• 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

sunnyboys

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
I’ve long believed that rugby in Aust would need to go broke before it could dismantle what needs to be dismantled and new organisation created. Such is the grip the entrenched rugby ruling groups have on the game. And such is their incompetence.
I’d always hoped it wouldn’t get to this point.
I have zero idea if any rugby official at Super Rugby or RA level is telling the truth anymore.
If the Rebels are successful in their claim (and I’m not passing judgement on them or the validity of the claim) then the game is on very very shaky ground… the national body could very quickly be found insolvent as well.
There are some ‘blow it all up’ options available but gee it’s looking a bit crazy at the moment.
We might find RA has to walk away from the SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) agreement - and void the licences. With NZR left to licence Australian teams directly - and we know that would only likely be two teams.
RA possibly left with test rugby as its commercial product for broadcast deals. And retreat from providing much support at all to the tier below.
If the Rebels action is successful, the whole house of cards is in deep sh:t
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
RA won't go down, WR (World Rugby) will lend them more money. The reason Aus got WC in 27 was to make sure they got some money to stay afloat.
I think if we dug deep enough we would find that WR (World Rugby) were partly behind Schmidt getting Wallabies gig, he is pretty well thought of in WR (World Rugby), had the job of looking after world coaches before packing it in and coming back to NZ. I think WR (World Rugby) suggested to him to look at helping out when things were shakey. Noone in WR (World Rugby) wants RA to go down.
 
sunnyboys

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
Dan54 said:
RA won't go down, WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) will lend them more money. The reason Aus got WC in 27 was to make sure they got some money to stay afloat.
I think if we dug deep enough we would find that WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) were partly behind Schmidt getting Wallabies gig, he is pretty well thought of in WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby), had the job of looking after world coaches before packing it in and coming back to NZ. I think WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) suggested to him to look at helping out when things were shakey. Noone in WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) wants RA to go down.
Click to expand...
If WR (World Rugby) step in with that sort of money you’d be thinking they will want to see some changes in management, costs, wages etc..
 
hoggy

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
sunnyboys said:
If WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) step in with that sort of money you’d be thinking they will want to see some changes in management, costs, wages etc..
Click to expand...
Well if World Rugby are stepping in then the game here is more stuffed than we ever thought, and apparently now they are appointing our coaches.
Rugby in Australia is in trouble because for 20 years it has neglected its own domestic market, hell the Argentinians are gonna save us now next year.
The game here is broke because they forgot who there customer base is, and now it is running out of customers as they are all happy buying a couple of other products.
Until the RA figures that basic fact out, WR (World Rugby), Argentina, Global Markets will do exactly what the have done to they code here for 20 years, send the game broke.
 
Last edited:
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Dan54 said:
The reason Aus got WC in 27 was to make sure they got some money to stay afloat.
.
Click to expand...
That’s taking the piss Dan, the reason Australia got 2027 was because they put in a good bid and have a strong history of hosting major sporting events. Which other host bid do you think should have won then?

To suggest it was done purely to keep Australia afloat is a cop out to the work done, but also the overall quality of the bid.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Adam84 said:
That’s taking the piss Dan, the reason Australia got 2027 was because they put in a good bid and have a strong history of hosting major sporting events. Which other host bid do you think should have won then?

To suggest it was done purely to keep Australia afloat is a cop out to the work done, but also the overall quality of the bid.
Click to expand...
Not suggesting otherwise about bid mate, but it was pretty well known they had the cup from start. Obviously had to make a good bid too, and no way saying they didn't deserve it. But was known in rugby that they were the ones that WR (World Rugby) were wanting to help with financials etc at least a year before bids were put in, was about time RA got their forward payment for WC. Hell it was even in press they were preferred bidder.
Once again WR (World Rugby) aren't stepping in by any means, but are (rightfully) trying to give RA a bit of assistance as noone wants to see them in the crap!
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Dan54 said:
Not suggesting otherwise about bid mate, but it was pretty well known they had the cup from start. Obviously had to make a good bid too, and no way saying they didn't deserve it. But was known in rugby that they were the ones that WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) were wanting to hel with financials etc at least a year before bids were put in. Hell it was even in press they were preferred bidder.
Click to expand...
Nah you're taking the piss Dan to claim that "the reason Aus got WC in 27 was to make sure they got some money to stay afloat"

Show me which other bid should have won if not Australia? Enough with this "it was pretty well known" commentary, if it's well know then surely you have some kind of link, quote, source that can support the claim you've made above.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
sunnyboys said:
If WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) step in with that sort of money you’d be thinking they will want to see some changes in management, costs, wages etc..
Click to expand...
It's unlikely it would be grant funding. They may look at a loan to get us to the Lions cash injection, and then something similar to get to the World Cup
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Mate all I can say is I read that WR (World Rugby) when they advanced money to RA for the WC. I am sure there were no better bids, but I also think we may of found the States would of looked on (wrongly) more favourably as WR (World Rugby) really wanted to try and break into th US market, and surprise who got the next one after Aus??
As I say I am sure Aus was best bid and more than happy they got it, but if you don't think sometimes it is not known who is best to get WC for what they consider rugby's sake, you would have to wonder. I personally think US was the preferred bidder for 31, and once again almost everyone knew they were going to get it. Important market etc!
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Dan54 said:
Mate all I can say is I read that WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) when they advanced money to RA for the WC. I am sure there were no better bids, but I also think we may of found the States would of looked on (wrongly) more favourably as WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) really wanted to try and break into th US market, and surprise who got the next one after Aus??
Click to expand...

1987 - Australia/NZ (south)
1991 - England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales/France (north)
1995 - South Africa (south)
1999 - Wales (north)
2003 - Australia (south)
2007 - France (north)
2011 - New Zealand (south)
2015 - England (north)
2019 - Japan (north but well aligned timezone with Australia/NZ)
2023 - France (north)
2027 - Australia
2031 - USA

Arguing anything other than Australia being the obvious host for 2027 is crazy in my view. It had zero to do with the state of rugby in the country. The only other bids were Argentina who withdrew early and Russia who then weren't allowed to bid because they got banned by the Court of Arbitration in Sport. They were never going to win anyway.

By 2020 Australia was the only bidder left wanting to host 2027.

USA never were in the running for 2027. They announced their bid for 2031 in 2021 and were the sole bidder and preferred host for World Rugby.
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Dan54 said:
Mate all I can say is I read that WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) when they advanced money to RA for the WC. I am sure there were no better bids, but I also think we may of found the States would of looked on (wrongly) more favourably as WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) really wanted to try and break into th US market, and surprise who got the next one after Aus??
As I say I am sure Aus was best bid and more than happy they got it, but if you don't think sometimes it is not known who is best to get WC for what they consider rugby's sake, you would have to wonder. I personally think US was the preferred bidder for 31, and once again almost everyone knew they were going to get it. Important market etc!
Click to expand...
Right, so this is all just a theory by you.. and nothing to actually support the claim that "the reason Aus got WC in 27 was to make sure they got some money to stay afloat"
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Braveheart81 said:
1987 - Australia/NZ (south)
1991 - England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales/France (north)
1995 - South Africa (south)
1999 - Wales (north)
2003 - Australia (south)
2007 - France (north)
2011 - New Zealand (south)
2015 - England (north)
2019 - Japan (north but well aligned timezone with Australia/NZ)
2023 - France (north)
2027 - Australia
2031 - USA

Arguing anything other than Australia being the obvious host for 2027 is crazy in my view. It had zero to do with the state of rugby in the country. The only other bids were Argentina who withdrew early and Russia who then weren't allowed to bid because they got banned by the Court of Arbitration in Sport. They were never going to win anyway.

By 2020 Australia was the only bidder left wanting to host 2027.

USA never were in the running for 2027. They announced their bid for 2031 in 2021 and were the sole bidder and preferred host for World Rugby.
Click to expand...

Yep, and like the 2032 Olympics, Australia was uniquely positioned and supported by the Government through COVID to actually chase significant sporting events, a convenient fact Dan seems to be missing.

WR (World Rugby) went with Australia because Australia's bid presented the only bid which could provide the massive financial guarantees required by WR (World Rugby) through a period of financial turmoil and uncertainty.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
dru said:
I think it is nuts to think that Waugh is not a shrink fan. He voices non-committal but at the moment it means the same thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a fair portrayal of his position. He's clearly non-committal because he knows that there is a very strong chance Australia will lose a team regardless of his personal position on the matter.

His primary aim is to keep Rugby Australia solvent and viable which is exactly what it should be.
 
stillmissit

stillmissit

Chilla Wilson (44)
I am getting very confident that the horror corner is past. RA is doing as well as it can with the money in hand and Schmidt and Kiss are outstanding coaches and people. IF the Tahs and Reds can continue as they have started and the Brumbies will always be strong, that should leave the basket case Rebels and the Force who should improve under Cron.
24 could be a good year compared to the last 10 years.
 
stillmissit

stillmissit

Chilla Wilson (44)
Adam84 said:
Given the Rebels Board members are now tryin to sue RA, all language used in the media will be non-committal and ambiguous
Click to expand...
Didn't realise this, any idea what the basis of the case is? Always struck me they had a CEO who thought he could buy his way out, even though they didn't have the cash..
 
oztimmay

oztimmay

Geoff Shaw (53)
Staff member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top