• 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.

Melbourne Rebels 2024

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
That's exactly my point - first it was in VA, then in danger of VA, then back to in VA - the message keeps changing.
I don't think it did jump back - it's more likely it was due to cookies on your end or just that the specific page you saw it on hadn't updated for whatever reason. It's been consistent on my end
 

oztimmay

Geoff Shaw (53)
Staff member
This is getting to a pedantic argument, but fresh from the site. The headline doesn't match the subtext. Go figure they don't have decent copy editors anymore.

1706149829381.png
 

Rebel man

Jim Lenehan (48)
There is no way rugby Australia would be in a position to turn down the 50m on offer from the Victorian government
 

oztimmay

Geoff Shaw (53)
Staff member
Yeah, that's not what RA would be worrying about...

A potential drop in broadcast revenue on the other hand.

I'd be surprised if the drop weren't substantial, given you're eliminating your second biggest TV market.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific), to me, is revenue generation first, then player development second. On that criteria, maximising broadcast revenue is the (arguably) the best way way to generate the revenue desperately needed for players' development
 

Dctarget

John Eales (66)
I'd be surprised if the drop weren't substantial, given you're eliminating your second biggest TV market.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific), to me, is revenue generation first, then player development second. On that criteria, maximising broadcast revenue is the (arguably) the best way way to generate the revenue desperately needed for players' development
Sadly Rebels doesn't equal Victoria as we've seen. I doubt the Vic tv market will be dented that much at all.
 
Top