Where to for Super Rugby?

[Leo86]

I reckon about tree fiddy

Hahaha

 

[James Pettifer]

Or the odds Cox will realise with a few more years of monetary losses and the inevitable break up of Super Rugby he will be left with a franchise that he can no longer sell off for the price he could get today?

3 months is a long time.

I'd say none.

There are now multiple owners of the Reels (not just Cox) and I'm sure that the Vic Government's backing didn't come with a signed guarantee.

That said - what does happen to the private ownership if SuperRugby goes. I note that the NZ teams are privately owned.

 

[BLR]

I'd say none.

There are now multiple owners of the Reels (not just Cox) and I'm sure that the Vic Government's backing didn't come with a signed guarantee.

That said - what does happen to the private ownership if SuperRugby goes. I note that the NZ teams are privately owned.

Does putting money into the Rebels count as ownership? Did Cox sell his controlling stake? If not, what is different?

What Victorian Government guarantee? The same is the case in Western Australia, so where is the point of difference?

As for NZ private ownership, they do it differently, for example Blues only has 40% private ownership it seems.

 

[kiap]

I note that the NZ teams are privately owned.

The NZ Super teams are quite interesting. They are set up as limited partnerships, with separate Limited Partners and General Partners. They're not owned and controlled solely at the whim of private investors.

Having said that, the existence of the teams (and this should apply in Australia as well) doesn't have to depend on the existence of the Super Rugby comp - if they restructure to play in a different competition.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The NZ Super teams are quite interesting. They are set up as limited partnerships, with separate Limited Partners and General Partners. They're not owned and controlled solely at the whim of private investors.


Having said that, the existence of the teams (and this should apply in Australia as well) doesn't have to depend on the existence of the Super Rugby comp - if they restructure to play in a different competition.

Is there any private investment?
The example of the crusaders cited, which does not make sense, has the partners as the unions.
In what comp would the crusaders want to play other than supe?
NPC is for the respective unions, so it wouldn't be that.
And I'm sure the NZRU would not look favourably on an attempt by the crusaders, for instance, to quit supe for a foreign comp.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Is there any private investment?
The example of the crusaders cited, which does not make sense, has the partners as the unions.
In what comp would the crusaders want to play other than supe?
NPC is for the respective unions, so it wouldn't be that.
And I'm sure the NZRU would not look favourably on an attempt by the crusaders, for instance, to quit supe for a foreign comp.

The unions are normally the general partners and the private individuals providing a capital are normally the limited partners. They will usually be on the board but won't be involved in management

The opinion of board member Brent Francis, the West Coast coal mine magnate who injected capital into the franchise after New Zealand Rugby confirmed a licence had been awarded to the Crusaders Limited Partnership, may also carry significant weight.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[The Snout]

Maybe I'm morbid but I wonder how NZRU are feeling right now.

In their view Australian fans having a tantrum about going it alone in a National Comp might make them laugh to themselves.

But it seems over the course on the last few days/weeks South Africa may be the ones that totally scuttle Super for Pro12. There's even suggestion that the Boks may play in a 7 Nations as well.

Maybe SA leaving would be the catalyst for this region putting itself and the people in this region first. Maybe.

Just feels to me the discussion has changed a little. There was talk a month or two back about NZ flying over Australia to play SA teams. Feels like now there won't be any SA teams for them to play.

 

[James Pettifer]

Does putting money into the Rebels count as ownership? Did Cox sell his controlling stake? If not, what is different?

My understanding is that yes. There are multiple owners in the Rebels who are not interested in having any form of discussions with the ARU around a sale. I don't know if Cox sold his controlling stake

What Victorian Government guarantee? The same is the case in Western Australia, so where is the point of difference?

Actually it is very different. I am sure that the Rebels owners have signed something with the Victorian government. The Rebels owners are the decision makers in this process. And it is clear that the ARU is focusing on the Force.

As for NZ private ownership, they do it differently, for example Blues only has 40% private ownership it seems.

They do, but private ownership is private ownership. Hurricanes are 50% private investors / 50% Wellington RFU private. I don't actually know the terms of all of these contracts. But when Super Rugby goes, this is going to be a mess.

 

[James Pettifer]

Is there any private investment?
The example of the crusaders cited, which does not make sense, has the partners as the unions.
In what comp would the crusaders want to play other than supe?
NPC is for the respective unions, so it wouldn't be that.
And I'm sure the NZRU would not look favourably on an attempt by the crusaders, for instance, to quit supe for a foreign comp.

Yes, there are private investors (ie not the unions). They seem to own 40%-50% of the team with the remainder owned by the unions

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes, there are private investors (ie not the unions). They seem to own 40%-50% of the team with the remainder owned by the unions

Canny as ever, keeping them as a minority

 

[Leo86]

Where to for super rugby? That is the question.


Current scenario, SANZAAR, aka ARU being SAs and NZs puppet. According to SA we need them (money), according to NZ we need them (product). ARU "Please play witn us we will sell our souls and whatever else for someone to want us"


Scenario 1 - Above, continue on, drop teams make yourself/ourself the lesser stake. Still no standing at the board. No growth, continue to have financial problems.


Scenario 2 - Unfortunately once again above, Australia bends over, why? Currently SA are possibly making a move to leave super rugby, so NZ not being the cash cow, we look to Asia. Couple years down the track Asia have just replaced SA shit demands that only benefits them. Being the money our so called leaders (understatement of all time) once again follow suit. Still not strengthening Aus.


Scenario 3 - ARU starts (as per our constitution) to foster the game in Australia (quick look on google shows this not only a country but a continent that has more than one coast, crazy right) and builds a product that is in demand and actually acts as an equal partner who exercises their right to veto. Dont know if you noticed but ummmm we are pretty good at rugby, made the final in the latest world cup and shit i dunno been ranked in the top 5 in the world for how long?


The cynic in me believes if those who hold power at once ever thought that maybe their team/s was in jeopardy, we never would be in this position. BUT TO POINT IT OUT, YOU ARE THE ARU YOU STUPID FUCKS. As in you represent all of the 5 franchises. Sorry but fuck this heartland shit, we need to grow the game to be stronger. AFL, NRL, NBL, A League, Cricket all seem to do fine. So ARU WHAT ARE YOU DOING WRONG?


*Hint its not keeping a sport contained (one lot of supporters, sponsors, market, etc)


To the Australian rugby fans, shrinking does not make you stronger, your team, our conference, our sport we only weaken in this current scenario. Do we have the power to change this, easily yes. You buy the tickets, merchandise, over priced beer. Which brings in the sponsors and broadcasters. Heartland (which by the way im not intending to demean you) but you can be a voice. Axing a team doesnt directly hurt you but definitely indirectly hurts the sport.


The sport is in y/our hands.


Short sighted - Which players can you pilfer to profit your team?


Long sighted - How do we recognise let alone grow such players in a smaller playing field/catchment?


Stronger as five

 

[The torpedo]

What odds will I get for the following post 31/07?

The ARU and Rugby WA hold a joint press conference. The exact terms and proceedings of the arbitration hearing will remain strictly confidential.

The ARU and Rugby WA greatly regret the damage that has been done to Rugby in Australia from this protracted dispute and in hindsight it is apparent that this matter could have been handled better with more care to the sensibilities of all parties involved. However if we have to look for positives from this and we must moving forward, the passion and commitment fans, players and administrators have shown for Rugby has been overwhelming. It is with profound sorrow and regret that the ARU and Rugby WA have reached and agreement that the Force will not contest Super Rugby following the end of the 2017 season. This decision is not one that has been taken lightly and Rugby WA has come to see that for the long term growth and sustainability of Rugby in Australia this is the only path forward. Today Rugby WA and the ARU can announce that all player contracts will be honoured and where possible players will be given the option to relocate to other Australian Super Franchises with assistance for such costs. Furthermore Rugby WA will maintain its development program with full participation in the National Rugby Championship so that the continued production of future Wallaby stars that we have recently seen starring on the international stage continues. The ARU remains fully committed to Rugby in WA and when we have achieved a more stable financial state we look forward to the resumption of the Force in Super Rugby.



I would then expect a number of coaching and administrative staff to appear in ARU funded positions over the following 6 to 12 months. The case will be closed and no details of the event can be disclosed due to various non-disclosure agreements etc. Surely this scenario closely follows the Standard ARU Operating Procedures as historically shown to give a best outcome for the ARU.

Outcome for the ARU that is, NOT Australian Rugby.

So people, what odds?

Gnostic I am so certain that a decision won't be made by the 31st of July that I am offering you an avatar bet. The loser has to use the avatar until the decision is reached on whether to cut/merge/keep teams, or for the rest of 2017 (whichever comes last). Deal?

 

[Killer]

No change for the worse that I can see, the WF and their legal team seem to be very much in control of events.
I would suggest that the ARU's bluff has been well and truly called. Arbitration will imo likely confirm the strength of WF's position.

I think the Rebs can thank Tim North for holding the team together in Vic, if he is the man, he seems to be doing a very good job.
In saying that, the pressure from the ARU will be strong behind the scenes, as I have said many times Cox is both a strength and your biggest weakness.

Anyway my bet is that both teams will survive.
Looking forward now to the EGM circus, when is it on?

 

[bedandbreakfast]

August I think

 

[kiap]

In what comp would the crusaders want to play other than supe?

James Pettifer's question was:
“what does happen to the private ownership if SuperRugby goes”?

They might want to look at alternatives in that scenario—or at any time if they so wished—such as an international Club Championship or some sort of Pacific Cup.

The point is that these teams, as the Australian teams, exist independently of SANZAAR and SupeRugby.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

James Pettifer's question was:
“what does happen to the private ownership if SuperRugby goes”?

They might want to look at alternatives in that scenario—or at any time if they so wished—such as an international Club Championship or some sort of Pacific Cup.

The point is that these teams, as the Australian teams, exist independently of SANZAAR and SupeRugby.

NZRU would be able to and would decide for them

 

[kiap]

NZRU would be able to and would decide for them

Yes, but not quite.

NZR could tell the franchises what setup they want, and grant or deny licence permission, etc.

But they can't force the owners to spend money if they don't like the investment.

They might have to find others to buy in.

 

[One eyed pirate]

There's no doubt that Australian super rugby teams have problems but given the lions just got beaten by the blues maybe everyone should ease up on the negativity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes, but not quite.

NZR could tell the franchises what setup they want, and grant or deny licence permission, etc.

But they can't force the owners to spend money if they don't like the investment.

They might have to find others to buy in.

What they can do, presumably, is threaten the unions who want to start their own band with removal of affiliation to the NZRU - it would never come to this because the central management is competent and actually brings something to the party so that there would be no reason for any union to defy them.

 

[kiap]

There's no doubt that Australian super rugby teams have problems but given the lions just got beaten by the blues maybe everyone should ease up on the negativity.