Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dave Beat]

With the ARU stating they cannot financially sustain 5 teams but can do so with 4 and with the Rebels off the ARU books, does that not mean the ARU can financially sustain Reds, NSW, Brumbies and Force? That is 4 teams.

Maybe they could sustain it if they had the player depth / talent coming through (why don't they). So they take the soft weak option and throw in the towel, yeah would like to get in the trenches and battle with the ARU by my side - NOT.

The Force and Rebs have been working hard on Pathways - and this. I have always said the pathway is 7 - 10 years, you need the boys going into year 7 to develop, grow, and attract - and have them moving into through Colts.

 

[mst]

This article says nearly 30k people were at the game and the footage seems to confirm that - http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/170415/Motivated_Lions_shut_out_Stormers

Sorry. I stand corrected. It was the Bulls game with the mini crowd,

 

[sidelineview]

The basic distribution is exactly the same these days .
Other payments are based on Contract deals such as Rebels sale and Force bail out .

Ok thanks.

Indulge me further: how much is that exactly?

 

[blues recovery]

Think it's somewhere around 5.5

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Interesting piece of information to consider from last night:

Africa 1 (Strormers W6-L0) V Africa 2 (Lions W5-L1) conference leaders played last night (AKA the top 2 teams in SA atm) in front of...

....reports are just over 5000 crowd!

Crowds for so many sa games way lower than any other oz conference games so not hard to see why sa more keen to jettison 2 sides. Crowds for force and rebels not really that bad but player payments etc means crowd numbers and tv.viewer numbers need to be higher to sustain.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Im not sure how Mr Cox comes to the assertion that he was sold a dud product. Being a multi million dollar investment, surely Mr Cox would have done his due diligence before purchase. You know, check the books and financial history of what he is investing into. Surely the previous owner being on public record as losing $8 million was a pretty big red flag? The ARU only said it was financially unstainable for the ARU to operate 5 teams. Buyer beware and all that.

With the ARU stating they cannot financially sustain 5 teams but can do so with 4 and with the Rebels off the ARU books, does that not mean the ARU can financially sustain Reds, NSW, Brumbies and Force? That is 4 teams.

Fact...If rebels were more successful on the field crowds would come likewise for the force

Fact...the force and rebels have not been successful in the field and why their existence is under threat. Yes these threads will debate reasons for lack of on field success but that is why financially cutting a team is having to be considered.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[sidelineview]

Think it's somewhere around 5.5

Ok, so it costs between 12 to 14 mill to run a team and they receive 5 to 6 from the ARU.

So each team has to come up with between 6 and 9 mill to break even, disregarding any bail outs which have not been evenly distributed in the past.

And gate takings would be a big slice of that pie but crowds are down because of the quality of the games; but if the product was better the pay TV rights would likely to be worth more .......

And now the ARU want to cut a team even though agreements have been signed until 2020 ....

And why do NZ teams beat Aussie teams?
What are they doing right at school and junior Club level and what are the Australian rugby bodies doing wrong, if they're doing much at all?

I'm assuming RL wouldn't be as popular in NZ; Aussie Rules would be non-existent but soccer would be relatively strong. So not as much competition from rival codes but it wouldn't just end there.

Just thinking out aloud ......... I'll go and have a nana-nap now and when I wake up someone would have solved all the problems.

 

[lou75]

These are my back of the envelope figures, and even without the optimistic match day walkins they would still break even:
Expenses:
Player payments $5m
Off field staff $3m
Match operations, marketing and services $2 m
= $10 m
Revenues:
Memberships 10000 x $200 ave = $2 m
Sponsors let's say $2.5 m
ARU $5.9 m
Match day rev 8 games at $25 per ticket for walkins with a crowd of 10000 2 m
=$12.4 m

 

[D-Box]

That does quite add up. Most of those memberships will be seated so no new dollars for a game. If say the Force are at 5000 members you are only selling 4000 seats less freebies

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[mudskipper]

The basic distribution is exactly the same these days .
Other payments are based on Contract deals such as Rebels sale and Force bail out .

As I inderstand each club gets a set amount but every other club iutside the Brumbies in the last 5 yesrs at sometime or multiple times has been given large additional amounts of cash...
Addedtothistge Force sold its IP to the ARU...so its been a slow train wreck happening in the wedt fir a while...

 

[TOCC]

Think it's somewhere around 5.5

It was a base grant of $5.7million, with the ARU reporting that would be receiving an extra $1.8 on top of that for additional costs in 2016.

When you break down the grants and funding its gets even more murky, whilst the ARU now claims Super Rugby grants to all teams are $33million, up $8million from 2016 it doesn't mention that the Western Force player wages have been shifted to the ARU's own player costs($3.6million). So, does this mean the grants to the Super Rugby teams have increased by $8million even with one less team to grant now that the ARU have assumed the costs of the Force into their own? If it does, it begs the question where has the money gone, whilst the QRU reported an increase in grants from $5.7 to $7.8million that doesn't account for all the funding(see below).

$33million/4 teams = $8.2million..

Here is another little footnote in the ARU annual report, it states Super Rugby team costs of $8.1m, an increase of $4.8m(predominantly travel costs).

 

[TOCC]

As I inderstand each club gets a set amount but every other club iutside the Brumbies in the last 5 yesrs at sometime or multiple times has been given large additional amounts of cash.
Addedtothistge Force sold its IP to the ARU.so its been a slow train wreck happening in the wedt fir a while.

I'ts a train wreck right across Australian Rugby Mudskipper, and the Brumbies have lost just as much money as the Western Force have over the last 5 years, the only difference is one had $11million from the sale of land to keep the creditors at bay.

 

[TOCC]

Just found this little doozy from Bill Pulver from 2015

​

“People have suggested to me “why don’t you drop to four teams and negotiate broadcasting rights to remain the same?”,” Pulver said.

“Well, they wouldn’t be the same. That is just a pipedream. I am very committed to the national footprint for rugby. We are going to get the strategy right, we are going to rebuild the game.

“And when we do, if we don’t have a team in one of those major cities we will be rueing the day we let it go.”

 

[p.Tah]

^^^ he's been open about that has been his view, but it's got so dire that we won't have a game nationally at all if we don't consolidate.

 

[The torpedo]

Just found this little doozy from Bill Pulver from 2015

​

When and what was this from?

 

[TOCC]

^^^ he's been open about that has been his view, but it's got so dire that we won't have a game nationally at all if we don't consolidate.

Consolidation isn't whats occurring...

Consolidation would suggest that the 35 contracted players will be added to the existing teams player numbers, that the development pathways generated by the Force will somehow be transferred to the remaining teams, that the coaching opportunities and sponsorship revenue will miracoursly be shifted onto the existing teams. Pulver has even said that the teams won't receive any additional funding..

This isn't consolidation, some may push to call it a 'restructure', but i'd call it a sacrifice, an abandonment or a recession for rugby union in this country.

 

[Mr Doug]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/s...lbourne-rebels-should-go-20170414-gvkzus.html

Well, today's the day to buy a lotto ticket....

Matt ("You Don't Get to Comment if You Didn't Play") Burke wants the Force to stay.

Yes, that same rabid 'Tah Man who perhaps thinks that Australia stops at Parramatta, and who a couple of weeks back begged for the ARU to bone the best from the West.

Stunning.

Boomer, I heard a replay of an interview with Matt Burke this morning on Fox Sports Radio, in which he said that if the Reds couldn't beat the Kings, then they should be the ones to go!!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Ok, so it costs between 12 to 14 mill to run a team and they receive 5 to 6 from the ARU.

So each team has to come up with between 6 and 9 mill to break even, disregarding any bail outs which have not been evenly distributed in the past.

And gate takings would be a big slice of that pie but crowds are down because of the quality of the games; but if the product was better the pay TV rights would likely to be worth more ...

And now the ARU want to cut a team even though agreements have been signed until 2020 ..

And why do NZ teams beat Aussie teams?
What are they doing right at school and junior Club level and what are the Australian rugby bodies doing wrong, if they're doing much at all?

I'm assuming RL wouldn't be as popular in NZ; Aussie Rules would be non-existent but soccer would be relatively strong. So not as much competition from rival codes but it wouldn't just end there.

Just thinking out aloud ... I'll go and have a nana-nap now and when I wake up someone would have solved all the problems.

Are crowds down because of quality?
Is there research to,prove that?
I ask because I don't go to games even though I live 200m from a stadium and the reason is because I can watch 3 games, league, EPL, etc and be in bed 3 mins after full time.

 

[Boomer]

Boomer, I heard a replay of an interview with Matt Burke this morning on Fox Sports Radio, in which he said that if the Reds couldn't beat the Kings, then they should be the ones to go!!

Turning into quite the dial-a-quote, apparently.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't think people like Matt Burke should be commenting on which team gets cut unless they have experience running a large sporting organisation..........