Where to for Super Rugby?

[BLR]

^^^^
Well it is all speculation really. since the Rebels came into play it would have been harder for East coast based players to be lured West then it would have otherwise, so perhaps the Force could have signed Hodge but knew he was already locked up, the Rebels will generally always have the first pick over us.

I know what you are saying but it wasn't like we had 4 really strong teams in 2011, the Force had a whole load of players of marginal quality in our squad, Hodge & Sef potentially could have just helped to make us stronger. (more likely make an East coast team stronger while we get their understudy)

 

[Slim 293]

That's questionable. It would be the case if we have 4 stacked teams on expansion but the Force were still pretty weak on expansion. I am sure the Force would have snapped them up if they were available.

I'm not sure what the point was of this post, except to start another parochial shit fight.........

In fact, it probably serves against your interests.

 

[lou75]

Just a quick shout out to the 2 try scorers for the Wallabies from the Rebels who probably wouldn't have been playing for Australia if we only had 4 teams.

Agreed, especially Sefa, who a few short years ago was just having a kick around Box Hill - and got a run with the Rising and the rest is history.
Of course, he may have been picked up by interstaters - Chrisitian Lealeafani and so on, but he wasn't.
This is not an agenda filled post, just a shout out to two boys who played well.

 

[Sauron]

Dean Mumm has had an op-ed published in the SMH today- in his role as president of RUPA. More evidence (not that it was needed) that the ARU is completely dysfunctional.

 

[lou75]

Dean Mumm has had an op-ed published in the SMH today- in his role as president of RUPA. More evidence (not that it was needed) that the ARU is completely dysfunctional.

a good article too. He says "the players collectively remain committed to the retention of five Australian teams until the end of the broadcast deal in 2020 and the ARU should reduce off-field costs, duplication and governance issues, not the already limited market of rugby. Rugby can't afford to lose fans from one entire state."
I did some comparisons of ARU and NZRU Turnover to Corporate spend:
in 2016 ARU Turnover was $128 million, its Corporate spend was $14.6 m, or 11.4%.
In contrast, NZRU Turnover was $151 million (in AUD adjusted), its Corporate spend was $9.5 m, or 6.3%.
They run their administration $5.1 m cheaper than we do. What are they eating over there? NZ are better at rugby and better at financial management.

 

[James Pettifer]

Agreed, especially Sefa, who a few short years ago was just having a kick around Box Hill - and got a run with the Rising and the rest is history.
Of course, he may have been picked up by interstaters - Chrisitian Lealeafani and so on, but he wasn't.
This is not an agenda filled post, just a shout out to two boys who played well.

I have a slight agenda. I think that 5 teams is better than 4 teams for the long term of Australian rugby.

You could argue that with 4 teams that you would always have your best 60 players on the field and that next 15 players are the players who would never play for Australia, but that is not always the case.

 

[mark_s]

Mumm's arguing that the ARU can't afford to drop a team, and is probably right. But does Mumm think the ARU can afford to keep 5 teams? He avoids that qn.

What if both are correct? The ARU can neither afford to maintain the status quo nor pay for the changes needed to make it affordable/sustainable.

 

[wamberal]

Exactly. There is no simple solution. Certainly no painless solution.

 

[Joe King]

Wouldn't it be wonderful to learn that the main reason the Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies have been uncompetitive and unable maintain their skill levels for a full 80, was simply due to a lack of fitness?!

But if that's the real problem, then tell me again why we are cutting a team?

So, is it a fitness problem or not?

 

[Twoilms]

Mumm's arguing that the ARU can't afford to drop a team, and is probably right. But does Mumm think the ARU can afford to keep 5 teams? He avoids that qn.

What if both are correct? The ARU can neither afford to maintain the status quo nor pay for the changes needed to make it affordable/sustainable.

Put them into administration?

 

[James Pettifer]

Mumm's arguing that the ARU can't afford to drop a team, and is probably right. But does Mumm think the ARU can afford to keep 5 teams? He avoids that qn.

What if both are correct? The ARU can neither afford to maintain the status quo nor pay for the changes needed to make it affordable/sustainable.

2 points
- the ARU are now getting over $20 million more per year from the broadcast rights. I struggle to see where this money is going. We ran fine with five teams before we got this extra $20 million
- there are definitely cuts that can be made to save money. Whether this is by reducing the head office, centralizing some functions from the Super Rugby teams or perhaps letting some very expensive players go overseas

 

[KevinO]

2 points
- the ARU are now getting over $20 million more per year from the broadcast rights. I struggle to see where this money is going. We ran fine with five teams before we got this extra $20 million
- there are definitely cuts that can be made to save money. Whether this is by reducing the head office, centralizing some functions from the Super Rugby teams or perhaps letting some very expensive players go overseas

Don't forget paying sabbatical leave on a very expensive contract

 

[BLR]

2 points
- the ARU are now getting over $20 million more per year from the broadcast rights. I struggle to see where this money is going. We ran fine with five teams before we got this extra $20 million

We weren't fine before though, look at the article a few weeks ago about the assistance given to most Super Rugby teams over the years.

Before Pulver had his stint was the big issue not the erosion of the World Cup windfall and how we need money?

We ran fine for a small section after 2003 and thats it. Monetarily it has been a steady decline & the ARU have really done nothing to halt it besides whinge about it while still giving handouts to most teams above the budgeted amounts.

I personally think the Force were started to get a bigger share of the pie, same with the Rebels as well as the supposed larger fan market and the most recent expansion was the pay off by allowing the expansion teams.
However this was not properly earmarked to strengthen the game and more a case of 'this will keep us running as is until we turn the corner and are miraculously back on (near) top.'
This didn't happen so we are at the point where the ARU need to face the facts, but instead of changing anything like they should have done a decade ago they are attempting to cut a team in the silly assumption (like the reverse of when granting the team) these will keep them alive for a little longer.

Kill them off, start again. If it means pulling out of Super Rugby, reducing over-inflated wages and losing a bunch of players, so be it. We will never compete with the AB's with the structure in place as it is.

 

[half]

Sigh

This is not up for long maybe another day.

Its an SBS interview with Steven lowy who has lots of social media against him.

What part to me is of interest to Rugby people is from around 11 minutes or just after. Lowy talks about building foundations and being transparent. But the importance of the national competition.

Ignoring my anti super rugby view, and putting aside my wanting a domestic competition, you get the feeling of what could have been with different management in place for Super Rugby.

Maybe Mr C could provide a similar interview from just after 11:00 minutes

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/973447747878/Exclusive-Interview-Steven-Lowy

 

[James Pettifer]

We weren't fine before though, look at the article a few weeks ago about the assistance given to most Super Rugby teams over the years.

Before Pulver had his stint was the big issue not the erosion of the World Cup windfall and how we need money?

$20 million is a fair bit if the total revenue of the ARU is only $87 million (including the $20 million). Surely we weren't losing $20 million a year

Kill them off, start again. If it means pulling out of Super Rugby, reducing over-inflated wages and losing a bunch of players, so be it. We will never compete with the AB's with the structure in place as it is.

Haven't really competed with the AB's for 10 years now but yeah, I 100% agree. We need a restart. Either now or in 2020 when SA leaves SuperRugby and there is a massive reduction in broadcast costs (from SA leaving, the decline in the interest in SuperRugby and the massive declines globally happening around broadcast costs). The next 10 years are going to be hard in rugby in Australia. We need some vision around where we want to be in 15-20 years and start moving towards that. For me, it has to be a real domestic league covering Australia. At least a dozen teams as our top tier with local club rugby underneath that. And at least in the short term, we might not be able to support the Pococks of this world.

I just wish the ARU would start planning and work out a strategy to move towards that instead of pissing off the clubs, Victoria and WA.

 

[Strewthcobber]

2 points
- the ARU are now getting over $20 million more per year from the broadcast rights. I struggle to see where this money is going. We ran fine with five teams before we got this extra $20 million
- there are definitely cuts that can be made to save money. Whether this is by reducing the head office, centralizing some functions from the Super Rugby teams or perhaps letting some very expensive players go overseas

Only from the annual report, I have no idea on accuracy of any of this...
Around 30% of additional revenue goes to the players, so $6m
Additional travel costs for Super Rugby of $5m
Extra $4m for community rugby
They did additional marketing of $2m
They ran a $4m surplus

$20m allocated

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

Why does everyone assume the Saffers are leaving? They don't seem like daft people to me.

They are definitely trying to open a second door. Sounds like smart business. That's different to walking away.

I suspect they will be here post 2020.

 

[Dave Beat]

Don't forget paying sabbatical leave on a very expensive contract

What good is coming from that?

Imagine if that $750k got invested in junior rugby development "invested".

If it was handed out so he would come back and play for the Wallabies - is that really the sort of person you want. I bet there are a number of players who would do anything to wear gold - now we have Liam Gill off shore and NRC player making his test debut.

 

[dru]

LFG is the past. I can only agree he would have been my call, but its over and is no longer an option.

The Pocock "sabatical" continues to annoy people and is certainly unusual. This said, if my understanding is correct, the " deal" works with agreed earnings over two seasons, but payments spread over three including his year out. That would mean we have paid nothing for his year out (on the presumption of him returning).

You could criticise how much he earns, if you thought along those lines, but if my understanding is correct it is misrepresenting to say he has recieved hand outs for no work.

 

[Merrow]

And haven't we missed Poey over the last 3 tests.