Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Dismal Pillock
Simon Poidevin (60)
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Bruin Sports Capital/Tattarang/(Twiggy Forrest), Silver Lake, CVC all lining up as suitors for PE stake in RA.
www.smh.com.au
Billionaire Andrew Forrest eyes stake in Rugby Australia
Forget about a summer of sport, private equity is the main game in town, as it seeks to take stakes in a collection of sporting organisations from cricket, rugby union, soccer, tennis and netball.
Last edited:
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
I still lay the blame for SA Rugby leaving the alliance squarely at the feet of the Kiwis. There was a way to keep it together but New Zealand wanted it their way or no way. Their air of superiority is slowly chipping away at the trans Tasman alliance. They first and foremost look after themselves and always have. Compromise doesn't seem to feature much over there.
Members Section
John Thornett (49)
I genuinely think that NZR going down its on path with silverlake will hurt all of us in the long run, whether it be cvc, silverlake or twiggy expanding TRC to include japan & Fiji & selling a 7th share of that would have been a lot smarter
Tomthumb
Colin Windon (37)
All true but we don't help ourselves by being utterly hopeless at the sport for the last 20 years
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Watching the QPR final yesterday, I simply do not agree that we do not have the talent in Australia for a theoretical domestic comp of 10-12 teams AND to produce a sufficient quality game to be entertaining and marketable. That transition would certainly be painful. Couple of examples:
x NSW could easily create three teams, but the on going distrust if not hatred between some elements of the SRU clubs and NSWRU is problematic
x Qld would likely be unenthusiastic to split beyond two teams which challenges the number of teams I have suggested. A third in the north seems logical until you try to work out how to achieve it.
x Easy talent for thee teams in NSW but the animosity between certain SRU clubs and NSWRU seems close to a deal breaker.
x ACT is held back from expansion due to population and marketing opportunities but to leave the Brumbies as they stand would destroy any form of level playing field to the comp.
The talent is there. Politics is another matter. NZRU relations being the next. Some form of TT would remain a desire but how? Cross over with their club comp devalues the Aus domestic or Aus is destroyed. Or look to some form of representation across the domestic franchises - the basis to NSW and Qld is obvious after that difficulty. IF the Kiwis want to play.
OTOH if some form of compromise can be arranged with NZ it has to be the preferred outcome. Will the Kiwis play?
x NSW could easily create three teams, but the on going distrust if not hatred between some elements of the SRU clubs and NSWRU is problematic
x Qld would likely be unenthusiastic to split beyond two teams which challenges the number of teams I have suggested. A third in the north seems logical until you try to work out how to achieve it.
x Easy talent for thee teams in NSW but the animosity between certain SRU clubs and NSWRU seems close to a deal breaker.
x ACT is held back from expansion due to population and marketing opportunities but to leave the Brumbies as they stand would destroy any form of level playing field to the comp.
The talent is there. Politics is another matter. NZRU relations being the next. Some form of TT would remain a desire but how? Cross over with their club comp devalues the Aus domestic or Aus is destroyed. Or look to some form of representation across the domestic franchises - the basis to NSW and Qld is obvious after that difficulty. IF the Kiwis want to play.
OTOH if some form of compromise can be arranged with NZ it has to be the preferred outcome. Will the Kiwis play?
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Yeah, SARU threatening to "Go North" every four years had nothing to do with it & nor did demanding six teams necessitating four Conferences with two guaranteed SA home QF. Nup, it as NZR all along.
Tomthumb
Colin Windon (37)
Quite an ironic comment considering SARU's big issue was the fact they brought in more money than everyone else yet had to share is equally. The same thing NZR is refusing to do now
PhilClinton
Geoff Shaw (53)
Not right now - but I reckon after the home RWC we could get closer to achieving something like dru's suggestion.
I honestly don't think RA will mess with the status quo too much between now and then. We have enough concentration of young talent who will be around in 2027, along with the inevitable couple of leagies who will jump across in 2024/25 for a crack at the RWC that we should give it a real good nudge.
Launch from that platform into the new Australian domestic competition and see how it goes.
I know people hate thinking that far forward, but it's a realistic goal in my opinion.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
So why didn't Australia and SA just carry on without NZ?? They could of still had super 10 or12 couldn't they??
I agree I dislike that SA were dropped and think NZR should of kept them ahead of even Aus to be honest,(calm down only for the rugby standard) but they were already sending teams to play up north.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Weren't RA getting hinted to they were under risk of losing any tv deal if they kept going ro SA?
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Bollocks, that is why everyone went to seperate tv deals, because most of the money was coming from SA, so everyone sold own rights, that had changed about 10-15 years back!
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Nah, It was one of the Aratipu Report recommendations which bad nothing to do with RA. That was entirely a NZRU prerogative.
Last edited:
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
It had nothing to do with us. We just quietly accepted it because it was the right move for all involved.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Agreed, Phil, and of course, this up and coming opportunity is not the only time we had such a situation in front of us. I'd add that our commercial returns from broadcasters seem based on content. So content would be up, income would be up. You don't have any more Wallaby squad members than now so the cost of top up is unchanged. I'd imagine that overall the cost per team would be reduced though naturally more teams is a total greater cost. As well as greater commercial opportunity.
Where we have been travelling has been a steady down trend and something has to change.
As I said though, if NZR actually want to come on board there may be better alternatives. Without them we have to do something.
PhilClinton
Geoff Shaw (53)
The league international rules are currently a bit fucked so I wouldn’t read too much into that.
That Samoa team will likely feature half a dozen current State of Origin players.
Samoa is a designated tier 2 nation in League, so Sua'ali'i can play for them this year, still play State of Origin next year and play for the Kangaroos next year as well.