• 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.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
stoff

stoff

Bill McLean (32)
Apparently today marks 100 days since the 48-72 hour announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
wamberal said:
We have been around this particular circle a few times. Yes indeed, a domestic competition based around the SS would mean some wins and losses.


The shitstorm that has erupted over the Soup machinations would pale into insignficance in comparison, believe me.


Too many selfish interests and not enough public interest. This is a toxic combination. Unless we can either get the selfishness out, or the public interest up, we are doomed.


Maybe as we breathe our last we will finally decide to make some sacrifices. But, frankly, I doubt it. We are just too farking stupid.
Click to expand...

Wamb, you've nailed it on this occasion. Imagine trying to cull up to 6 or more existing SS sides to establish a national competition. Would make the ARU's attempts to cull one side look like a walk in the park.
 
FiveStarStu

FiveStarStu

Bill McLean (32)
Killer said:
But how many other rugby interested billionaires do you know that may possibly be approached down the track to help the game. As far as I know he is it, other than maybe Stokes, also over here whom used to play for Nedlands.
Click to expand...


The other thing I would point out is that, given the appalling way the ARU have treated private Super Rugby ownership as an investment option so far, it'd be a pretty ballsy move for Forrest to put money into the system unless he saw it/could play it purely as philanthropy.
 
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Tex said:
He's got form. Loves a high profile tax deduction!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...story-with-huge-donation-20170521-gw9rhk.html
Click to expand...

As I've suggested previously if both Forrest and Coz are willing to foot the entire costs of running both the Force and Rebels then I honestly wouldn't begrudge either of them the tax break on their losses.

It would be a win/win as far as I am concerned. The ARU gets to redirect funds to talent I'd and retention and alongside as previously unrestricted recruitment boundaries Coz and Forrest save a bit on tax.
 
Tex

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
WCR, I agree. I'm being a bit cynical and churlish - at the end of the day, if a wealthy member of the community digs into their pocket and supports an expensive cause close to people's hearts, then it really shouldn't matter if they do it with all the media bells and whistles ala Twiggy, or if they donate quietly via foundations.

It's all good, as long as it doesn't leave a gaping black hole if the interest wanes.
 
James Pettifer

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
FiveStarStu said:
The other thing I would point out is that, given the appalling way the ARU have treated private Super Rugby ownership as an investment option so far, it'd be a pretty ballsy move for Forrest to put money into the system unless he saw it/could play it purely as philanthropy.
Click to expand...

If I had his ludicrous amount of money, (over $6 billion), I reckon I'd have lots of fun investing $2 billion in trying to fix Rugby in Australia. If the ARU don't want to play ball, then you'd just Packer them.
 
Killer

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
James Pettifer said:
If I had his ludicrous amount of money, (over $6 billion), I reckon I'd have lots of fun investing $2 billion in trying to fix Rugby in Australia. If the ARU don't want to play ball, then you'd just Packer them.
Click to expand...


He wouldn't even need to.
The ARU is potentially a money making machine, you just need to invest wisely in the future.
The ARU just needs a benevolent dictator such as Lowy who will maintain direction and have the ability to cover any short term shortfall until the system is self sustaining.
As Jones says, where has the 770mil the ARU has spent in the last decade gone?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Killer said:
As Jones says, where has the 770mil the ARU has spent in the last decade gone?
Click to expand...


This is such a rubbish and meaningless comment.

The reality is that most of it goes to running the professional game in Australia. Around 30% goes to paying the professional players (including 7s) and that figure goes up to probably 50% when the overall running costs of the Wallabies, Super Rugby and 7s is totalled up. 10% or so is spent on matchday operations and similar which is a direct cost of producing the bulk of the game's revenue. 15% goes on the corporate side of the administration, rent etc.
 
Tex

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
Killer said:
He wouldn't even need to.
The ARU is potentially a money making machine, you just need to invest wisely in the future.
The ARU just needs a benevolent dictator such as Lowy who will maintain direction and have the ability to cover any short term shortfall until the system is self sustaining.
As Jones says, where has the 770mil the ARU has spent in the last decade gone?
Click to expand...

It's probably supported the lives of many starving residential property developers, orthodontists and restaurateurs in Sydney's east.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Braveheart81 said:
This is such a rubbish and meaningless comment.

The reality is that most of it goes to running the professional game in Australia. Around 30% goes to paying the professional players (including 7s) and that figure goes up to probably 50% when the overall running costs of the Wallabies, Super Rugby and 7s is totalled up. 10% or so is spent on matchday operations and similar which is a direct cost of producing the bulk of the game's revenue. 15% goes on the corporate side of the administration, rent etc.
Click to expand...

Don't forget they've been paying off the east coast media for the last 20 years........
 
half

half

Alan Cameron (40)
Question from a RL client of mine today.

I gotta say it has thrown me and I had no answer.

His question was.

Can Union survive in anywhere near it current standing, if you have another year with so little direction?

Over to the forum, what will we look like in 12 months if the next 12 months is similar to the last 12 months.
 
dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
half said:
Question from a RL client of mine today.

I gotta say it has thrown me and I had no answer.

His question was.

Can Union survive in anywhere near it current standing, if you have another year with so little direction?

Over to the forum, what will we look like in 12 months if the next 12 months is similar to the last 12 months.
Click to expand...

Our standing right now is nothing like it was 12 months ago. Noting that it wasn't too hot then either.

My question is what is there to suggest this slide wont continue? Logic dictates that sooner or later that sort of decline must self implode. It's "when" not "if".
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
IMG_0196.JPG
got my hopes up
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
James Pettifer said:
If I had his ludicrous amount of money, (over $6 billion), I reckon I'd have lots of fun investing $2 billion in trying to fix Rugby in Australia. If the ARU don't want to play ball, then you'd just Packer them.
Click to expand...


Sadly enough, the very rich do not do things like that. That's why they are very rich. Although there are a couple of exceptions. Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett for example.


I have known a few rich people. I think it is fair to say that you have to be an unhappy person to want to become rich, because of the sacrifices that are required.


And if by some fluke a normal kind of person becomes rich, they usually become unhappy. They lose friends, if they ever had any, relationships break down, etc etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top