Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Rebel man
Peter Johnson (47)
In the short term no, it can’t but there is so much more potential for growth in Aus.
Seeing what was posted yesterday about us on track to post a profit this year and be debt free by 2025 does make me optimistic about the future.
yeah, we are about half their broadcast income and almost a quarter of their sponsorship income.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yep the current model will only seem to become more challenging as less fan appeal, less broadcast, gate and sponsorship money which means less money for players which means more players lost to Japan, Europe etc..endless cycle.
I think everyone can agree their is a problem but a) getting agreement on the solution and b) confidence that RA and NZRU can agree and align on a better solution appears mission impossible.
I think rugby is dead man walking as we thought Covid might provide the catalyst for Change but I think competing and conflicting agendas of NZRU and RA will stop us ever getting the product that can be successful and we deserve.
Rebel man
Peter Johnson (47)
With Aus A making a comeback in the pacific cup, how far off are we from the smaller European nations like Spain, Portugal, Romania and Georgia being able to at least cover the costs of taking Aus A to Europe? I don’t know too much about the strength of the game there as a business
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Well super rugby would dominate the thinking of a national coach, same as it would Dave Rennie. And if we had seperate domestic comps the domestic comp would be what dominates the Test coach's thinking RN, and you know that very well and are being a bit disingenuous with that post, or you would then say same thing about domestic comp! Or are you suggesting there is no comps that coaches should be interested in?So we had 10000 pages of where to super rugby and still left with a broken super rugby model with no end in sight. Ian Fosters view in article below just reminds me how a national team view dominates the thinking and hence no real end in sight to fixing the problem.
All Blacks: Ian Foster admits 'we miss South Africans'
All Blacks coach Ian Foster has been missing the clashes between New Zealand franchises and South Africa's in this year's Super Rugby tournament.www.planetrugby.com
Members Section
John Thornett (49)
That's an absolute killer! We got our tv deal completely ripped apart in covid at the worst time, went completely innovative by streaming now down here all I hear is the afl are about to "cash in" by selling ONE game a week to paramount or amazon.
If the wallabies have a decent lead in or rwc we might be able to up the deal with the lions coming but super rugby isn't going to bring the dollars in.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Yep and not sure how it works in Super. I thought it got changed to individual unions when it was discovered that SA were getting all the money?
But have a feeling that NZR and RA have agreement with tv to sell own stuff, and I think that is because they bundle up all their own rugby. Didn't Sanzaar just sell Super rights in Europe, so as I say not sure how it works.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
this would have been perfect for "Where to for super rugby" and a solution too - but cyclopath locked it, so in want of anywhere else to post, it's here, apologies if you have all read this before - and it's long. mods feel free to move it if somewhere is more suitable
One of my best friends a former scrum half sent me this never seen it before but its brilliant. Maybe because I’m a forward or a frustrated back but whatever brilliant it is.
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game that rugby started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls. This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another.
In those days, the winner was the pack that won the most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out.
Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved by employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to run aimlessly around within the field of play. Following a set piece, the ball would be thrown to one of them, who would establish the next location either by dropping it or by throwing it to another reject for dropping. Very occasionally, a third reject would receive the ball before it would be dropped, and crowds would wildly cheer on these rare occasions. Initially these additional players were entirely disorganized but with the passing of time they adopted set positions.
For instance, take the half-back. He was usually one of the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball from a forward and to pass it on to one of the other rejects who would drop it, providing the new location for the forwards to compete. He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present euphemism was decided on.
The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that when pressured, he usually panics and kicks the ball.
Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no expertise but wanted to share in the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle of the field and wait for instructions. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, parasites and scroungers who mostly work as lawyers or used car dealers.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Because these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order, they were placed as far away from the ball as possible. Consequently, and because the inside backs were so diligent in their assigned role of dropping the ball whenever they received it, the main contribution to the game made by the winger was not to get involved. Their instructions were to run away as quickly as possible whenever trouble appeared, and to avoid tackles at all costs. The fact that the game was organised so that the wingers didn't get to touch the ball led to an incessant flow of complaints from them and eventually the apt description "whingers" was applied. Even though the "h" dropped off over the years, the whingeing itself unfortunately has not.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way. The name arose because the forwards would understandably become infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, and call out "send that fool back". He would then be relegated well out of everyone's way to the rear of the field.
So there you have it. Let's return to the glory days of a contest between two packs of eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence. The rest can go off to where they will be happier, playing soccer
One of my best friends a former scrum half sent me this never seen it before but its brilliant. Maybe because I’m a forward or a frustrated back but whatever brilliant it is.
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game that rugby started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls. This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another.
In those days, the winner was the pack that won the most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out.
Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved by employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to run aimlessly around within the field of play. Following a set piece, the ball would be thrown to one of them, who would establish the next location either by dropping it or by throwing it to another reject for dropping. Very occasionally, a third reject would receive the ball before it would be dropped, and crowds would wildly cheer on these rare occasions. Initially these additional players were entirely disorganized but with the passing of time they adopted set positions.
For instance, take the half-back. He was usually one of the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball from a forward and to pass it on to one of the other rejects who would drop it, providing the new location for the forwards to compete. He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present euphemism was decided on.
The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that when pressured, he usually panics and kicks the ball.
Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no expertise but wanted to share in the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle of the field and wait for instructions. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, parasites and scroungers who mostly work as lawyers or used car dealers.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Because these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order, they were placed as far away from the ball as possible. Consequently, and because the inside backs were so diligent in their assigned role of dropping the ball whenever they received it, the main contribution to the game made by the winger was not to get involved. Their instructions were to run away as quickly as possible whenever trouble appeared, and to avoid tackles at all costs. The fact that the game was organised so that the wingers didn't get to touch the ball led to an incessant flow of complaints from them and eventually the apt description "whingers" was applied. Even though the "h" dropped off over the years, the whingeing itself unfortunately has not.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way. The name arose because the forwards would understandably become infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, and call out "send that fool back". He would then be relegated well out of everyone's way to the rear of the field.
So there you have it. Let's return to the glory days of a contest between two packs of eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence. The rest can go off to where they will be happier, playing soccer
Last edited:
Dctarget
John Eales (66)
Interesting hearing the feedback from English fans after their teams performances in the Champions Cup. They've sort of resigned themselves to being battered by Leinster + French clubs because of respective salary caps. Sale got smashed by Racing 92 and apparently it was a fair effort against a French juggernaut. They still absolutely love their UK Premiership but accept they're not going to go well in Euros. And this is only going to get worse for them as their salary cap is decreased next year.
probably the attitude we need to adopt here in Aus. Set up a good domestic competitive league and accept our ceiling.
probably the attitude we need to adopt here in Aus. Set up a good domestic competitive league and accept our ceiling.
Members Section
John Thornett (49)
Is Beale inj or fallen out of favour?
Dctarget
John Eales (66)
knee injury
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
So according to these English fans all the Japanese clubs would be too good for the NZ and Aus super teams, as their salary cap dwarfes ours?? Tell them to stop whining , rugby is won on the rugby field , not in who has biggest bank account. French have got so good because they have brought through some bloody good players etc. To say it because of money is just making excuses!!!
What ever happened to the people who used to watch this game who knew that the best team etc won rugby games, and didn't continually look for excuses?
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
No Dan, a lower budget and salary cap is not “just making excuses”.
It’s a reality of professional sport and influences competitiveness of teams against others who operate under different budgets/caps.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Of course it can influence things up to a point, but are you seriously yelling me that Japanese teams are better than Aus and NZ because they have bigger budgets? It can help, but it is too easy to make an excuse for losing. Following that idea English rugby would be unbeatable in test rugby, etc etc, as they are the richest RU around.
Old fashioned I know, but I much prefer no excuses, or it filters into team, and the players begin accept losing. I will add that most clubs that have more money tend to be successful because they have well run boards, and that will always reflect in team. As an ie, Crusaders and Blues are considered to have the best boards running the club, not the richest, just a whole club from board down trying to make their rugby better.
Rebel man
Peter Johnson (47)
If money does not come into it why do only a handful of clubs win the EPL? Why has the AFL pushed equalisation that hard to give all 18 sides a chance?
Money comes into it massively, I know from my own experience playing junior rugby down in Melbourne pre the Rebels players would leave rugby as opportunities presented themselves in the TAC Cup at the time there was no money to keep those athletes into the sport.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Yep, but what I saying the English fans are making excuses, and that all it is. All I saying money can't win you comps at that level.
Rebel man
Peter Johnson (47)
Look it’s true a bit like money can’t buy you happiness but it can sure help you succeed and help you be happy.