Australian Rugby / RA

[Dctarget]

Getting players in that are on the verge of being eligible for NH countries when the Wallabies hit the NH tours is also a smart way of keeping players engaged with Rugby Australia. A core of players with, when in the NH, players added from the comps there and, when in Australia, more Super Rugby focused.

But these players aren't dumb. They're more aware of their eligibility than we are. I doubt Isaac Lucas would choose Australia on the cusp of his Japan debut.

 

[Upthemaroon!]

But these players aren't dumb. They're more aware of their eligibility than we are. I doubt Isaac Lucas would choose Australia on the cusp of his Japan debut.

Also fair. It's easy coming from me with zero skin in the game. Hopefully Rugby Australia keeps cooking as they have been the last period.

 

[Major Tom]

But these players aren't dumb. They're more aware of their eligibility than we are. I doubt Isaac Lucas would choose Australia on the cusp of his Japan debut.

Is he even a better option than Meridith and HMP? Unfortunately we never really saw him reach his potential here in super rugby so not even sure he’s a test quality player.

 

[Dctarget]

Is he even a better option than Meridith and HMP? Unfortunately we never really saw him reach his potential here in super rugby so not even sure he’s a test quality player.

Was just using him as an example of the unlikelihood of capturing players who are about to be eligible for other nations.

 

[Braveheart81]

Our coaches never picked any Giteau eligible OS players even when there were plenty of them, are they really going to start picking more OS players now without a Giteau rule?

My view is we need to keep a bunch of our best overseas players involved. Don't try and pick the same two or three every time but try and keep about 10 players as part of our pool of players that are being called up across the year.

Depth is always a problem so increasing that player pool would provide the most upside.

If you were looking at the last couple of years that would mean something like: Skelton, Kerevi, Koroibete, Samu, Philip, Kemeny, Arnold(s), Simone etc.

Going forward I think it would be really hard to bring uncapped overseas players into the squad unless they are clearly excelling where they are playing. You certainly don't want to every end up in a situation where it seems easier to get your foot in the door of the Wallabies if you're playing overseas than playing in Australia.

 

[RebelYell]

I would think the Lions may consider playing a game in Australia on the way to NZ. The great $ they make in Australia is sooo tempting..

Had this thought, maybe another FNP or AUNZ game but at the MCG in front of 90k (or in Homebush). Seems a no brainer..

 

[Wilson]

I think it's pretty unlikely the Lions will come back to Australia on a non-Australian tour year, they'd be much more likely to stop at Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo for a one off money test on the way to NZ.

The best chance would probably be if they decided to play Fiji as a warm up, but that a game played in Fiji would be seen as leaving too much money on the table. At that point Australia probably becomes the best (local) destination, but I think they're still more likely to host that somewhere in the British Isles like they did with Argentina this year.

 

[PhilClinton]

Going forward I think it would be really hard to bring uncapped overseas players into the squad unless they are clearly excelling where they are playing. You certainly don't want to every end up in a situation where it seems easier to get your foot in the door of the Wallabies if you're playing overseas than playing in Australia.

I just don't see how rugby will be able to buck the inevitable trend that soccer and basketball have where the exact thing you mention is happening with the national teams.

I think this post-BIL tour and home RWC period is going to provide us with a bit of a false economy in terms of our best players staying committed to SRP (Super Rugby Pacific). We probably won't see much bulk movement until 2028 and beyond.

But I'd be very surprised if the Wallabies 2035 isn't made up of mostly overseas based players, with many of them having not set foot on a SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) field.

 

[Major Tom]

I just don't see how rugby will be able to buck the inevitable trend that soccer and basketball have where the exact thing you mention is happening with the national teams.

I think this post-BIL tour and home RWC period is going to provide us with a bit of a false economy in terms of our best players staying committed to SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific). We probably won't see much bulk movement until 2028 and beyond.

But I'd be very surprised if the Wallabies 2035 isn't made up of mostly overseas based players, with many of them having not set foot on a SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) field.

Depends how successful we are in super rugby. Best thing that could happen to the comp is an Aus team winning it. A better broadcast deal in between these tours and wc are what we need. The public will tune in if it’s a good super rugby product and that result in better wallabies performances. The hope is when we lose players (Hooper, Len, Gleeson etc) we give more opportunity to young players coming through.

 

[The Red Baron]

Lions tour has exceeded expectations financially, generating upwards of $250 million and set to deliver a $50 million surplus to RA:

https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/rugby/rugby-australia-set-to-clear-64-million-debt-with-huge-lions-windfall/news-story/5374520d0ad31bf7ee34e0e98da6bd4e?amp

Put it all on Black! No wait, Red!

 

[The Red Baron]

Depends how successful we are in super rugby. Best thing that could happen to the comp is an Aus team winning it. A better broadcast deal in between these tours and wc are what we need. The public will tune in if it’s a good super rugby product and that result in better wallabies performances. The hope is when we lose players (Hooper, Len, Gleeson etc) we give more opportunity to young players coming through.

The next step is to relax the eligibility rules for super rugby. Unfortunately that won't happen unless NZR comes to the table.

 

[Adam84]

My read on it is that they are going to gross around $115m from the tour

If they’re saying the tour is going to deliver a $115 million profit, which will allow RA to pay off $65million in debt and have $50 million cash leftover, then that’s pretty fucken astronomical.

especially consider RWC will deliver another $100million

 

[Crashy]

to be fair the ticket prices were off the chart expensive.

 

[KOB1987]

If they’re saying the tour is going to deliver a $115 million profit, which will allow RA to pay off $65million in debt and have $50 million cash leftover, then that’s pretty fucken astronomical.

especially consider RWC will deliver another $100million

I could be wrong about it but I'm just piecing together the media reports, considering they are written by journalists and not accountants - if the expectation for RA's share was $100m, and a $250m gross exceeded expectations, RA get around half that, debt is currently $64m, and they're talking a 'surplus' of $50m then $64 + $50m is $114m and is above the initial expectation of $100m. Normally I would assume that the surplus is RA's share of the revenue less the associated expenses, but $50m would be half the expectation, not exceeding it, so I'm just guessing that some journo's definition of surplus is the net take less the debt being paid off. Around $125m less $10m expenses sounds about right?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Our coaches never picked any Giteau eligible OS players even when there were plenty of them, are they really going to start picking more OS players now without a Giteau rule?

Was Kerevi a selection under an even more obscure policy on the EOYT last year? Wouldn't you pick Skelton, Hooper, Gleeson and the like for any game they were available?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I could be wrong about it but I'm just piecing together the media reports, considering they are written by journalists and not accountants - if the expectation for RA's share was $100m, and a $250m gross exceeded expectations, RA get around half that, debt is currently $64m, and they're talking a 'surplus' of $50m then $64 + $50m is $114m and is above the initial expectation of $100m. Normally I would assume that the surplus is RA's share of the revenue less the associated expenses, but $50m would be half the expectation, not exceeding it, so I'm just guessing that some journo's definition of surplus is the net take less the debt being paid off. Around $125m less $10m expenses sounds about right?

Isn't the revenue from tge Lions a 60/40 split? With thr host getting the bulk?

 

[KOB1987]

Isn't the revenue from tge Lions a 60/40 split? With thr host getting the bulk?

I think you might be right with regards to the gate takings - so maybe it's more like $135m less $20m or something

 

[Major Tom]

to be fair the ticket prices were off the chart expensive.

Games were sellouts so you’d have to say they were priced accordingly.

 

[Adam84]

I could be wrong about it but I'm just piecing together the media reports, considering they are written by journalists and not accountants - if the expectation for RA's share was $100m, and a $250m gross exceeded expectations, RA get around half that, debt is currently $64m, and they're talking a 'surplus' of $50m then $64 + $50m is $114m and is above the initial expectation of $100m. Normally I would assume that the surplus is RA's share of the revenue less the associated expenses, but $50m would be half the expectation, not exceeding it, so I'm just guessing that some journo's definition of surplus is the net take less the debt being paid off. Around $125m less $10m expenses sounds about right?

The revenue split isn’t 50/50, it’s more like 75/25, but this is variable based on a number of things. RA take matchday income, and a there is a profit share JV for sponsorship, licensing and broadcast rights.

I believe the $250million figure is discussing economic value, not revenue.

‘Surplus’ isn’t normally referenced in the way you’ve described, you report a surplus and then pay off existing liabilities. Which is why reporting a surplus of $50million and then stating this will pay off existing debt of $64million, is unusual

 

[Major Tom]

Hopefully, we get the money quickly so we can stop paying interest!