• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

Wallaby Man

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
Rebel man said:
The whole point of investing is buy low sell high it’s a perfect storm
Click to expand...
Again this is not always the case. This isn’t a share price type sale. Some sales around capital is about leveraging ongoing percentage of revenue. If you fail to capitalize properly upfront you potentially tank ongoing capital. It can be argued it’s in the interests of whoever is interested to properly fund the initial investment, so RA can invest properly upfront and improve performance to generate greater ticket sales, tv revenue etc. there is no point buying low and having falling tv revenue, ticket sales and merchandise etc. and then your perpetual revenue streams aren’t as great as they should of been. There will be a happy medium ground. Personally I think they might be leaning towards bringing on new debt and not selling profit share.

An extra $50-100m in investment if it leads to 10% growth because investment was appropriate and sufficient and could lead to perpetual compounding of revenue and there for make considerably more in return.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Rebel man said:
Na fuck Fiji. The Australian government should strip all foreign aid funding from Fijian rugby.

Give them funding for humanitarian issues, healthcare, food, shelter, education and so on but not for rugby so they can beat us
Click to expand...
I don't think they even still doing it are they? And NZ govt is still giving them money anyway, it was never given to just rugby in Fiji, the govts' have sports etc grants to keep the Chinese dragon from the door!
 
Last edited:
Members Section

Members Section

John Thornett (49)
Dan54 said:
I don't think they even still doing it are they? And NZ govt is still giving them money anyway, it was never given to just rugby in Fiji, the govts' have sports etc grants to keep the Chinese dragon from the door!
Click to expand...

The program has doubled in the past 18 months & only growing with this current govt.
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Dan54 said:
I don't think they even still doing it are they? And NZ govt is still giving them money anyway, it was never given to just rugby in Fiji, the govts' have sports etc grants to keep the Chinese dragon from the door!
Click to expand...
No, Aus Govt are still funding programs in a big way through ‘Pacific Sports Australia‘.
They’re the major sponsor on the back of the Drua jersey and also a major sponsor of the Fijiana Drua participation in the Super W, as well as the primary sponsor of the Oceania Cup which gives the Oceania U20s, 7‘s and Womens teams extra game time and even offers scholarship opportunities. Not sure what the NZ Govt is doing but it’s not on the same scale.
 
Wallaby Man

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
It’s one of those things. Australia has traditionally held closer ties to Fiji than NZ, there is more Fijians in Aus than anywhere else in the world. There is around 100,000 people either born or parents born in Fiji living here.

NZ has always held closer ties with Samoa and Tonga, having easily the largest of these communities in the world. You’d find Aus government would spend the majority of their focus in that area on Fiji and NZ on Tonga and Samoa. It’s easier for both nations to get political cut through in that matter. The resources and aid allocated to these countries would reflect this.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Adam84 said:
No, Aus Govt are still funding programs in a big way through ‘Pacific Sports Australia‘.
They’re the major sponsor on the back of the Drua jersey and also a major sponsor of the Fijiana Drua participation in the Super W, as well as the primary sponsor of the Oceania Cup which gives the Oceania U20s, 7‘s and Womens teams extra game time and even offers scholarship opportunities. Not sure what the NZ Govt is doing but it’s not on the same scale.
Click to expand...
Yep . I really not sure what any of the sports get from the sporting grants from government, but would as WM says probably be more from Aus as they are closer aligned? I know NZ govt do or used to about $15m for sports in Fiji, no idea where it goes etc, just thought all sports.
 
Last edited:
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
This is what is been referred to for those wondering;

Rugby walks away from $200M private equity plan
1695308567357.png

https://www.codesports.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-unions-broadcast-rights-value-tumbles-in-eyes-of-private-equity-firms/news-story/28eaccd6749c68e737e4c6b3c22c35e

RA has decided against private investment after failing to secure the money they'd sought, understood to be between $150-200 million, in exchange for giving up to 20 per cent ownership of the game to investors.

RA will now seek to raise up to $90 million of debt. Several lenders are understood to be willing to lend that money.

Private investors were not convinced that RA will yield a significant increase on their next broadcast deal, from 2026 onwards.

The current agreement, worth around $33 million a year with Nine and Stan Sport, concludes at the end of 2025.

RA chairman Hamish McLennan is adamant that major home events will deliver more than enough to revitalise rugby.

"We've paused on PE and are executing a debt plan, as we couldn't provide enough accuracy around the next cycle of broadcast rights," McLennan toldNews Corp.

"With a men's and women's home World Cup in 2027 and 2029 as the centrepiece of our plans, we didn't want to undersell ourselves.

"The Matildas showed the incredible interest in home World Cups and rugby will be even bigger."

Already, moves are afoot for RA to take over the running of the NSW Waratahs and Brumbies, who have been struggling financially for years.

It's understood there will be a streamlining of operations, leading to job losses.

But RA faces stiff resistance from other Super Rugby clubs, who are happy for centralisation of the high performance rugby and strength-and-conditioning programs, but wary of a commercial takeover.

Waugh announced a centralised model had been agreed to by all clubs last month, but there is no signed agreement in place yet and the sticking point will be the control of the clubs' money and assets.
 
Last edited:
noscrumnolife

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Can't say I'm too disappointed, would ultimately prefer not too have part of the game owned by outside stakeholders with no incentive other than generating financial returns. Progress on the centralisation front is also good to hear.
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
There’s pros and cons definitely, only need to look at English rugby and the A League to see examples of Private Equity failing to grow the product.

Forgoing a % of all future revenue simply to secure a cash boost today is always dangerous territory if the right structures aren’t in place.
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Yeah I'm strangely ok with this, as they say never sell low. We're about to get a massive windfall so whilst we probably need cash now I'd rather we get 100% ownership when we do get a big chunk.

That said, we could've used this cash to setup a proper competition and not Super Rugby.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
qwerty51 said:
Yeah I'm strangely ok with this, as they say never sell low. We're about to get a massive windfall so whilst we probably need cash now I'd rather we get 100% ownership when we do get a big chunk.

That said, we could've used this cash to setup a proper competition and not Super Rugby.
Click to expand...
Only trouble is of course , if that write up is correct, they will have to pay back $90m of the big chunk.
The biggest worry is that if write up is correct, and they have done homework, RA may not be in line for an increase as expected from Stan sport??

'Private investors were not convinced that Rugby Australia will yield a significant increase on their next broadcast deal, from 2026 onwards.'

I truly hope that is wrong, in long term they need decent money from TV deal to grow game, a couple of quick hits is not enough.

Also wonder if Tahs and Brumbies really are struggling moneywise, are they running more super teams than they can afford , and is this the start of having an excuse to cut one or two as was reason/excuse used when Force were cut last time.
 
Last edited:
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Adam84 said:
Classic kiwis, wont miss an opportunity to suggest Australia should cut a team.
Click to expand...
A number of kiwis would actually like to have Australia be competitive again. Unfortunately, our fate is tied to Australia's for the foreseeable future and a weak Australia doesn't help NZ or make us better.
 
Tomthumb

Tomthumb

Colin Windon (37)
Bullrush said:
A number of kiwis would actually like to have Australia be competitive again. Unfortunately, our fate is tied to Australia's for the foreseeable future and a weak Australia doesn't help NZ or make us better.
Click to expand...
Cutting teams won’t make Australia competitive. It would in fact make us even less competitive as more Aussie talent would leave to play overseas

If kiwis really want to make Australians more competitive, allow player movement among all teams in Super Rugby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top