Where to for Super Rugby?

[ChargerWA]

In fairness to the Brumbies, crowd figures should be judged on a per capita basis for each teams state population. On which basis the Rebels are the worst performing team by a HUGE margin. They get equal size crowds to the Brumbies with 15 X the population.

 

[Killer]

Waynw Smith is filling columbs with make believe.. And why arent you showing your Force support icon anymore champ??

I never had an icon though I am a WF supporter. Given time I will fix that.

I am also firmly in the 5 Team camp and think cutting a team for Aus is an unimaginative backward step by people who have never ran a business where their personal future is on the line. They are Corporate types who understand the theory of early stop losses but have no practical experience of implementing them. Action should have been taken some years ago. And when they stuff up don't have to take personal responsibility for the many 100x their net worth lost, say the NAB in the UK loss, many billions gone and did anyone get the sack? I bet the directors didn't. The system that these directors learnt in is a system that has no direct accountability so they don't really understand pain as being felt by WF, Rebels and Brumbies supporters who carry the entire loss.

So not only do they not have to take responsibility for their incompetence and partial destruction of rugby. But they are not coming up with any imaginative plans and getting everybody working together.

Anyway if the ARU clearly, imo, worked counter to the WF alliance why would the WF not be given the opportunity to re purchase their licence, then restart negotiations.

 

[I like to watch]

NTT, just in terms of success....

The Brumbies have made the finals the past 4 years, and are currently on top of the Aus conference....

And on top of that his they've won two championships and have been runners up a number of times.

You don't axe your most successful team, especially when that success extends to the present day.

Yeah, that's the plus side, there's plenty of negatives for them as well.

Not saying they shouldn't survive the cull, but not even considering them, weakens the perception that the review is not being used to justify their decision.
Instead of using the review to decide without fear or favour the best way forward.

 

[Gnostic]

A short documentary on the decision making processes in the ARU and SANZAAAAAAR.

 

[dru]

In fairness to the Brumbies, crowd figures should be judged on a per capita basis for each teams state population. On which basis the Rebels are the worst performing team by a HUGE margin. They get equal size crowds to the Brumbies with 15 X the population.

In South Africa one of their benchmarks is being interpreted as meaning how many (what percentage) of the fan base must turn up to fill the stadium.

This is completely opposite to a per capita metric. In effect in South Africa, if your home town population is not big enough, you can't have a franchise. It's a key metric being quoted as logic for cutting both the Kings and the Cheetahs.

In Aus it's a metric that would put Brumbies behind the Force and Rebels in first. It is only one metric though.

 

[Rebels3]

In fairness to the Brumbies, crowd figures should be judged on a per capita basis for each teams state population. On which basis the Rebels are the worst performing team by a HUGE margin. They get equal size crowds to the Brumbies with 15 X the population.

Haha, ah dear. 10,000 people is 10,000 people. They all pay $25 each. Market size means little when it's percentages. 80,000 supporters in a 100,000 market isn't as effective as 100,000 people in a 200,000 market. Depending on your narrative it's either 80% compared to 50% or 100,000 compared to 80,000.

The facts are in relation to crowds, the rebels, force and brumbies are all below par. The brumbies are the best team in aus yet have had sub 10k crowds? The rebels had 7,500 on Saturday and the force 8,000 on a perfect Sunday afternoon the day if they ever needed a crowd for show of defiance. All have failed the test.

Brumbies don't develop local talent, yet develop plenty of other from other states. Force developing talent, 1 player of note, the rebels 0. Yet the force 11 years and the rebels 6. The rebels have provided more current wallabies, yet the force have supplied the most valuable. It's like we are stuck on a round about not knowing which exit to take, we all wanna take different exits.

Performance. The force are good this year??? 2 from 6. Awesome. Rebels 1 from 6. Terrible. Brumbies 3 from 7. Then we can look at the schedule so far rebels played 4 of 5 kiwi teams, force 2 of 5, brumbies 2 of 5. Rebels over the 6 years have beaten the force 4 times overall to the forces 2, they have also won 6 of their last 8 aus conference games or over the last 2 and a half seasons have won 17 of their 37 games compared to the forces 7 of 37. Pat on the back awesome performance by both. But then the force have a winning season to their record in 2014 and are higher on the table this season.

Time zones??? Good for South Africa and Europe yet not ideal for Australian audiences. Isn't decisions like that, that have us in this mess!! No rebels means on certain weeks with a team having a bye and the other away we could possibly end up without a single game at primetime. Perspective people, it just depends where you sit.

Back onto team performance, judged against each other yet one team gets 2.6mil more to spend, another 1.3, another 1.05, finally the two on the chopping board 240k and 120k. But then the rebels receive 8mil, force 7.7 etc. but then again rebels deal is front loaded. Take a snapshot if that suits your game, look at things going forward if it doesn't. I'm surprised nobody has discussed expenses! Surely it'd cost considerably more to fly form the west, perhaps 100s of thousands more a year, id also dare say aami stadium is probably more expensive to rent each year than NIB.

I could go on all day, it's all about narrative when picking your arguments, let's all keep that in mind before we start trying to push someone in front of the bus.

 

[mudskipper]

I never had an icon though I am a WF supporter. Given time I will fix that.

I am also firmly in the 5 Team camp and think cutting a team for Aus is an unimaginative backward step by people who have never ran a business where their personal future is on the line. They are Corporate types who understand the theory of early stop losses but have no practical experience of implementing them. Action should have been taken some years ago. And when they stuff up don't have to take personal responsibility for the many 100x their net worth lost, say the NAB in the UK loss, many billions gone and did anyone get the sack? I bet the directors didn't. The system that these directors learnt in is a system that has no direct accountability so they don't really understand pain as being felt by WF, Rebels and Brumbies supporters who carry the entire loss.

So not only do they not have to take responsibility for their incompetence and partial destruction of rugby. But they are not coming up with any imaginative plans and getting everybody working together.

Anyway if the ARU clearly, imo, worked counter to the WF alliance why would the WF not be given the opportunity to re purchase their licence, then restart negotiations.

Same same force IP is owned by the ARU... Sold by th force boad... Extra ARU with ongoing costs every year... Smiths anti Brumbirs articles ate made to create his own nees...

 

[mudskipper]

Haha, ah dear. 10,000 people is 10,000 people. They all pay $25 each. Market size means little when it's percentages. 80,000 supporters in a 100,000 market isn't as effective as 100,000 people in a 200,000 market. Depending on your narrative it's either 80% compared to 50% or 100,000 compared to 80,000.

The facts are in relation to crowds, the rebels, force and brumbies are all below par. The brumbies are the best team in aus yet have had sub 10k crowds? The rebels had 7,500 on Saturday and the force 8,000 on a perfect Sunday afternoon the day if they ever needed a crowd for show of defiance. All have failed the test.

Brumbies don't develop local talent, yet develop plenty of other from other states. Force developing talent, 1 player of note, the rebels 0. Yet the force 11 years and the rebels 6. The rebels have provided more current wallabies, yet the force have supplied the most valuable. It's like we are stuck on a round about not knowing which exit to take, we all wanna take different exits.

Performance. The force are good this year??? 2 from 6. Awesome. Rebels 1 from 6. Terrible. Brumbies 3 from 7. Then we can look at the schedule so far rebels played 4 of 5 kiwi teams, force 2 of 5, brumbies 2 of 5. Rebels over the 6 years have beaten the force 4 times overall to the forces 2, they have also won 6 of their last 8 aus conference games or over the last 2 and a half seasons have won 17 of their 37 games compared to the forces 7 of 37. Pat on the back awesome performance by both. But then the force have a winning season to their record in 2014 and are higher on the table this season.

Time zones??? Good for South Africa and Europe yet not ideal for Australian audiences. Isn't decisions like that, that have us in this mess!! No rebels means on certain weeks with a team having a bye and the other away we could possibly end up without a single game at primetime. Perspective people, it just depends where you sit.

Back onto team performance, judged against each other yet one team gets 2.6mil more to spend, another 1.3, another 1.05, finally the two on the chopping board 240k and 120k. But then the rebels receive 8mil, force 7.7 etc. but then again rebels deal is front loaded. Take a snapshot if that suits your game, look at things going forward if it doesn't. I'm surprised nobody has discussed expenses! Surely it'd cost considerably more to fly form the west, perhaps 100s of thousands more a year, id also dare say aami stadium is probably more expensive to rent each year than NIB.

I could go on all day, it's all about narrative when picking your arguments, let's all keep that in mind before we start trying to push someone in front of the bus.

Results speak for themselves...

 

[ChargerWA]

Haha, ah dear. 10,000 people is 10,000 people. They all pay $25 each. Market size means little when it's percentages. 80,000 supporters in a 100,000 market isn't as effective as 100,000 people in a 200,000 market. Depending on your narrative it's either 80% compared to 50% or 100,000 compared to 80,000.

But it is an important metric to show fan engagement and market penetration. Basically, the Rebels have neither.

 

[swingpass]

Results speak for themselves.

but over what timeframe ? just last Saturday for example, this season so far, last year or last 4 -5 years. i think his point is you can choose whatever metric you like to justify your position. the ARU to their eternal discredit have not, as far as i know, publicly stated what the criteria are for retaining or culling a franchise, and why those would not be applied across the five franchises. We all know why the big three are safe, but for the sake of transparency if not for just PR why not give some reasons.

 

[Rebels3]

But it is an important metric to show fan engagement and market penetration. Basically, the Rebels have neither.

10,000 is 10,000. You are still appealing to the same sized audience. 10,000 people in a market of 1mil for example is the same as 10,000 in a market of 20,000. If this was a maths question, that asked how many people have you engaged with or your penetration size the answer is both 10,000. Like I said before it's all about narrative.

 

[ChargerWA]

10,000 is 10,000. You are still appealing to the same sized audience. 10,000 people in a market of 1mil for example is the same as 10,000 in a market of 20,000. If this was a maths question, that asked how many people have you engaged with or your penetration size the answer is both 10,000. Like I said before it's all about narrative.

And that comes down to wether the ARU is a business or guardian of the sport. While it's important that they get the financial side correct so they don't bankrupt the sport, there are more considerations that must me made so they can fulfil their key reason for existing which is shepherding the future of the game.

In a net sum scenario, 8'000 fans in Melbourne is equal to 8'000 fans in Melbourne. But in the real world when the Brumbies supporters show their faith and support by turning out 15:1 versus Melbourne supporters the ARU would be derelict in their duty as guardians of the game not to support ACT rugby over Melbourne if it came down to it.

 

[NTT]

NTT, just in terms of success....

The Brumbies have made the finals the past 4 years, and are currently on top of the Aus conference....

And on top of that his they've won two championships and have been runners up a number of times.

You don't axe your most successful team, especially when that success extends to the present day.

Brumbies are still mid table this year, that was your original marker for success. Seeing as you haven't refuted any of my other points, i take it your argument for keeping the Brumbies is more a decision from the heart and not the head.

Has this success turned into financial sustainability is the question as this is the ARUs "criteria". 9 years of losses including $9million lost in the last 3 years alone suggests not.
Does this success also convert to growth potential? Being in the smallest province with the smallest market suggests not as much potential as other franchises.
Does winning a competition over 10 years ago make you immune from future changes and financial problems? No.
Does winning the competition make you immune from being relegated, folded or merged? No. Fitzroy had 8 premierships to their name, look what happened to them.

 

[TOCC]

The details are sketchy of course, not having been made entirely public yet, but a deal of some type that includes a thirty year accommodation arrangement, though not something I would personally endorse, is hardly an operating loss.

You're right, close to $5million has gone into paying pre-paid rent for 30years in a facility they don't own any equity in, $2million in associated costs of the sale and move, the remaining portion of the $11million is what has been whittled away in operating losses, $860,000 in 2016, $1.68 million 2015, $1.07million in 2014, $140k in 2013 and $450 and in 2012.

When the Brumbies sold Griffith, it was announced $5million would be invested in the new facilities, and $4million would be put aside in an independent trust towards funding the future of ACT Rugby. That never happened, and that money is now gone, as it stands the Brumbies have less then $1million left from the sale of Griffith.

The financial difficulties in ACT aren't unique, its evident all teams are experiencing serious issues. The point I'm making towards Mudskipper, is that the Brumbies are hardly to be put on a pedestal when it comes to their finances as both teams lost $3-$4million over the 4 years period from 2012-2015.

 

[NTT]

Same same force IP is owned by the ARU. Sold by th force boad. Extra ARU with ongoing costs every year. Smiths anti Brumbirs articles ate made to create his own nees.

The Forces IP were sold as per conditions in the Alliance Agreement. It was for mutual benefit to both parties or the Force would not have sold the IP rights. Under the Alliance agreement, funding is a co responsibility between Rugby WA, the WA government and the ARU. RugbyWA (Own the Force, Future Force, secondary sponsors) and the WA government (Road Safety Commission) are well on their way to meeting their obligations under this Agreement.

 

[Slim 293]

NTT, I don't have time to refute all your points right now because I'm on the go.........

But in regards to on field success - The Brumbies have been in the finals 4 times since 2011 and currently lead the Aussie conference.

How have the other teams performed in that time?

Also, Fitzroy is hardly an apt comparison.

 

[NTT]

Haha, ah dear. 10,000 people is 10,000 people. They all pay $25 each. Market size means little when it's percentages. 80,000 supporters in a 100,000 market isn't as effective as 100,000 people in a 200,000 market. Depending on your narrative it's either 80% compared to 50% or 100,000 compared to 80,000.

The facts are in relation to crowds, the rebels, force and brumbies are all below par. The brumbies are the best team in aus yet have had sub 10k crowds? The rebels had 7,500 on Saturday and the force 8,000 on a perfect Sunday afternoon the day if they ever needed a crowd for show of defiance. All have failed the test.

Brumbies don't develop local talent, yet develop plenty of other from other states. Force developing talent, 1 player of note, the rebels 0. Yet the force 11 years and the rebels 6. The rebels have provided more current wallabies, yet the force have supplied the most valuable. It's like we are stuck on a round about not knowing which exit to take, we all wanna take different exits.

Performance. The force are good this year??? 2 from 6. Awesome. Rebels 1 from 6. Terrible. Brumbies 3 from 7. Then we can look at the schedule so far rebels played 4 of 5 kiwi teams, force 2 of 5, brumbies 2 of 5. Rebels over the 6 years have beaten the force 4 times overall to the forces 2, they have also won 6 of their last 8 aus conference games or over the last 2 and a half seasons have won 17 of their 37 games compared to the forces 7 of 37. Pat on the back awesome performance by both. But then the force have a winning season to their record in 2014 and are higher on the table this season.

Time zones??? Good for South Africa and Europe yet not ideal for Australian audiences. Isn't decisions like that, that have us in this mess!! No rebels means on certain weeks with a team having a bye and the other away we could possibly end up without a single game at primetime. Perspective people, it just depends where you sit.

Back onto team performance, judged against each other yet one team gets 2.6mil more to spend, another 1.3, another 1.05, finally the two on the chopping board 240k and 120k. But then the rebels receive 8mil, force 7.7 etc. but then again rebels deal is front loaded. Take a snapshot if that suits your game, look at things going forward if it doesn't. I'm surprised nobody has discussed expenses! Surely it'd cost considerably more to fly form the west, perhaps 100s of thousands more a year, id also dare say aami stadium is probably more expensive to rent each year than NIB.

I could go on all day, it's all about narrative when picking your arguments, let's all keep that in mind before we start trying to push someone in front of the bus.

Agree with all except the bit in bold. Flying to WA from eastern Australia and NZ is still a lot cheaper than flying to Argentina. As with flying from South Africa to Perth is cheaper than flying South Africa to New Zealand. Adding Perth has not nearly increased the travel costs in the same way adding Argentina and Japan has.

 

[NTT]

NTT, I don't have time to refute all your points right now because I'm on the go...

But in regards to on field success - The Brumbies have been in the finals 4 times since 2011 and currently lead the Aussie conference.

How have the other teams performed in that time?

Also, Fitzroy is hardly an apt comparison.

On field success can not be measured accurately as the teams in question have been operating under uneven contracting conditions. A team with a salary bill of some $2million more than the other franchises would naturally be expected to perform better as it has quite the advantage in who it can recruit.
Fitzroy is an apt comparison. Your "criteria" is that past success makes you immune to the future change. Fitzroy won 8 premierships yet still were folded under financial pressure. Brumbies have won 2 titles and are under financial pressure. If that is not an example of precedence with so many similarities, then nothing is. North Sydney Bears are another example of a sporting entity who had previous success but were not immune to future financial pressure and relegation.

 

[Rebels3]

Agree with all except the bit in bold. Flying to WA from eastern Australia and NZ is still a lot cheaper than flying to Argentina. As with flying from South Africa to Perth is cheaper than flying South Africa to New Zealand. Adding Perth has not nearly increased the travel costs in the same way adding Argentina and Japan has.

From my knowledge (and I could be completely wrong) there is actually no direct flight to Argentina and Japan from the west, a logistical nightmare for either touring team or a team heading overseas. Also going for to the 15 team competition next year, of each teams 8 away games, 3 will be within Australia, 2 within Nz and 1 to Japan. All extremely accessible from the each cost and cost efficient from the east coast. Any away trip to Argentina would amplify this cost and costs to touring teams. But I am not here to bash on the force, that's unfair and not a robust conversation, they could easily refute distance to South Africa and the burden of their touring teams and like I said game day costs within the Melbourne economy I'd expect would be more than out west. I could be completely wrong on all fronts, happy to be corrected if so

 

[Slim 293]

Brumbies aren't under financial pressure, and are presently the best performing Aussie team......... so, no.