• 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.

Rebels 2017

Not open for further replies.


Chilla Wilson (44)
One year deals really irk me. The bloke will be here just long enough to learn how to do a hook turn in the CBD before he heads back to the UK.

I think if you have a spot to fill for a year, there's nobody good around locally he's the right kind of signing. I also think ditching him after a year is correct because he never quite got there.


John Hipwell (52)
Staff member
Dom has re-signed for 2017.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


John Hipwell (52)
Staff member
I could watch this...over, and over, and over, and over again. Mainly for the Waratahs losing, but for DAT SPEED from Dom.

Greg Martin summed it up the best: "there are weeping Waratahs all over the place".


Peter Sullivan (51)
So, here's the latest version of the "let's dump Melbourne and/or Western Force" plan.


Interesting to see the Brumbies get mentioned here, mainly from a financial sustainability perspective. I think we are better than a few years ago, provided Imperium stick around.

At the end of the day, from that article (Not that I care what she thinks) the Rebels would be third in line to be chopped. Force would be first, or the Brumbies would declare bankrupt rather than pay out the lose of the court case.

How crap is the ARU marketing department? Honestly if you can't get two naming right sponsors in one year you should all be sacked. Even if you discount the price on the test series it's still revenue.


Trevor Allan (34)
I'd be far more worried if I were a Brumbies fan. I can think of a few reasons why they would be the first to go.

National footprint. The Wallabies are a national team and the ARU prize highly the national footprint of Super Rugby to undergird it. In short that means they need to prioritize both Perth and Melbourne over Canberra.

Financial reasons. Why have the Force struggled? Because they've been on the bottom of the ladder or there abouts for 6 of the last 7 seasons. In contrast the Brumbies have struggled in the midst of on field success. The crowd attendance at their home finals in the last few years has been appalling. The Brumbies won't make money at the gate until Canberra build a roofed stadium which isn't happening for another 15 years. While cutting down to 4 teams will solve the shortage of quality players that is the most pressing issue for the Force. The Force did pretty well until the Rebels came along.

The Brumbies board have been allegedly caught up in some dodgy property sale to the University of Canberra. The board have been nicknamed the Canberra mafia. Why keep an organisation run by these people afloat?

NRC. It would be much easier and cheaper to continue an NRC team out of Canberra without a Super Rugby team than it would Perth. They could even continue the Brumbies trademark in this competition and stop fighting over the name and colours of their NRC team.

Perth allows for a later time zone which creates a better product for TV particularly abroad.

Perth have doubled their rugby player numbers since the inception of the Force and if they pulled out now the ARU will never convince Sanzaar to give it back and would have all been a waste of an investment at a time where it just seems they might start to produce Wallabies. If the ARU believe that Perth will one day produce more Wallabies than Canberra then the decision becomes very easy.

In contrast the ARU could make a very good argument to SANZAAR, once the roofed stadium is built, that Canberra deserves a Super Rugby Franchise, because it has in the past, and get back that 5th licence.

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Really don't see any solution involving four conferences of four teams being up for serious discussion. Would mean one NZ side folding as well, or playing in another conference. Is that really practicable and on the cards?

Looks more likely that 18 teams will be retained, hopefully in three conferences of 6 teams each.


Trevor Allan (34)
I would have assumed the Sunwolves would join the Aus conference. I hope we dont lose any teams though.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk


Ken Catchpole (46)
We need to expand NZ to 6 or 7 teams (Nelson and North Harbour or Hawkes Bayish area). That will dilute their talent a bit and even things up. In 20 years we have 2 new Oz teams and 2 new RSA teams and 0 from NZ.


Mark Ella (57)
We need to expand NZ to 6 or 7 teams (Nelson and North Harbour or Hawkes Bayish area). That will dilute their talent a bit and even things up. In 20 years we have 2 new Oz teams and 2 new RSA teams and 0 from NZ.
Sounds like a waste of $ by the NZRU tbh. Five gives them 4 very high quality sides and another good side, which increases the standard of the national side. They lose players who play for other nations, want more cash, and can't get Super or All Black Opportunities, or more often a combination of these.

But adding more teams does nothing to fix that. Between new sides being break even financially at best, alongside rules on blokes who don't play NPC, topped off with the fact that not many boys will lack for Super opportunity that are likely to make the ABs, I can't think of a scenario, bar some involving a serious external and obligation free cash injection, where they'd do it.
Not open for further replies.