Where to for Super Rugby?

[Slim 293]

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.

Well no, not necessarily...........

At the time the ARU thought they were legally right to cut one of the Force or the Rebels...........

I imagine that if they came out and said that the Tahs, Brumbies or Reds were facing the axe they would be faced with similar opposition.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

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.

This is how I read the situation also however my gripe with Jamie is that he hasn't reporting it a such he is stating it's all done deal the force will be cut and all their players have signed else where.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

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.

You obviously don't have the subscription then its a weekly thing from Jamie

 

[farva]

Well no, not necessarily.....

At the time the ARU thought they were legally right to cut one of the Force or the Rebels.....

I imagine that if they came out and said that the Tahs, Brumbies or Reds were facing the axe they would be faced with similar opposition.

Quite true.
However, the ARU, over the last few years, have signed deals that have allowed the Force and the Rebels to challenge their being cut. I dont know what the other three franchises could find, but I am sure they would find something. The question would be whether that something could stand up in a court of law.

So we should ask what the ARU should do, once they decided they couldnt afford 5 teams (something I am not sold on yet by the way). What should have been done is all five teams be put on the block, all five teams be given an opportunity to put their case forward against a known criteria, and then a third party be engaged to determine who gets cut.
That way we have fairness, accountability and the ARU can be seen to be acting for the good of rugby nationally, not for the good of the chairmans mates which is what it seems now.

 

[Bullrush]

Quite true.
However, the ARU, over the last few years, have signed deals that have allowed the Force and the Rebels to challenge their being cut. I dont know what the other three franchises could find, but I am sure they would find something. The question would be whether that something could stand up in a court of law.

So we should ask what the ARU should do, once they decided they couldnt afford 5 teams (something I am not sold on yet by the way). What should have been done is all five teams be put on the block, all five teams be given an opportunity to put their case forward against a known criteria, and then a third party be engaged to determine who gets cut.
That way we have fairness, accountability and the ARU can be seen to be acting for the good of rugby nationally, not for the good of the chairmans mates which is what it seems now.

Or you just cut the consistently worst team in the conference if not the competition.

 

[kickedmyheight]

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.

That may be the case, but it is not how it has been reported.

"HOST of Western Force stars led by Wallaby Adam Coleman are set to sign with rival franchises now the ARU’s contract moratorium has been lifted, further dimishing the Perth club’s prospects of survival."

This is implying that the host of signings away from the Force will occur before the team is cut and directly affect the prospects of the Force remaining.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Highlander35]

Or you just cut the consistently worst team in the conference if not the competition.

Stats have been posted time and time again, from 2011-2016, the Rebels outperformed the Force in terms of results.

Many good arguments for Force over Rebels that isn't a good one.

 

[farva]

Or you just cut the consistently worst team in the conference if not the competition.

I should put forward now that I think on-field performance as a stand alone should have nothing to do with this decision. It should come down to what is best for the game in general. If on-field performance will affect revenue or growth in player numbers, that should be considered. But not to just cut the worst performing team for no other reason than they are the worst performing team.

 

[Rebels3]

Stats have been posted time and time again, from 2011-2016, the Rebels outperformed the Force in terms of results.

Many good arguments for Force over Rebels that isn't a good one.

Unfortunately some people aren't good with stats.

It's funny how a narrative can be derived through a small sample size

 

[Rebels3]

I should put forward now that I think on-field performance as a stand alone should have nothing to do with this decision. It should come down to what is best for the game in general. If on-field performance will affect revenue or growth in player numbers, that should be considered. But not to just cut the worst performing team for no other reason than they are the worst performing team.

Well put.

It should be whats in the best interest of the game short, medium and long term, who ever that is well then lets get behind them.

 

[Sauron]

That may be the case, but it is not how it has been reported.

"HOST of Western Force stars led by Wallaby Adam Coleman are set to sign with rival franchises now the ARU’s contract moratorium has been lifted, further dimishing the Perth club’s prospects of survival."

This is implying that the host of signings away from the Force will occur before the team is cut and directly affect the prospects of the Force remaining.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

We all just need to accept that whatever criteria the ARU plans to cut teams by, they will only be applied ex-post facto.

 

[BLR]

Unfortunately some people aren't good with stats.

It's funny how a narrative can be derived through a small sample size


View attachment 9298View attachment 9299View attachment 9300View attachment 9301View attachment 9302View attachment 9303

How about these stats mate?

Of the said $28mill, from 2013-2016, $16mill was given to the Rebels, $4.7 to BUY (NOT BAIL OUT) Force IP license, & the rest seems to be missing/unaccounted for. Would like to know how Clyne, justifies his arguments 'cos it ain't with any facts!

I am sure the Force would have performed better if they had so much money sunk into them as well. Is there a money to performance report we could run? I would say with top ups etc. taken into account the Force have done quite well considering we self fund many things, however the big three have their top ups and the Rebels have their money sink.
Look at the performance of Chelsea or Man City once they get a sudden influx of funds.

Inequality is the real problem here and the Force have been screwed since day 1.

 

[Rebels3]

How about these stats mate?


I am sure the Force would have performed better if they had so much money sunk into them as well. Is there a money to performance report we could run? I would say with top ups etc. taken into account the Force have done quite well considering we self fund many things, however the big three have their top ups and the Rebels have their money sink.
Look at the performance of Chelsea or Man City once they get a sudden influx of funds.

Inequality is the real problem here and the Force have been screwed since day 1.

No need to take it personally, i didn't once mention the Force in the post. I was merely refuting some claim that the Rebels have been 'consistently' the worst performed team in Super Rugby. No one has denied, speculated or even denounced the fact that we are probably (and i use probably, as the $28mil is purely a figure banded about and broken down by the media) the most likely to have contributed the highest proportion of that '$28mil'.

Get off your emotional high horse and try not to attack anything and anyone when you see an opportunity. If i had commented on some Finance issue, yep feel free to (and using actual factual data) refute something i say. Don't go looking for people to dump some shit on

 

[Dave Beat]

I will start by saying - I want all 5 teams to stay.

But lets say one HAST TO GO.

Now I'll say despite being the most successful Australian Team in soup, if a team has to be removed I'd remove the Brumbies.

• They are a pimple on the arse of Australia.
• Their success all very much deserved and yeah i loved watching, was partly / primarily due to the fact that NSW had / has political issues that still go on until this day.

If the Brumbies players lifted the quality of Force & Rebels i think that would fertalise the long term growth of the game.

What is the future growth of the game in ACT like? - honest question.

Yes I have been a fan of the Brumbies over the years - this is in know way to start an arguement as i want all 5 teams. But lets cut everything back and lets look at fertalising and growing the game and what would be the best for Australian Rugby in 5 years, and how it could / would look.

 

[Braveheart81]

I hear the fishing is good in Lake Burley Griffin at this time of year...

 

[BLR]

No need to take it personally, i didn't once mention the Force in the post. I was merely refuting some claim that the Rebels have been 'consistently' the worst performed team in Super Rugby. No one has denied, speculated or even denounced the fact that we are probably (and i use probably, as the $28mil is purely a figure banded about and broken down by the media) the most likely to have contributed the highest proportion of that '$28mil'.

Get off your emotional high horse and try not to attack anything and anyone when you see an opportunity. If i had commented on some Finance issue, yep feel free to (and using actual factual data) refute something i say. Don't go looking for people to dump some shit on

The implication is clearly there based on the stats you provided. So I provided my own stats. Simple.

 

[NTT]

The outrageous part of the journalistic coverage of all of this is not one journalist has ran an in depth investigation into where the ARUs money has been spent in terms of the $28 million. The annual reports are all available from ASIC. These reports show that Melbourne has received $20 million in bailouts and $13 million in loan forgiveness. Thats $33 million in 7 years of wasted money that grassroots and club rugby has been deprived of. $4.75 million a year just gone from our game chasing some fantastical market which, in 7 years, has not reciprocated. It is outrageous to think that our wisest administrators cannot see what a disaster it has been chasing shadows in Melbourne. Add in a couple million for damage to brand and anoth $4.75 million in bailouts and the ARU has thrown away another $6.75 million this year alone. Melbourne has a 20 year contract, at this rate this franchise is on track to lose $95 million out of rugby by the end of the 20 year lease.
How much does grassroots really need the money if their tradeoff is to kill their 3rd highest participated competition?
How much does grassroots really need the money if this is all one big bluff by the ARU to protect the cushy conditions afforded to the ARU hierarchy?
How much does grassroots really need the money when all savings from axing a growing market will be poured into the pocket of a businessman only looking for a profit?

It is outrageous that no one, and i mean absolutely no one, has expressed disgust through their journalistic privilege that Australian Rugby will continue to be expected to fund these perennial losses made by a franchise that is supposed to be privately owned and privately funded.
You Eastern staters always express strong opinions about propping up franchises with players, how about one of you actually get outraged that you will be pouring money into a failed venture that has already cost you $33 million and will need another $15 million in emergency/bailout funding by 2020?

 

[Braveheart81]

The outrageous part of the journalistic coverage of all of this is not one journalist has ran an in depth investigation into where the ARUs money has been spent in terms of the $28 million.

I think the answer would certainly be that few people would read it so editors would not want it and the few rugby journos there are don't have the time to do a big investigative piece alongside their regular work.

 

[blues recovery]

The outrageous part of the journalistic coverage of all of this is not one journalist has ran an in depth investigation into where the ARUs money has been spent in terms of the $28 million. The annual reports are all available from ASIC. These reports show that Melbourne has received $20 million in bailouts and $13 million in loan forgiveness. Thats $33 million in 7 years of wasted money that grassroots and club rugby has been deprived of. $4.75 million a year just gone from our game chasing some fantastical market which, in 7 years, has not reciprocated. It is outrageous to think that our wisest administrators cannot see what a disaster it has been chasing shadows in Melbourne. Add in a couple million for damage to brand and anoth $4.75 million in bailouts and the ARU has thrown away another $6.75 million this year alone. Melbourne has a 20 year contract, at this rate this franchise is on track to lose $95 million out of rugby by the end of the 20 year lease.
How much does grassroots really need the money if their tradeoff is to kill their 3rd highest participated competition?
How much does grassroots really need the money if this is all one big bluff by the ARU to protect the cushy conditions afforded to the ARU hierarchy?
How much does grassroots really need the money when all savings from axing a growing market will be poured into the pocket of a businessman only looking for a profit?

It is outrageous that no one, and i mean absolutely no one, has expressed disgust through their journalistic privilege that Australian Rugby will continue to be expected to fund these perennial losses made by a franchise that is supposed to be privately owned and privately funded.
You Eastern staters always express strong opinions about propping up franchises with players, how about one of you actually get outraged that you will be pouring money into a failed venture that has already cost you $33 million and will need another $15 million in emergency/bailout funding by 2020?

Look this is just an absolute nonsense
Please provide your proof that the Rebels have received 33m more from than the ARU than the other Australian Soop teams over the period of their existence . The figure is less than half that .
Is it still a lot of dough YES
Have the organisation wasted a lot of money , especially in their first two years
YES
Was it all their fault RESOUNDING NO
Were their estimates for revenue and costs in the original business model extremely flawed RESOUNDING YES
In the current model can a Super Rugby team in Melbourne at least break even financially RESOUNDING NO
In the current model can a Super Rugby team anywhere in Australia break even financially PROBABLY NOT

The whole thing is rooted both on and off the field and I feel very sorry for the Force as an organisation if they are for the chop as I have enormous respect for both the people and the club as a whole involved
It just doesn't assist the discussion for you to sprout bull shit numbers

 

[Brumby Runner]

I will start by saying - I want all 5 teams to stay.

But lets say one HAST TO GO.

Now I'll say despite being the most successful Australian Team in soup, if a team has to be removed I'd remove the Brumbies.

• They are a pimple on the arse of Australia.
• Their success all very much deserved and yeah i loved watching, was partly / primarily due to the fact that NSW had / has political issues that still go on until this day.

If the Brumbies players lifted the quality of Force & Rebels i think that would fertalise the long term growth of the game.


What is the future growth of the game in ACT like? - honest question.

Yes I have been a fan of the Brumbies over the years - this is in know way to start an arguement as i want all 5 teams. But lets cut everything back and lets look at fertalising and growing the game and what would be the best for Australian Rugby in 5 years, and how it could / would look.

Sorry DB, but this sort of horse-shit will not fertilise any rugby in Aus. Maybe feralise if that's what you mean.