Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Where the ARU is concerned, I think that the mad hatters tea part is closest to the mark.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Where the ARU is concerned, I think that the mad hatters tea part is closest to the mark.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Yes I think it has run its course. I think all three countries can do with something that freshen things up.
I know it it likely to never happen but I would LOVE to sit in a public forum with the SANZAR powers that be and have them articulate why it is still good for the game to stick with Super Rugby. It will make Press Secretary Spicer look like the angel of truth.
stoff
Bill McLean (32)
The $5.1m is the distribution of $1.7m per year all the other franchises receive. It has been fairly widely reported. The Rebels made a small loss last year. The challenge this year will be to cover the drop in ARU revenue this year.
The historical losses are important, but also contain setup costs and were indicative of a less financially conservative management team. My understanding is the cost base was rained in post the Mitchell era.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
louie
Desmond Connor (43)
Good thing you've got all those Randwick VHS tapes to keep you interested and posting.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/f...s/news-story/8b622a31731c8fe61fdf5bf79d94fc42
Phil Kearns challenging the ARU to keep all five Aussie teams.
I guess he's not part of the east coast conspiracy to get rid of the Force?!?
Phil Kearns challenging the ARU to keep all five Aussie teams.
I guess he's not part of the east coast conspiracy to get rid of the Force?!?
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Very nice to be able to agree with Kearns on something, anything, but especially something this important.
half
Alan Cameron (40)
Can I get this either confirmed or told I am way off the mark.
The urgency in the London meeting was caused by broadcasters concerns pertaining to falling ratings, especially in SA & Europe.
If this is correct, how do we in effect lift the ratings?
The assumption seems to be by making Australian & SA teams more competitive ratings will lift?
Just maybe we have got this all about face in that we need to develop a better system / schedule to lift ratings.
The urgency in the London meeting was caused by broadcasters concerns pertaining to falling ratings, especially in SA & Europe.
If this is correct, how do we in effect lift the ratings?
The assumption seems to be by making Australian & SA teams more competitive ratings will lift?
Just maybe we have got this all about face in that we need to develop a better system / schedule to lift ratings.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
I don't mind Phil's passion, just get infuriated when he puts either his Wallabies or Tahs blinkers on during commentary.
I see on twitter as well the WA Premier has been on the phone to the Force CEO, to give his support. What ever that means?
Apparently the Vic government has been threatening to pull out of centre of excellence and proposed Bledisloe contract.
The tide is starting to turn, but will it turn quick enough?
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I like that he said the ARU should call the NZRU's bluff. I've been saying this for a while. It's the best way to get a Trans-Tasman comp in the short term because a NZ/SA competition or regular season conference wouldn't work too well for NZ fans. The ARU should suggest if they're not willing to go to a Trans-Tasman regular season then they can have a SA/NZ conference and we'll run our our own conference with the Sunwolves and maybe another team or two in the Asia-Pacific. NZ could even split their teams among the primarily Australian and primarily South African conferences. Put the ball back in their court.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I dont get it?
We dont need to bluff anyone: as I understand it all we need to do is veto the plan.
if that is correct then, i repeat, the only reason the ARU has not come out and said "dont even think about it because we will veto it" is because jettisoning the force is their preferred option.
I was told that was the position 6 months ago by someone who probably knew.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
So the $5.1 is a conflated historical figure used for convenience of argument as all franchises will receive the equal amount of the "distribution".
So the difference you claim seems to be very different according to my maths: $1.6 due the Rebels over the next few years compared to the $1.7 due all the rest of the franchises including the Force. Hmmm. Not quite $5.1mil.
It could be also worth adding what the Force do have and the Rebels don't which is the largest major sponsor of all clubs worth $1.5mil a year. On top of that is there minor sponsors and if they remain and the "share float" goes ahead that would add $10mil.
No, the figures I provided are operational costs. Start up, facility costs etc are exclusive of those figures. So feel free to add that to the Rebels costs.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Yeah I believe you are right on that, but Phil Kearns was talking about calling their bluff on a Trans-Tasman conference or regular season competition. This is the structure the ARU has preferred since before the last broadcast deal but couldn't happen because the NZRU wanted to play South African teams in the regular season.
But I think it's a bit of a bluff because if we said we're not willing to play in South Africa during the regular season and the NZRU had to choose between a regular season with Australia and South Africa I think the realities of their time zone will be too strong for them to ignore. And if they did go with South Africa I think it'd fail pretty quickly.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
I really don't think setting up our own conference or league is as hard as many assume. We essentially have the resources in place to do it now. We have the current 5 franchises and I see no issue in adding the two Country teams and run their programs similar to that used in the NRC. Or in locations fairly close by.
The key would be more about having them run centrally more than anything else. This would give us 7 teams fairly quickly. We could go with that and run either a 13 week (one bye each) first past the post competition. We could look to include Fiji as per the NRC or we could approach the Wild Knights about getting on board.
Another option could be as they do in the NBL and have teams play multiple times (in our case 3 times as opposed to the NBL with 4) to give us 18 games each.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
If necessary it could even be doable for next year if we had to with just a 6 team conference (including the Sunwolves) with everyone playing each other 3 times. That'd be 15 games, same as now. Then the top 2 could go through to the Super Rugby quarter finals (along with the top 6 from the larger NZ/SA/Jaguares conference).
Not really ideal, but workable. Playing each team 3 times might seem like a little too much but it'd also be like a proper series against each team, which is kind of cool.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Soooo. If in Australia the politicians are getting involved, what are our reasonable minimal expectations as to what is happening right now in South Africa from, I dont know, let's say (a) the African National Congress? (b) The republic's Ministry of Sport?
There will be others. Bloemfontein is not exactly devoid of politicians.
Anyone thinking SARU will offer up two teams that do NOT include the Kings (or foreigners)?
How do you make those two new teams competitive?
How do you deal with existing contracts when your ability to pay those contracts drops substantially?
The commercial realities are the biggest problem.
Surely the ARU has a preferred outcome and then outcomes they're willing to settle for.
Clearly no one is happy with the existing Super Rugby format because fans are turning away and teams are haemorrhaging money.
Is it hard to imagine that the preferences the ARU has are as follows:
1. A Trans-Tasman comp (but also realising that is incredibly unlikely to be a reality within the current broadcast deal)
2. Remain at 18 teams but redistribute it into 3 groups of 6.
3. Drop to 15 teams with SA losing two and Aus losing one.
Whilst clearly they could use their veto power to prevent option 3, if it is a case of the competition remaining exactly as is versus the drop to 15 teams then perhaps that is seen as the lesser of two evils.
If nothing at all is done to restructure the competition they might consider the consequences for the five teams collectively to be worse than a more workable competition with one less team.
Hopefully we get at least one year with 3x6 conferences in 2018 and see whether that improves things.
I never saw that as a reason. The urgency of the London meeting was that they were all over there for a World Rugby meeting. I am sure they were aware of broadcaster concerns but hope that they were aware of the issues around the event broader.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
It's not that simple though is it? And I should start by saying I don't support losing any teams.
We don't know what the status quo means. The option might be to keep 5 teams, but a dramatic reduction in the euro money.
Another option offered by broadcasters might be a full Trans-tasman conference with current money, with a proviso that Aus only has 4 teams.
Maybe the Euro broadcasted are offering everyone $10m a year more, as long as we go back to S15.
I have no idea what terms are being discussed that would make dropping a team palatable. I don't think anyone else knows either. (Seperate issue as to whether we should/have the right to know)
- Status