Where to for Super Rugby?

[joeyjohnz]

If he bought a pup, he can hardly evince surprise when it pees on his carpet. And, by the way, how many examples are there of private ownership generating a profit in Australian sport?


There are failed ventures everywhere you look.

The Bronco's are a publicly listed company on the ASX.

However, regarding the Rebels, it's not really about generating profit though. There's probably zero money to be made out of rugby in Melbourne for the next 5 years.
The ARU has come out and said they have been considering cutting a team since 2011.

This, coupled with the Rebels having to "show cause" to remain in Soop is literally a slam dunk in legal terms. Cox has the ARU bent over the barrel. The ARU biggest problem is that Cox knows the ARU has a $30mil chequebook to wind up a franchise and his lawyers are licking their lips.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Mark Ella has a great discussion piece in today's Australian (with another promised for next week) with several ideas on how to fix Australian Rugby. No specific comments on the structure of Super rugby, but he has several very good thoughts on how to develop players.
The title of his article is
It’s time to put some weight on recasting successful junior model

I've been a bit critical of Mark's columns in the past (mainly due to a very Sydney centric view of the world) but he's 100% on the money here and he's echoing what a lot of us are saying on GaGR. This article needs to be broadcast far and wide, because he's talking a lot of sense.

 

[RedsHappy]

Cox could always get some advice from Palmer, Tinkler, et al.

If not perhaps though the US family that bought Manchester United. I think they have done rather well.

But you're right re private equity into Aus sports teams - it's normally ended with lots of Kleenex tissues on the floor.

 

[RedsHappy]

The ARU literally did the deal because the 5 teams were unsustainable for them

Cox didn't buy 5 teams though, he bought into 1 of them and as long as the cash flow promised by the ARU continues to flow (and I've seen no suggestion that it won't?) Then his investment is as "sustainable" as it's ever been.

Cox has them over a barrell, but it's cause he an asset that the ARU now want. Nothing to do with any comments

The ARU's supply of cash is really the core factor in terms of how much cash Cox has _really_ had to invest personally since the $1 he paid for the Rebels in mid-2015. He's had the ARU base Super grant every year then on top multiple millions in additional annual ARU 'transfer of ownership' subsidies (that started immediately on his takeover but which gradually reduce over time). Then there's gate, sponsorship, merchandising etc income sources.

It's at least conceivable that his net cash investment to date has not been as substantial as is often surmised here. The facts may be traceable via ASIC if his Rebels ownership sits under his main business vehicle, but it may not.

 

[Quick Hands]

interesting article,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11854985

The ARU has a plan?

That article sums up the ARU in a nutshell. In the best traditions of Yes Minister, their plan is to have no plan. Having no plan and no idea are two things at which the ARU excel. They have elevated these traits to Olympic standard.

 

[mst]

Mark Ella has a great discussion piece in today's Australian (with another promised for next week) with several ideas on how to fix Australian Rugby. No specific comments on the structure of Super rugby, but he has several very good thoughts on how to develop players.
The title of his article is
It’s time to put some weight on recasting successful junior model

The grass roots junior comments are just logical well known stuff that's been talked about aplenty but misses the key issue; how to fund it. If we had more funds we would already being doing more than he is suggesting.

As for his comments about defence and the NRC, the evidence certainly suggests otherwise. The Brumbies game last night showed a team with fantastic defence, but cant' score a try. the Force are similar, defend well, cant score much. No real solutions here IMHO.

 

[Highlander35]

To the ARU

That is all.

 

[half]

Genuine question to those that would have a background in this area.

My understanding is the ARU own the force.

Meaning the ARU could terminate the current CEO to be replaced by a hand picked lawyer of their choosing.

The ARU cut the Force.

The new CEO accepts the decision and winds up the Force.

If the Force CEO and new management appointed by the new CEO does not sue the ARU to keep its place in the Super League. Nobody else can.

Am I correct or have I missed something???????

 

[lou75]

Genuine question to those that would have a background in this area.

My understanding is the ARU own the force.

Meaning the ARU could terminate the current CEO to be replaced by a hand picked lawyer of their choosing.

The ARU cut the Force.

The new CEO accepts the decision and winds up the Force.

If the Force CEO and new management appointed by the new CEO does not sue the ARU to keep its place in the Super League. Nobody else can.

Am I correct or have I missed something???????

You raise some very interesting points.
ARU now owns the FOrce
Yes, they could terminate the current CEO and replace with their own man
However, with regard to the Force keeping its place in the Super Rugby that is bound by the agreement with the WA Rugby union and so would still hold IMHO

 

[kiap]

If the Force CEO and new management appointed by the new CEO does not sue the ARU to keep its place in the Super League. Nobody else can.

It's still subject to the alliance agreement.

But the Force and RugbyWA are separate entities.

It's the latter that will seek legal recourse.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Genuine question to those that would have a background in this area.

My understanding is the ARU own the force.

Meaning the ARU could terminate the current CEO to be replaced by a hand picked lawyer of their choosing.

The ARU cut the Force.

The new CEO accepts the decision and winds up the Force.

If the Force CEO and new management appointed by the new CEO does not sue the ARU to keep its place in the Super League. Nobody else can.

Am I correct or have I missed something???????

RugbyWA and the ARU have an agreement for a Super Rugby team in WA. The ARU own the Force name and employ all of the pro team's players, coaches and staff but RugbyWA (and not the Force) would be the ones officially trying to keep the team in the comp.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Genuine question to those that would have a background in this area.

My understanding is the ARU own the force.

Meaning the ARU could terminate the current CEO to be replaced by a hand picked lawyer of their choosing.

The ARU cut the Force.

The new CEO accepts the decision and winds up the Force.

If the Force CEO and new management appointed by the new CEO does not sue the ARU to keep its place in the Super League. Nobody else can.

Am I correct or have I missed something???????

Should also add that Mark Sindeberry is CEO of both the Force and RugbyWa. He reports to both the ARU and RugbyWA boards

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[ChargerWA]

Should also add that Mark Sindeberry is CEO of both the Force and RugbyWa. He reports to both the ARU and RugbyWA boards

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

And Company Secretary for Own The Force.

 

[ChargerWA]

What pisses me off about Ella's article is that the grass roots fans seem to be the only ones who really care. @RugbyReg started a thread on here 13 months ago pointing out the key issue of declining grass roots participation which has lurched along and never fallen off the radar.

The MSM has completely ignored the issue until the wheels have fallen off.

 

[Quick Hands]

RugbyWA and the ARU have an agreement for a Super Rugby team in WA. The ARU own the Force name and employ all of the pro team's players, coaches and staff but RugbyWA (and not the Force) would be the ones officially trying to keep the team in the comp.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Do they actually "own" the Force? Or is the arrangement slightly more complex than that?

 

[chibimatty]

I'm just wondering if the Perth Wildcats are considered to be a successful privately-owned franchise?

 

[ChargerWA]

Do they actually "own" the Force? Or is the arrangement slightly more complex than that?

They own the Intellectual Property Rights. It's as good as owning the Force. What's a team without an identity.

Just a reminder that the ARU never required The Reds, Tahs or Rebels to assign their property rights over to the ARU as part of their most recent (and more expensive) bailouts.

 

[Quick Hands]

They own the Intellectual Property Rights. It's as good as owning the Force. What's a team without an identity.

Just a reminder that the ARU never required The Reds, Tahs or Rebels to assign their property rights over to the ARU as part of their most recent (and more expensive) bailouts.

But isn't there a clause in the agreement which gives the Force/RWA the option to purchase the rights back at their own discretion?

I think that this was posted quite a few pages back. (By Kiap ?)

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^See post #4382

 

[Quick Hands]

To make things easier.

ARU acquires Western Force’s IP rights, but denies it’s a rescue
The Australian: February 18, 2016
Bret Haris

The ARU has acquired the intellectual property rights of the Western Force, including their Super Rugby licence, in a deal believed to be worth $800,000 in an effort to help the franchise out of financial difficulty.
… Sinderberry acknowledged that the ARU’s buyback was financial assistance for challenges the franchise was facing.

“It actually doesn’t mean a lot because we have an option to buy back at any time. That’s the most important thing,” Sinderberry said. “It was a way of assisting us with some funding challenges and also it protects the game more broadly. …
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e/news-story/22beb2a88c0918d22a5b466bd5d167a0