Where to for Super Rugby?

[Joe King]

Solution is simple. SA can look to focus on the Currie Cup. Returning it to being their premier competition. We take the other 12 and run our own competition over 16 weeks and the top 4 from each then play off in a Champions League competition at the end.

I like it a lot. The Currie Cup wouldn't be a bad fall-back. Could be good for them even!

Would you envisage the Jaguars being invited to play in the CC?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I like it a lot. The Currie Cup wouldn't be a bad fall-back. Could be good for them even!

Would you envisage the Jaguars being invited to play in the CC?

They could I guess but I was more thinking that they'd go with us.

 

[Joe King]

I'm not sure how the set up of the NRL works in relation to NZ League, but it seems the NRL have aspirations to grow in NZ and expand their market share within NZ.

My question is, if the NZRU took a similar view to Oz with a trans-tasman comp, how successful do you think they would be at expanding into the Oz market compared to NRL expanding into NZ?

Not sure if my question is very clear...

 

[wamberal]

The NRL's prime focus is Australia. New Zealand is just a minor add-on.


There are a lot of Keewees in Australia. Some of them follow league. Having a New Zealand team gives them an interest.


Doubt that the inverse situation applies for rugby.

 

[Dan54]

Would be very interested to see what each country have actually taken to the table, supposedly NZRU want 3 teams cut (think that is true), rumour on here has it SA want something else, and ARU want something else again, but none of us a particularly sure are we? Perhaps we should start a rumour that ARU want to cut a NZ team, though if we think about that, Geez Dismal how do you think the Blues will go combining with the top of Chiefs, and southern part could join the Canes, perhap we could get a couple of competitive teams

 

[Blue]

Sadly I think the Force will go. Mainly to save the Rebels. Pity..,
Relocating teams from loyal heartland like the brumbies just wont work. Its not a movable brand, its a province a provincial indentity. Its not like relocating a company HQ.

And keep pissing up a tree in VIC. Great. For what, a couple of thousand fans? That is literally what it is. Let's not kid ourselves. The Rugby horse didn't bolt out of Melbounre, it never really visited (sorry Rebel fans but you are like the last outpost in a city of giants.) Chasing an unattainable dream in that city. Just seems to make more sense to invest in a Perth team and actually give it a chance to succeed.

If the Brumbies get yanked I will join the march on North Sydney HQ. It's a block away from me. It will make no farken sense whatsoever. The Force squad are three or four top notch players away from knocking people over more regularly. The Rebels are on the moon.

 

[Blue]

Solution is simple. SA can look to focus on the Currie Cup. Returning it to being their premier competition. We take the other 12 and run our own competition over 16 weeks and the top 4 from each then play off in a Champions League competition at the end.

Right go convince the broadcasters.

Then help the broadcasters come up with a deal that all the Unions will accept.

We'll all wait patiently.

If the numbers could work this would have happened already.

NZ says they want to play SA teams regularly but if they are given the same money they will go along with your idea. Why? because the loot will not add up.

It is all about the money. The current model delivers more money on the table.

 

[RedsHappy]

And keep pissing up a tree in VIC. Great. For what, a couple of thousand fans? That is literally what it is. Let's not kid ourselves. The Rugby horse didn't bolt out of Melbounre, it never really visited (sorry Rebel fans but you are like the last outpost in a city of giants.) Chasing an unattainable dream in that city. Just seems to make more sense to invest in a Perth team and actually give it a chance to succeed.

If the Brumbies get yanked I will join the march on North Sydney HQ. It's a block away from me. It will make no farken sense whatsoever. The Force squad are three or four top notch players away from knocking people over more regularly. The Rebels are on the moon.

Blue - like it or not, the issue of Rebels preservation or otherwise has become not one of fan viability but more likely one of high cost exposure should the ARU have to close them down.

Remarkably, as the rugby fan I am, what has leaked out in recent days is that it appears that what the ARU then billed as a 'private equity buy out' when Cox's company 'bought out' the Rebels from the ARU was in fact no such thing but rather a form of cost sharing and delegated business responsibility (to Cox's company) for a period and that the ARU still guaranteed or underwrote large-scale Melbourne-based exposures to facilities, leases, stadium commitments and so on if the Rebels were closed down and/or Cox's company somehow pulled out.

If true, that is not a private equity buy-out at all, it's more a kind of one-sided joint venture with the ARU taking the vast majority of the significant still-existing franchise survival risk. As has been noted above in this thread, the ARU continues to provide very material $ subsidies to Cox's firm way above the base level of annual $ grants each franchise gets in any event from the ARU. This worrying and risky (given the ARU's already parlous overall cash position) truth also only leaked out well after the 'private equity buy out' deal was proudly announced.

This is why so tellingly Cox has recently more or less said that closing the Rebels down would cost the ARU a motza and they'd not do it for that reason alone - namely, they couldn't afford it.

I don't mean to offend Rebels fans as I have a lot of regard for their passion and loyalty, but the Rebels to date (after 6 seasons) have been a financial and performance disaster for the ARU and it's clearly not over yet.

This outcome is entirely of the ARU's own making. Yet again they indulged their intellectually and professionally lazy, poorly-researched 'national footprint' vision in thinking that as they expanded the quantity of Super rugby played, the quality of the sporting product so provided would just automatically take care of itself and the ARU needed to place no new effort into balancing quantity expansion with quality upgrades to the actual coaching, playing and management system that would have to deliver the new quantity of Super games and Super players.

Namely, the ARU, just as they did with the Force in 2006 and later, pursued a strategy of national quantitative growth totally bereft of execution quality, planning and detail, i.e., without real substance.

That chronic imbalance always contains massive hidden risk that ultimately explodes into a calamitous debacle dragging to disaster all who sailed in a ship in effect designed only for appearances, not high seas and long journeys.

 

[mark_s]

I reckon the Rebels and Brumbies should merge, becoming the Melbourne Brumbies. Play (say) 2 games plus a trial in Canberra a year and the rest at AAMI. Like the NRL model for mergers, the ARU should make it attractive (either financially or in player concessions or even just in terms of draw preferences somehow) if they are able to do so. Even their colour schemes can be integrated without great grief.

I can't see the force leaving or merging. Only other geographically logical merger would be for Waratahs and Brumbies to join but that seems unlikely to be a happy marriage.

 

[No4918]

Canberra and Sydney are closer together. Why not merge them? Canberra is basically Western Sydney that many want.

Seriously, a merger to appease fans will end up messier and with more annoyed punters than we have presently. Hope they don't go down this road.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Right go convince the broadcasters.

Then help the broadcasters come up with a deal that all the Unions will accept.

We'll all wait patiently.

If the numbers could work this would have happened already.

NZ says they want to play SA teams regularly but if they are given the same money they will go along with your idea. Why? because the loot will not add up.

It is all about the money. The current model delivers more money on the table.

Given the current mess we're in. It might npt be as hard to get a broadcaster on board as you think.

 

[Twoilms]

Canberra and Sydney are closer together. Why not merge them? Canberra is basically Western Sydney that many want.

Seriously, a merger to appease fans will end up messier and with more annoyed punters than we have presently. Hope they don't go down this road.

Stinks of North Sydney Bears and Manly merger which was calamitous.

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^ Teddy bears' picnic compared to the fallout if the Brumbies/Rebels merger takes place. I'll say it again that while I don't want to see any side cut from the Super Rugby competition, the long term success of a side located in Melbourne is very questionable to say the least. Melbourne is AFL through and through - anything else is a direct attack of their raison d'etre. If a merged side is located in Melbourne, it will itself disappear within a few short years imo.

 

[Slim 293]

Canberra and Sydney are closer together. Why not merge them? Canberra is basically Western Sydney that many want.

Imagine that........... a crowd of 20,000 people booing their own team.

 

[RedsHappy]

Canberra and Sydney are closer together. Why not merge them? Canberra is basically Western Sydney that many want.

Seriously, a merger to appease fans will end up messier and with more annoyed punters than we have presently. Hope they don't go down this road.

Surely the smart strategic thing to do (amongst many others) in the current Super teams imbroglio is to cut the Force or Rebels and relocate the Brumbies to Western Sydney (which is where the original Super expansion should absolutely have been vs Perth or Melbourne). Then get a crack head coach (that's clearly not what Larkham is) and business CEO (not the second rater they have now) into the WS Brumbies and rebuild out from there.

 

[stoff]

Blue - like it or not, the issue of Rebels preservation or otherwise has become not one of fan viability but more likely one of high cost exposure should the ARU have to close them down.

Remarkably, as the rugby fan I am, what has leaked out in recent days is that it appears that what the ARU then billed as a 'private equity buy out' when Cox's company 'bought out' the Rebels from the ARU was in fact no such thing but rather a form of cost sharing and delegated business responsibility (to Cox's company) for a period and that the ARU still guaranteed or underwrote large-scale Melbourne-based exposures to facilities, leases, stadium commitments and so on if the Rebels were closed down and/or Cox's company somehow pulled out.

If true, that is not a private equity buy-out at all, it's more a kind of one-sided joint venture with the ARU taking the vast majority of the significant still-existing franchise survival risk. As has been noted above in this thread, the ARU continues to provide very material $ subsidies to Cox's firm way above the base level of annual $ grants each franchise gets in any event from the ARU. This worrying and risky (given the ARU's already parlous overall cash position) truth also only leaked out well after the 'private equity buy out' deal was proudly announced.

This is why so tellingly Cox has recently more or less said that closing the Rebels down would cost the ARU a motza and they'd not do it for that reason alone - namely, they couldn't afford it.

I don't get this. Why would anyone invest capital in something without a guarantee that it wouldn't continue to exist. This is just a business deal, not some quasi JV whatever. Also do you have figures on the Rebels distributions moving forwards over the other franchises. My understanding is they are less. Sports revenue is TV generated and all private ownership models
I can think of involve a share of that revenue stream. Also, where is the evidence the ARU underwrites any of the Rebels deals. Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying as far as I know details of the Rebels ownership agreement has not been made public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Geez Dismal how do you think the Blues will go combining with the top of Chiefs, and southern part could join the Canes, perhap we could get a couple of competitive teams

Seriously though I reckon the Blues should join the Aus conference. No more torrid and treacherous trips to Dunedin, Wellington etc. Off to the big Aus cities, Sydney, Melbourne, the spectacle of Suncorp etc. Exciting times ahead for the Blues. Of course, a TOTAL ban on non-conference match-ups. Would make both conferences more balanced I reckon.

 

[louie]

Surely the smart strategic thing to do (amongst many others) in the current Super teams imbroglio is to cut the Force or Rebels and relocate the Brumbies to Western Sydney (which is where the original Super expansion should absolutely have been vs Perth or Melbourne). Then get a crack head coach (that's clearly not what Larkham is) and business CEO (not the second rater they have now) into the WS Brumbies and rebuild out from there.

No city in super rugby has two teams. This is the stupidest idea I've heard yet. You'd have to change the whole identity of the the Waratahs, what the east Waratahs?

 

[Quick Hands]

Kinda Rugby Postcodes don't count in professional global sports.

So following your argument (yours not mine by the way), it wouldn't matter if the Brumbies postcode was 2600 or 3000?

 

[Quick Hands]

Of course running the player roster is not the best of arguments.

With or without the imported expertise at the time; kudos should be given to the Brumbies in my foreign opinion. They were up against established unions and made the best of their resources I believe - and that in a comparatively short amount of time when you consider the most recent additions to Super Rugby and a little further back.

Of course kudos should be given to the Brumbies. If you read my post closely, you would have noted that I gave them quite a glowing endorsement.

It's what they should be running on, not the nonsense about player lists (which actually diminishes their argument IMO)