismissed as money well spent on a hobby.
Having turnover of $100M is vastly different to having a business that has $100M excess cash flow.
It really annoys me when people suggest that a tax write off equals no cost.
It doesn't, a $2M loss means you lose lose $1.4M & the tax man subsidises the other $600k.

 

[Tangawizi]

interesting article,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11854985

The ARU has a plan?

Yeah, great plan. Just keep your 5 teams! But don't let on about that until the 2 x SA teams go....

Then play everyone else once over 15 weeks & the top 8 play finals & bottom 8 don't. KISS principle back in action.

Just a few minor issues with that idea Gregor....

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Cox assumed ongoing liabilities of a company which was leaking $millions..

He assumed these costs under the assumption that he would be able to turn the Rebels around in the longer term. Cox has paid for the Rebels, regardless of whether the costs were upfront or ongoing.

If the ARU made this deal, knowing that 5 teams was unsustainable and sold him a dud product, then they are to be held accountable.

Some heroic assumptions there. Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?


If he bought a pup, he can hardly evince surprise when it pees on his carpet. And, by the way, how many examples are there of private ownership generating a profit in Australian sport?


There are failed ventures everywhere you look.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Cox assumed ongoing liabilities of a company which was leaking $millions..

He assumed these costs under the assumption that he would be able to turn the Rebels around in the longer term. Cox has paid for the Rebels, regardless of whether the costs were upfront or ongoing.

If the ARU made this deal, knowing that 5 teams was unsustainable and sold him a dud product, then they are to be held accountable.

The ARU literally did the deal because the 5 teams were unsustainable for them

Cox didn't buy 5 teams though, he bought into 1 of them and as long as the cash flow promised by the ARU continues to flow (and I've seen no suggestion that it won't?) Then his investment is as "sustainable" as it's ever been.

Cox has them over a barrell, but it's cause he an asset that the ARU now want. Nothing to do with any comments

 

[wamberal]

Cox could always get some advice from Palmer, Tinkler, et al.