Australian Rugby / RA

[dru]

But no way do I see our involvement in Super Rugby continuing to the end of the current agreement.

It's got me flummoxed. The current revenue sharing (Broadcast deal) runs to the end of 2025. The current Super deal NZ/RA runs to 2030.

I would have presumed that RA would ensure Rebels (5 team broadcast obligation) continues through to 2025. And I would have presumed that Waugh's closeness to international rugby and the Sydney club scene, would lead to the intent of a condensed Aus Super scene to 20230 and a push to something involving at least quasi pro from the interested SRU clubs + whatever else they could rustle for a nominal National scene. Call it dru-conspiracy#1.

BUT if the Rebels do actually owe an uncovered $9m I can't see RA taking it on given everything else that is going on. I could see some compromise from RA over the sporting bling that the Vic govt wants (if in deed they are still minded that way) along with some form of support for the Rebels. But politics in Victoria is not the same as it was when they were bidding for international rugby previously. If govt funding proves to be a pipe dream there is a moment of truth coming.

There is no future that is not improved with a surviving Rebels.

 

[Members Section]

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.

I dare say that negotiations will take place for the next tv deal this yr & if RA go with Fairfax/9 again that any short fallings from 2025 will be worked into the next deal.

 

[KOB1987]

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.

If I had a spare $100m floating around I'd have a crack. Unfortunately I don't.

 

[Ignoto]

If it were $1m it's hard to see why RA and the Rebels weren't able to resolve it without VA.

Rebels confirm transfer of Super Rugby licence to complicate ARU cull

Melbourne have confirmed the transfer of their Super Rugby licence from the club’s private owners into the hands of the Victorian Rugby Union

www.theguardian.com

Why should RA provide the assistance rather than the Rebels fund it via a bank loan?

If the Rebels go into administration I reckon you'll see RA swoop in so they can take back the license.

 

[Dan54]

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.

There is a lot of confusion, a domestic comp by it's name excludes Drua doesn't it, or it is just s reduced international comp?

 

[dru]

Agreed, too hard to fund.

OK, just a note to a new poster - there are literally hundreds if not thousands of pages on this site where the matter has been discussed (I'm being polite) in detail - you will find a lot of support, and heaps of vehement disagreement. If you are going to drop comment on the matter please do some digging into the background here before restarting things that most are utterly tired of the well-trotted argument for both sides.

I'm going to repeat some very minor points (my well trotted argument that bores the pants of many):

1. Super is a consistent down-trend on every performance parameter from Wallabies, to funding, to sport engagement.
2. Every successful sporting/football code in Australia is domestically based.
3. The most engaged Super was Super Au in spite COVID.
4. Funding issues start with content. Reduce teams reduces funds which means you again need to reduce teams. Reducing teams in order to condense rugby talent INCREASES cost. Cost up income down. It is known as the great RA shrink to greatness fallacy (policy if you prefer).
5. A domestic competition increases content which increases funding. It does come with an immediate overall reduction of on the field rugby quality. And yes that impacts funding and that balance is key. The balance as it is is a palpable fail.
6. The intent is to invest in structure and pathways in order over time and a competitive environment on the field to improve quality. When this was initially proposed there were howls of protest "we could drop to the bottom of the top 10 in the world!" Guess what? Now we will do it tougher. Every year that kick the ball down the street, it continues that down trend and increases the difficulty in making necessary change.
7. A major issue in current Super is lopsided sport between NZ and AUs. NZ doesn't like it nor do we. A relatively competitive comp has larger impacts on broadcast income than lower quality but more balance.

You say "harder to fund" (domestic comp) what is actually proven is the difficulty in funding Super.

 

[KOB1987]

Rebels confirm transfer of Super Rugby licence to complicate ARU cull

Melbourne have confirmed the transfer of their Super Rugby licence from the club’s private owners into the hands of the Victorian Rugby Union

www.theguardian.com

Why should RA provide the assistance rather than the Rebels fund it via a bank loan?

If the Rebels go into administration I reckon you'll see RA swoop in so they can take back the license.

I think this is the likely outcome.

 

[Adam84]

Rebels confirm transfer of Super Rugby licence to complicate ARU cull

Melbourne have confirmed the transfer of their Super Rugby licence from the club’s private owners into the hands of the Victorian Rugby Union

www.theguardian.com

Why should RA provide the assistance rather than the Rebels fund it via a bank loan?

If the Rebels go into administration I reckon you'll see RA swoop in so they can take back the license.

With the related debt they are already servicing it via a loan, there’s a point where the organisation is trading insolvent though. You can just keep taking on more and more in debt to fund operating costs. It becomes increasingly expensive to fund the debt servicing.

I think this is the likely outcome.

And take on another $9million in debt against RA?

 

[dru]

I think this is the likely outcome.

The ARU has committed to cull either the Rebels or the Perth-based Western Force as part of a revamp of the competition for next season.

This statement is published without reference. Does anyone know anything about it?

 

[Wilson]

The ARU has committed to cull either the Rebels or the Perth-based Western Force as part of a revamp of the competition for next season.

This statement is published without reference. Does anyone know anything about it?

It's from 6 years ago, when RA agreed to drop to 4 teams in super rugby and spent months trying to work out whether it was the Rebels or the Force that got cut. As much as the Rebels current troubles might bring back memories of that period I don't think we need to relitigate those decisions

 

[dru]

Why should RA provide the assistance rather than the Rebels fund it via a bank loan?

If the Rebels go into administration I reckon you'll see RA swoop in so they can take back the license.

It doesn't really matter, Ignoto and I'd be happy however the RA played it - all I'm saying is that it aught be a relatively easy fix. If it is $9m, well that's different.

 

[KOB1987]

And take on another $9million in debt against RA?

No I was thinking more of letting them fold and then taking back the license. Whether that means the RA Rebels re-emerge or they just disappear is what I'm not sure of.

 

[Members Section]

Rebels confirm transfer of Super Rugby licence to complicate ARU cull

Melbourne have confirmed the transfer of their Super Rugby licence from the club’s private owners into the hands of the Victorian Rugby Union

www.theguardian.com

Why should RA provide the assistance rather than the Rebels fund it via a bank loan?

If the Rebels go into administration I reckon you'll see RA swoop in so they can take back the license.

I see you point especially since RA are millions in debt themselves but what bank is going to give the rebels a loan.

 

[Wallaby Ways]

I dare say that negotiations will take place for the next tv deal this yr & if RA go with Fairfax/9 again that any short fallings from 2025 will be worked into the next deal.

Don’t forget about the possibility of Foxtel

 

[Wilson]

Now that I have had a better look at it the acronym ARU would suggest its a headline from the Pulver era

That and the big yellow banner at the top of the article saying it's more than 6 years old:

 

[KOB1987]

yeah I know, I hadn't actually read it, I was just commenting on ignotos post. Have read it in the interim. I was coming back here in between tasks on a course I just started so wasn't entirely focused. Onto Australia Day celebrations

 

[Adam84]

No I was thinking more of letting them fold and then taking back the license.

Well yeah, I agree this is the most likely outcome, administrators might try sell it if they’re able to, but likely the license is worthless at this point.

 

[stillmissit]

It's got me flummoxed. The current revenue sharing (Broadcast deal) runs to the end of 2025. The current Super deal NZ/RA runs to 2030.

I would have presumed that RA would ensure Rebels (5 team broadcast obligation) continues through to 2025. And I would have presumed that Waugh's closeness to international rugby and the Sydney club scene, would lead to the intent of a condensed Aus Super scene to 20230 and a push to something involving at least quasi pro from the interested SRU clubs + whatever else they could rustle for a nominal National scene. Call it dru-conspiracy#1.

BUT if the Rebels do actually owe an uncovered $9m I can't see RA taking it on given everything else that is going on. I could see some compromise from RA over the sporting bling that the Vic govt wants (if in deed they are still minded that way) along with some form of support for the Rebels. But politics in Victoria is not the same as it was when they were bidding for international rugby previously. If govt funding proves to be a pipe dream there is a moment of truth coming.

There is no future that is not improved with a surviving Rebels.

This is totally dependent on all the cards falling correctly, the Wallaby's improvement must be obvious this year so that support from Lions supporters stays strong, Super Rugby teams all lift as they are the link to make it all work, and they are all facing some form of a debt problem that can only be fixed by more success bringing in more supporters. The clubs, schools and academies all need to lift as well so that a decent feeder is in place for Super Rugby teams.
If all this happens the need to rationalise won't be necessary, if not I suspect anything can happen and will involve some level of shrinking to suit finances.

 

[stillmissit]

Don’t forget about the possibility of Foxtel

We'll need something to take to Foxtel. I suggest we all get behind RA (rationality still required) as:
'now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the' Union

 

[dru]

We'll need something to take to Foxtel. I suggest we all get behind RA (rationality still required) as:
'now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the' Union

I will not be supporting shrink to greatness 2.0 in any way, shape or form. Even self inflicted buy the Rebels management. Any more than my refusal to support shrink to greatness 1.0. RA need to be very clear with the intent and planning to get my support. Huge scepticism is called for on the back of everything they have "achieved" in Super and recently how they have led the management of the Wallabies. What a fucking shit-show. We are well past trusting a bloke turning up saying "I'm from RA and I'm here to help." (paraphrasing Reagan)

As you say, If they get that rationale right, I'm in. Full hog.

I'm not particularly hopeful or optimistic.