Where to for Twiggy Rugby?

[barbarian]

Nah mate.. the war is participation rates, corporate value, ratings and crowds.. all of which have fallen off the cliff. maybe the ARU haven't lost the war, but they've taken a massive beating

Well if you define it like that they've been losing for the last 10 years, and the Force really don't have that much to do with it.
.

 

[MarkJ]

Twiggy yesterday:

"It is if you like a happy circle of collaboration but where we may increase the number of points for a try, we may encourage faster, running game, a much more continuous running game, we'll certainly be adding in music, 7-a-side, women's rugby, all throughout the afternoon of IPRC.

"We will be certainly providing on-field entertainment, we will be taking the cues from American college rugby where you'll have a bigger audience turnout than we actually get in the Australian Football League grand final and there can be even more people in the carparks as there are in the stadium.

"It doesn't matter if your team wins or loses, you will have an afternoon which is one to remember, you'll look back on the afternoon and say 'That was a great afternoon' even if your team didn't win"

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked photo of a Twiggyball training session:

 

[Killer]

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked photo of a Twiggyball training session:

using that terminology they have definitely won the battle but the counter attack has been effective. They are going to definitely lose the War, this final outcome is set in stone, they will certainly be without power unless TF gives them some.

 

[Dan54]

Thanks Dan, am I right in saying then that you think Super Rugby will survive in some format after the current deal finishes in 2020?

Yes I do BR, I know there a lot of angst in here about it at the moment, but in reality the general rugby fan I talk to don't want it folding. I not saying there won't be changes, or even it won't have another name, but I think it will still be around after 2020. I would actually think there will be more of a chance of that being around than the one we discussing here.

 

[Killer]

Yes I do BR, I know there a lot of angst in here about it at the moment, but in reality the general rugby fan I talk to don't want it folding. I not saying there won't be changes, or even it won't have another name, but I think it will still be around after 2020. I would actually think there will be more of a chance of that being around than the one we discussing here.

Problem is paying for it, ARU thought they would be insolvent in 2019 without saving 6m a year from cutting the Force. In 2020 their Broadcast income will far less, Wallabies income from a pre RWC year will be less, crowds are down, Sponsorship is difficult and will probably be far less, could go on and on. The ARU is barely a going concern as it is let alone in 2020.

 

[Dan54]

Yep but ARU will be insolvent a lot quicker without super rugby. I know a lot not happy with ARU, but anyone hoping that ARU will fold are certainly not rugby fans, or certainly not Wallaby fans, as without ARU neither will probably exist in the country. We all guessing that Broadcast revenue will be down, I hope that both comps will be going, but seriously doubt that ARU will be gone before Twiggy's comp.

 

[mark_s]

And we will be in more financial trouble again without the Wallaby test program, of which ~ half is under Sanzar. Sanzar will live on so we will need to keep working with NZ and SA to find mutually agreeable solutions. Super Rugby is part of this picture, and don't forget NZ and SA have a deeply ingrained like of playing each other.

As for Twiggy Rugby, all sounds good so far, but plenty of work to be done before its up and running and successful. If it is (which I will be rooting for), it will be the first time a mining magnate has made a success from being involved in professional sport in this country.

 

[TOCC]

Is that the ARU or Australian Rugby? And judging on what has occurred lately, was for the good of Australian Rugby what the ARU were fighting for? Potentially losing the third largest player base (they aren't doing much to bring that back) and definitely losing swathes of Wallaby supporters may sound like something they wouldn't want but they turned down $50 million of grassroots funding for $20 million of funds going directly into their coffers. I would say they were fighting for a cash injection to keep the ship afloat without changing the way they do business, the way they have done every single misguided expansion. They won the war, which is to keep themselves alive until they can wrangle more funds to keep the heart beating. Anything outside of that I don't think they legitimately show any signs of giving a toss about.

ARU are the custodians of Australian Rugby, it's one the same

 

[Killer]

And we will be in more financial trouble again without the Wallaby test program, of which ~ half is under Sanzar. Sanzar will live on so we will need to keep working with NZ and SA to find mutually agreeable solutions. Super Rugby is part of this picture, and don't forget NZ and SA have a deeply ingrained like of playing each other.

As for Twiggy Rugby, all sounds good so far, but plenty of work to be done before its up and running and successful. If it is (which I will be rooting for), it will be the first time a mining magnate has made a success from being involved in professional sport in this country.

The RC will always survive, it's hugely mutually beneficial. The only thing that keeps Super Rugby somewhat break even is the broadcasting income at this stage mostly from SA and Europe, I don't know the details. There is a reason for Clyne's desperation in cutting a team, the ARU's trajectory is straight down with no positive outlook.

 

[TOCC]

Well if you define it like that they've been losing for the last 10 years, and the Force really don't have that much to do with it.
.

of course they've been losing for the past 10 years, that's what we've all been saying..

We'd be silly to think the damage cause by the whole Super Rugby restructure is limited to just rugby in WA, it has caused irreparable damage to not just the Super Rugby brand, but Rugby Union as a whole. Sponsors and corporate support have been fleeing a sinking ship, they don't want their product associated with something which generates negativity and controversy.

This new comp is a silver lining, and it may form the catalyst of reform later on, but that's yet to be seen and I don't believe that Australian Rugby is any better off then they were 18months ago.

 

[Quick Hands]

If I were Cameron Clyne I'd be sleeping a lot easier now than I was two weeks ago.
.

If Clyne can sleep easily, he has no moral compass.

 

[Tex]

If Clyne can sleep easily, he has no moral compass.

Surely that's a key selection criterion for any aspiring banking exec?

 

[mst]

Really? I'd suggest the reverse.

They have won the war here. They have eliminated the Force, and now the debate has shifted past 'Bring back the Force' to 'How can we keep the Force alive in another way?'.

There is pain in WA, and while the Forrest move won't end that, it will certainly help to minimise it as much as possible.

Meanwhile the ARU have secured additional NRC funding and a new competition pathway for players. On top of the $6m they save each year from ending the Force.

If I were Cameron Clyne I'd be sleeping a lot easier now than I was two weeks ago.
.

IIRC the savings were based on Cox wearing all the costs using the forward funding and reductions on ARU funding for the Rebels. But that changed with the sale and $20mil pledge from the Vic government.

So that is about $6,5mil a year to fund everything Rebels over the duration of the TV agreement less the $$ for the rc, Bledisloe and lions games over the next 8-10 years as per the agreement. The Rebels have no other finances behind them, no major sponsors, have been posting $2Mil+ losses per year.

My maths ain't great but IMHO I can't see that $ 20mil going far or that $6Mil in savings being a reality.

A quick look at the ARU cash sheet worm has it tracking down even with cuts.

 

[Braveheart81]

The $6m in savings are a result of only distributing money to four teams and a reduction in travel costs.

 

[barbarian]

If Clyne can sleep easily, he has no moral compass.

God, it's only a game. Not like he's a war criminal. Let's keep things in perspective.
.

 

[mst]

God, it's only a game. Not like he's a war criminal. Let's keep things in perspective.
.

True. I bet the 50 Ex-Force employees probably are releived it's only a game.

 

[mst]

The $6m in savings are a result of only distributing money to four teams and a reduction in travel costs.

Exactly. Nothing about other cost like funding to keep Super Rugby franchises or Unions going.

The $6Mil figure always seemed so arbitrary and I wonder if it included any sponsorship offsets as I know they have an agreement with Qantas.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Exactly. Nothing about other cost like funding to keep Super Rugby franchises or Unions going.

The $6Mil figure always seemed so arbitrary and I wonder if it included any sponsorship offsets as I know they have an agreement with Qantas.

The ARU grants around $5.7m to each Super Rugby team each year - it's really each team's share of the broadcast rights.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...t/news-story/86d59b6d4a5b7b4663878ea7af458305


The broadcasters have agreed to pay the same until 2020 and the ARU only have to distribute that much to 4 teams not 5.



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Killer]

The ARU grants around $5.7m to each Super Rugby team each year - it's really each team's share of the broadcast rights.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...t/news-story/86d59b6d4a5b7b4663878ea7af458305


The broadcasters have agreed to pay the same until 2020 and the ARU only have to distribute that much to 4 teams not 5.



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

The Rebels share was front loaded, more money in Cox's/VRU's hands thanks to the ARU and less to be evenly distributed, unless the Rebs will be getting less over the next few years?

 

[Killer]

I wonder what other cost cutting measures the ARU has planned.
Maybe an across the board 10-15% cut?
They won't be able to cut a team until the new agreement, if there is one.
7's rugby must get a fair bit I would think, maybe make them amateur and they can raise their own funds until an Olympic year.
Maybe Clyne can continue doing the CEO's and COO's jobs, that's >1m a year saved.
Cut back the Wallabies Top up's and match day payments again.
I guess the NRC will be going or cut back.
The National Women's Comp is University based so they don't need money.
No more buying out contracts that's for sure.