I like to watch
David Codey (61)
^^^buying the IP was the ARU's preferred method for bailing out the Force, which in hindsight was too clever by half.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
Show me an article of his where he hasn't pushed the 'force to be cut' line or where he talks about the alliance agreement. All his articles are about the force being cut and the Rebels being safe because of the ownership agreement.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Isn't though a large part of that clear trend simply derived from the fact that this policy line - Force to be culled - has in truth been the ARU's preference and conviction all along and has been leaked heavily by the ARU to 'ARU friendly' media all along.
And btw nothing seems to have changed. The impression gained is that Cox has dug in and won, and 'won' in part as the ARU was never really serious, or seriously able to consider, re culling the Rebels at any time.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Can't it be both?
dru
Tim Horan (67)
I have to say that I just don't trust the veracity of anything out of ARU any more.
Thoughts though:
1. If the budget was shy, on average $7M EVERY year (average) what does it say to the bugeting?
2. If the problem was related to fiscal responsibility not directly the responsibility of the ARU, what are the ARU's overview and compliance checking responsibilities. Are those responsibilities sufficient? Why did it take 10 years to come to any such conclusion (whether the ARU was doing enough around fiscal compliance of the Unions).
3. If it takes more money than budgeted to successfully run these unions, what were the intentions to increase income/decrease cost elsewhere? How effective were these actions? Why did it take 10 years to reach a conclusion that no action was enough short of decreasing the code?
4. The support evidence from Clynne shows an argument that three teams, not four is sustainable. What actions are intended to resolve this? What is the plan for the very predictable demand from SANZAR in 2020 to cut to three? How does Australian rugby look with that cull? If the intention is a "do not cross" line between ARU and SANZAR - where is that line, and why is it not being stated in 2017?
5. If the ARU has planned actions can resolve four teams, contrary to the evidence provided to three, why can't those actions resolve five teams? More specifically what is required to solve five and why are we not pursuing this? Where and why is the line in the sand? What is the tolerance here and why shouldn't we be bolder?
6. The current logic from SANZAR appears to relate to the average quality of the teams - a different scenario to the ARU logic solely aimed at commercial sustainability. What does the ARU offer as evidence that the intended actions will satisfy SANZAR - ie with a more competitive Australian conference? What actions are in train to ensure the cull does not simply strengthen Europe? And of course refer above to item 4.
Of course other questions already well covered on the Forum relate to when the strategy changed and how that timetable relates to commitments given to the Unions.
kickedmyheight
Frank Nicholson (4)
I don't believe anything that come from mr Pandaram as I believe he is saying what the ARU is feeding him.
The players have very recently stated that they know no more than the rest of us, so how would it make sense for Coleman to leave one club under threat for the other club under threat? If you want security then there are many other options available that would be more attractive.
But this fits the ARU narrative perfectly. The second most valuable Force player (after DHP, my guess) suddenly abandons ship when the moratorium is lifted. Hopefully (from the ARU pov) this triggers a flood of signings of Force players to other teams so they only have to pull the life support from a carcass rather than kill a kicking screaming victim.
I hope it fails miserably and a host of Force players re-sign with the Force for as long as possible, so it becomes a more expensive proposition to cut us.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
because only one club will go. Makes complete sense to me.
half
Alan Cameron (40)
Happy to accept the wisdom of the forum on my following comment..
TWAS wondering aloud with all the cost stuff and falling crowds, why we play in very expensive stadiums.
Could we play in cheaper stadiums with finals booked for major events like the Reds and Tahs being in the finals.
Could the Tahs play at North Sydney Oval, Reds at Bally etc also maybe reduce the squad size by say two players each... thats 10 wages saved.
TWAS wondering aloud with all the cost stuff and falling crowds, why we play in very expensive stadiums.
Could we play in cheaper stadiums with finals booked for major events like the Reds and Tahs being in the finals.
Could the Tahs play at North Sydney Oval, Reds at Bally etc also maybe reduce the squad size by say two players each... thats 10 wages saved.
Sporting teams generally get paid to play at the bigger stadiums because that's what sponsorship dollars are used for.
Tahs gave up money to stop playing two games a season at ANZ Stadium.
Across all sports, teams lose money when they play at the suburban grounds compared to playing at the big stadiums.
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
I don't think willingness to come out and spout nonsense is a positive in his CV. Every public statement he's made has further exposed himself and the board as incompetent, and the fallacy of this entire exercise. He's handled this as well as an Australian scrumhalf.
Pulver at least has the self-respect to hide under a table.
kickedmyheight
Frank Nicholson (4)
But in what way has he improved his position? If he has no better idea than the rest of us which side is to be cut then he is just as likely to have signed with a doomed club as a safe club.
Potentially the money (which will be honoured regardless) being offerred is better in Melbourne, but I would be quite surprised if the Force didn't at least try to match any offer made for Adam. Likewise, I would think the Waratahs would be desperate for a lock of his ability next year and they are definetly a safe option.
Maybe I have my tinfoil hat on a little too tight this morning, but I will wait for confirmation from clubs before I accept that this has happened.
Watching him play over the last few weeks since he returned from injury has confirmed for me his place as a top lock, our pack looks so much better with him in it and he makes a great impact around the ground. I would be devastated to lose him.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
the way I read it, he has signed with the Rebels should the Force fall over.
If the Force remain, he stays out west, if they are cut then he's growing a beard and buying a moped.
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
This is an incredibly good point that few have raised.
If you're out by $7m in one year, surely you have a look at your balance sheet and check your assumptions on revenue and costs. You'd surely do a bit of analysis as to whether the extra cost was capital expenditure that won't repeat, or operational expenditure that will.
You don't just go 'oh we spent $27m but budgeted $20m. Let's spend $20m next year' and then hope that situation doesn't repeat itself.
The fact it has allegedly happened for each of the past four years is abject stupidity.
unfortunately I don't think Ballymore could host Super Rugby unless significant funds were invested into it. That whole eastern grandstand should just be roped off until they can blow it up.
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
the Rebels play their pre season matches at smaller grounds - Frankston and Harlequins without too many problems, so yes, they could do this.
Not sure that Rebels get paid to play at AAMI, they have to pay to play there dont they?
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Don't think so, the venues need product or they can't sell memberships, corporates, naming rights, catering rights etc etc,
A stadium that hosts no games generates zero income.
A stadium that hosts no games generates zero income.
Well Slim, there's two ways to spin a knob. Clockwise, and anti-clockwise.
Now, had Pandaram not been a "goodie-two-shoes-so-far-up-his-exclusive-sources-ass-he-can't-see-the-gross-incompetence-right-infront-of-him", he might be worthy of a little more respect and benefit of the doubt.
However, Pandaram's articles just rehashed and spun the ARU's "best case scenario" without any real investigation by himself. We've been seeing the magical $28 million dollar number well before that London meeting. He's well versed in the act of dictation, not investigation.
Had he done any resemblance of "investigatory journalism", he would have made a phone call or two, the first to RugbyWA's CEO - then a second to Andrew Cox. Perhaps he could have revealed to his readership that there was no possible legal avenue for the ARU to cut either team. (Infact the only legal option is the Brumbies,Reds&Tahs, but Clynes dug in hard on those bad boys)
Funnily enough Slim, I've seen you vent on Wayne Smith for his reporting over the past two-three months. I daresay this has something to do with him pushing a Melbourne-Brumbies merger.
I should say that I, in no way, shape or form support the cutting to 4 teams. However, if there is a cull - which we (the ARU) have agreed to, then it's time to face up to the facts that there are only 3 teams that can legally be cut and The Force & Rebels aren't among them.
This leaves Brumbies, Reds & Tahs. Which option is the least painful? A Brumbies-Rebels merger.
Pandaram's a patsy without the slightest journalistic sense or ability. He is capable of writing one side of a story (the side spoon-fed by his source), and his articles contain zero critical analysis. Had he been something other than a mouthpiece for the ARU we mightn't find ourselves in this situation. The slightest bit of investigation by him and the ARU probably wouldn't have gone ahead with their plan to cull a team in London.
If members of this forum want to pretend that Jamie Pandaram isn't part of the exclusive-boys-club-ARU-in-circle of mates that has gotten Australian Rugby into this position then fine, stick your head in the sand. He has, and will never challenge the administrators - and for that I don't blame him. If I was as talent-less a journalist as him, I'd go out of my way to write nice things about my only worthwhile source.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I sure did..............
I haven't seen Pandaram write an opinion piece about the Force at the frequency that Smith did about a Brumbies-Rebels merger over twitter and the Australian over the course of a few weeks.
- Status