Australian Rugby / RA

[Rebel man]

One thing they have to fix up, the rare time you lose two hookers to a HIA. They are ruled out by an independent doctor, so you aren’t going to uncontested to gain a tactical advantage

 

[half]

Sorry in advance if this has already be covered, but I have not seen it anywhere.

If the Rebels cannot take part in Super Rugby, does this reduce the amount RA receive from the media deal.

 

[Members Section]

Sorry in advance if this has already be covered, but I have not seen it anywhere.

If the Rebels cannot take part in Super Rugby, does this reduce the amount RA receive from the media deal.

Story quoted Waugh saying they definitely will take part in 2024 fulfilling the obligation for this yr.

 

[half]

Story quoted Waugh saying they definitely will take part in 2024 fulfilling the obligation for this yr.

understand

but two questions arise given they are in administration, that decision is up to the administrator, not Waugh. second moving forward past 2024 if only four teams in 25 how does this affect the next media deal.

 

[dru]

understand

but two questions arise given they are in administration, that decision is up to the administrator, not Waugh. second moving forward past 2024 if only four teams in 25 how does this affect the next media deal.

As I understand it RA are contractually bound to provide 5 teams in the current deal.

I'd imagine that something could be arranged between the Administrator and RA - if RA want that to happen. At $9.0m it's tricky because RA may not actually want it to happen. If it were $1m it's hard to see why RA and the Rebels weren't able to resolve it without VA.

 

[Highlander35]

It'll be interesting to see what the final outcomes are. There will almost certainly be both a penalty payment and an overall reduction in broadcast revenue (5 games per weekend instead of 6, fewer "derbies", fewer games in east coast primetime etc.).

But there'll probably be a number of knock on effects. Money committed to certain players who you now need to squeeze into other sides wage bills to make work. Rugby Union funding from Victoria has seemed to consistently be based on RA's ongoing support for the Rebels: If (throwing a number I've seen elsewhere) they scale back a RWC Stadiums bid from say $50 million to $30 million, and NSW now knows they can probably get a Semi and the Final for $35 million rather then $53 million, that's a lot of lost revenue, same may be said on a smaller scale for Super Round etc.

 

[hoggy]

The problem you have with Melbourne paying apparently $50M for World cup fixtures is once again you are ignoring your primary markets.

Melbourne gets its show but come the following Monday its goes straight back to AFL land.

Its death by a thousand cuts, when every decision you make is ruled by the almighty dollar. The constant compromising of your primary markets, and then surprise at why your main supporter base is disappearing.

 

[Highlander35]

The problem you have with Melbourne paying apparently $50M for World cup fixtures is once again you are ignoring your primary markets.

Melbourne gets its show but come the following Monday its goes straight back to AFL land.

Its death by a thousand cuts, when every decision you make is ruled by the almighty dollar. The constant compromising of your primary markets, and then surprise at why your main supporter base is disappearing.

The point is that Victorian bids for marquee fixtures peg the value at which other states have to compete with, not "Victoria pay most, RA chase $."

 

[Rebel man]

understand

but two questions arise given they are in administration, that decision is up to the administrator, not Waugh. second moving forward past 2024 if only four teams in 25 how does this affect the next media deal.

Nine has said they will be seeking a reduction in the rights if the Rebels aren’t in

 

[Rebel man]

The problem you have with Melbourne paying apparently $50M for World cup fixtures is once again you are ignoring your primary markets.

Melbourne gets its show but come the following Monday its goes straight back to AFL land.

Its death by a thousand cuts, when every decision you make is ruled by the almighty dollar. The constant compromising of your primary markets, and then surprise at why your main supporter base is disappearing.

Na let’s go play it in Sydney and get nothing for it. Great idea. It’s myopic thinking like that, that is hurting the game

 

[Adam84]

Nine has said they will be seeking a reduction in the rights if the Rebels aren’t in

Don’t doubt they would, it’s one game less a week, but where has this been said?

 

[Rebel man]

Taking the 50m is by far a better decision, when no other state has put money on the table.

RA is better off with that money, that they can then spend on grass roots development in all states. If NSW wants the final for Sydney than out bid Vic it is simple

 

[Rebel man]

Don’t doubt they would, it’s once game less a week, but where has this been said?

Re-read the article, forgive me I raced through it yesterday. It does say “nine would likey seek”

 

[hoggy]

Taking the 50m is by far a better decision, when no other state has put money on the table.

RA is better off with that money, that they can then spend on grass roots development in all states. If NSW wants the final for Sydney than out bid Vic it is simple

But when have they spent that money on grassroots development, maybe they should take some of that money and help out the Rebels. But they won't so what does the code then gain from that $50 million

Your missing my point,

 

[Rebel man]

But when have they spent that money on grassroots development, maybe they should take some of that money and help out the Rebels. But they won't so what does the code then gain from that $50 million

Your missing my point,

Well the report seems to be the 50m is contingent on the Rebels remaining. Not enough money is spent on grass roots because the game is short of money without a cash injection this will not change

 

[hoggy]

Well the report seems to be the 50m is contingent on the Rebels remaining. Not enough money is spent on grass roots because the game is short of money without a cash injection this will not change

But that cash injection will never go to the grassroots, because it will forever be needed to sustain a structure that simply does not generate enough interest or support to be viable to pay, the game is operating at a cost level in Australia that it cannot sustain.

 

[Adam84]

Re-read the article, forgive me I raced through it yesterday. It does say “nine would likey seek”

I expect they would, I just would have been surprised if a Nine spokesman’s had spoken publicly about consequences at this point in time

 

[Brumby Runner]

I have been quite optimistic about Aussie rugby, essentially the Wallabies, up to this point, but I fear if the Rebels go under it could herald in the lowest point since the evolution of the professional game in this country.

In that scenario, I think either RA will take on the licence and grow their debt to some unsustainable level when combined with what the RA Waratahs owe, or the Rebels will fold and not be replaced in Melbourne. In either case, neither RA nor any of the Super Rugby sides could afford to contract most of the displaced players and there will be a spike in player exodus which would be expected to continue into the future as opportunities and revenue both diminish here.

I don’t know what the best solution is, but to my mind it must include a continuing Rebels presence in Melbourne. Perhaps it is time to sever the Super Rugby link with NZ and go it alone with a domestic competition. That course would have its own issues as NZ and Stan would probably seek compensation. But no way do I see our involvement in Super Rugby continuing to the end of the current agreement.

 

[hoggy]

I have been quite optimistic about Aussie rugby, essentially the Wallabies, up to this point, but I fear if the Rebels go under it could herald in the lowest point since the evolution of the professional game in this country.

In that scenario, I think either RA will take on the licence and grow their debt to some unsustainable level when combined with what the RA Waratahs owe, or the Rebels will fold and not be replaced in Melbourne. In either case, neither RA nor any of the Super Rugby sides could afford to contract most of the displaced players and there will be a spike in player exodus which would be expected to continue into the future as opportunities and revenue both diminish here.

I don’t know what the best solution is, but to my mind it must include a continuing Rebels presence in Melbourne. Perhaps it is time to sever the Super Rugby link with NZ and go it alone with a domestic competition. That course would have its own issues as NZ and Stan would probably seek compensation. But no way do I see our involvement in Super Rugby continuing to the end of the current agreement.

While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, especially regards removal from Super Rugby, I am just unsure how you fund a domestic competition, you would need at least 2 new teams and maybe a continuation of the Drua, but where does the money come from, what is the plan.

 

[Wallaby Ways]

While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, especially regards removal from Super Rugby, I am just unsure how you fund a domestic competition, you would need at least 2 new teams and maybe a continuation of the Drua, but where does the money come from, what is the plan.

Agreed, too hard to fund.