Where to for Super Rugby?

[Slim 293]

100% agree. On what basis were they excluded from the cull?
Can anyone provide a rational reason for them not being culled that excludes "they won two championships a long time ago or larkham played there"?
Have the rebels/brumbies play two games a year there. Pre season there and throw Canberra a test a year against one of the weaker teams.

A number of reasons the Brumbies were spared:

Foundation team...........

On field success - most successful team (this is actually important, especially when it applies to the present standings)........

Player development........

Coaching development.....:.....

Higher average ratings.........

Higher average crowds.......

Sponsorship money..........

Have yet to be bailed out by the ARU.

 

[Slim 293]

Wayne Smith is 100% correct.

The Brumbies should be the ones to go, or merge.

He's not...........

The Force and Rebels should be focusing on their own issues to stay alive.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Nah mate, $11million fund which was set aside after the sale of the land has been spent on operating losses.. much like the Force

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.

 

[Kenny Powers]

He's not.....

The Force and Rebels should be focusing on their own issues.

What about the issue of the ASIC (Australian Securities and Investment Commission) investigation into the Brumbies. Someone within the Brumbies organisation had KPMG do an investigation, this was referred to the Federal Police who have in turn referred it to ASIC.

This is a big black mark against the Brumbies and the Brumbies Board will not release the KPMG Report which they should do in all fairness to the other clubs and rugby fans Australia wide. I would like to know about the 'Canberra Mafia' as Georgina Robinson termed it in the Rugby 360 show last year.

To put the KPMG report into context that would be understood in Canberra, how successful would a company be in winning a Government Tender, while under investigation by ASIC?

 

[SammyP]

100% agree. On what basis were they excluded from the cull?
Can anyone provide a rational reason for them not being culled that excludes "they won two championships a long time ago or larkham played there"?
Have the rebels/brumbies play two games a year there. Pre season there and throw Canberra a test a year against one of the weaker teams.

You realise the same can be said for the Waratahs and Reds? Both have received financial help from ARU. Both have dropping crowds. Both have a long history of poor performances. If they were based anywhere but QLD and NSW they'd be on the chopping block too.
If a goal of the ARU was to turn Rugby fans of this country against each other than they have been extremely successful.
Instead of banding together we are at each others throats, tearing into all the other franchises to try and make our own look better (from what I have seen both here and on social media, one team's supporters are doing this more than any others - its clear which fans are fighting for their team to stay and which ones are more focussed on trying to point out why a different team should go). Force and Rebels fans are at each other and now the other teams are being dragged in too, especially the Brumbies. The ARU say we are safe so we must be the worst, should be gone etc.
Only sensible suggestion is to merge with Rebels? Yep, we only get 9-10K (will jump to around 12K if they play like they did against the Reds) at matches so lets trade DOWN to smaller crowds and more sporting competition, just throw Canberra a bone of a game or 2 where no one will go because they won't be our team any more, therefore proving that they should stay in Melbourne because Canberrans won't go to matches.
The whole thing is right royally fucked and it will be the death of Rugby in this country.
So thank you to the ARU.

 

[sidelineview]

That (2015) report was dated April 2016, so the 2016 report should be out soon I'd imagine.

re NZ .......specifically, how much each NZ Super team receives from NZRU and the financial status of each team in comparison.
How do they manage their individual rugby development from schools and junior club, pathways etc or does the NZRU manage this overall.

Once this mess is sorted and the dust settles it will be back to business and Australian rugby will still be losing ground in regards to signing new junior players.

 

[wamberal]

Very little point comparing us with New Zealand. Chalk and cheese. Rugby is the dominant winter code by the length of the straight at Flemington. It is engrained in life, from top to bottom, side to side, and back again.


They will be a rugby nation no matter what happens. They will have juniors, whether or not money trickles down from above. They dominated the game during the amateur era, after all. Money counts, but it is not the determinative factor that it is in our marketplace.

 

[Slim 293]

Kenny, I'm sure the ARU have taken that all into consideration when making this decision............

But the fact is the Brumbies are rightfully safe, and the Force and Rebels should focus on their own backyards if they want to remain - they're not going to achieve anything trying to match up against far more successful teams.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

re NZ ...specifically, how much each NZ Super team receives from NZRU and the financial status of each team in comparison.

As wamberal notes that's not an easy question to answer, mostly because NZRU employ all the players & staff.

Player-wise salaries are set according to where they sit in the "journeyman squad member" to "All Black great" spectrum but only to a max of $195K plus any number of top-ups depending on things like length of service to their Province (those with six years service were recently awarded a $50K loyalty bonus, for example), selection for AB training camps & squads, etc.

Franchises can pay players over & above the $195K, but must stay within an overall cap of $4.65Mn or be "fined" $3 for every $1 overspent. So the figure of $9.52Mn in NZRU's report would only relate to salaries before the various top-ups.

Short(ish) version here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...-our-best-players-in-country-under-salary-cap

There are, quite literally, Uni theses being written on the subject.

 

[mudskipper]

yes, another interesting article from Wayne Smith.
Seems to confirm what I thought about the strength of the WF alliance agreement.
I would say that the Rebels and the WF are on the same footing contractually, and even more so if the WF are able to action their option to buy back their licence.
The Brumbies are looking more and more like a bobbing ball with little ability to determine their own destiny?
Sending Bill Pulver to do any type of negotiating would surely not be an option that Clyne would consider. He seems to simply agree with the last person he spoke to.

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

 

[amirite]

He's not.....

The Force and Rebels should be focusing on their own issues to stay alive.

I don't think the Brumbies should be gone, nor do I believe in that BS "last in, last off" crap. But I think as a secondary team they should've been part of the review process. Fairs fair.

 

[mudskipper]

It was reported the Brumbies received $5.775 million in funding from the ARU - the smallest amount of any team including the NSW Waratahs and Queensland Reds despite 12 months of off-field drama.

The Force was given $7.357 million and the Rebels' pockets were filled with $8.3 million.

 

[No4918]

I don't think the Brumbies should be gone, nor do I believe in that BS "last in, last off" crap. But I think as a secondary team they should've been part of the review process. Fairs fair.

Why should they be in the review if the ARU acknowledges they will stay? Just seems like a waste of time to appease fans. The whole situation is fucked, just get on with it. Too late for political niceties.

Last in last off. Hmmmmm. Well there is a reason the ARU went to Perth before Melbourne. I don't think many of those metrics will have changed greatly. And given the work the Force have made in the rugby community, to an outsider it seems like they have made greater strides. Yes, they have had more time and the same may happen in Melbourne, but you are killing one to maybe see benefit in another.

It's fucked either way and I don't think many of these issues will be at play in the ARUs thinking. They have made the decision on which two teams they are happy to go. To me, it now looks like the team will be cut that will cost the ARU the least money in the long term.

 

[No4918]

It was reported the Brumbies received $5.775 million in funding from the ARU - the smallest amount of any team including the NSW Waratahs and Queensland Reds despite 12 months of off-field drama.

The Force was given $7.357 million and the Rebels' pockets were filled with $8.3 million.

In what context? Haven't seem these figures before.

 

[NTT]

Fact.If rebels were more successful on the field crowds would come likewise for the force

Fact.the force and rebels have not been successful in the field and why their existence is under threat. Yes these threads will debate reasons for lack of on field success but that is why financially cutting a team is having to be considered.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

On field success, or lack thereof, can be attributed to the whole Wallaby distribution and Wallabies top ups system. How do franchises compete for players when they can offer no incentives to move franchises?
Why do we have a mechanism like the salary cap in place to level the playing field then millions of dollars of top up payments not be included?
How do these franchises build academies and other pathways without ARU contribution?

I get that on field success is the ultimate marker for some to measure the success of a franchise but these franchises have had to compete with major restrictions in achieving this marker.

 

[NTT]

Regarding the matter of the alliance agreement - I'll be surprised if it holds up. The broadcasters will likely be required to sign a new broadcast agreement given there is a material change to the previous one (number of games and teams etc). All we know is they have said they will provide the same monetary payments. Yes they could amend the existing agreemend but it's a substantial amendment and fairy easy to justify a new one if it means avoiding legal headaches from
The force.

There are clauses in the Alliance Agreement that say that the Force must be consulted and included in any talks or circumstance in which the broadcast deal was renegotiated or may be renegotiated.
In other words, the Force must be notified if the ARU wants to change their obligations to the agreement in any way. They were not. It has been revealed that the ARU was actively working against that agreement without consulting Rugby WA.

 

[NTT]

A number of reasons the Brumbies were spared:

Foundation team.....of Super 12s. There were Super 10s and Super 6s before Super 12s.

On field success - most successful team (this is actually important, especially when it applies to the present standings).... present standings show a mid table team

Player development.... development of other states players

Coaching development...:... the Brumbies 3 most successful coaches are not in Australian rugby anymore. Jones, Nucifora and White

Higher average ratings... barely, no discrepancies of note here

Higher average crowds... again, every Australian team is getting crowds of between 8000-12000.

Sponsorship money.... very broad definition here, all teams have varying levels of sponsorship. Western Force has a 4 year naming rights deal. Brumbies have no naming rights sponsor signed past this season.

Have yet to be bailed out by the ARU. Neither has the Western Force. Selling assets is different to receiving a hand out.

 

[Forcefield]

I agree NTT. Slim makes a good argument why the Brumbies should be preferred to the Rebels- but not the Force. Couple of points I'd like to add:

Coaching development: Explain more on this one, Slim. Aren't you guys looking at poaching our coach if the Force fall? I personally think claiming things that happened over 10 years ago (Eddie Jones, championships, etc) is holding on to the past. This decision needs to be made on what is best for the future.

Higher Average Ratings: Are those Australian or international? I wonder how Force games rate in South Africa where the timezone is a bit friendlier.

Higher Average Crowds: Brumbies have higher than the Rebels but pretty sure they are at around the same level as the Force. Remind me how many Brumbies supporters came out to watch the quarter final against the Highlanders last year? You can't count the Force's two crowds this year- one was a Thursday night and the other was a Sunday against a team which draws low crowds wherever it goes.

Yet to be bailed out: You can only sell real-estate once. I was under the impression that that real estate deal saved the Brumbies finances. What has changed that makes you think you won't start heading toward the red again. The Force at least now have a 4 year sponsorship deal and the OwnTheForce project that makes you think it is unlikely they will need to go cap in hand to the ARU. Am I mistaken or didn't the Brumbies ask for assistance from the ARU to resolve the CEO lawsuit last year? Remind me how much money the Brumbies get above the Force in contract top ups.

 

[chiraag]

It's a pity all of the franchises didn't sign the alliance agreements to streamline overhead costs, as I would think that would make a pretty big difference to the bottom lines. I assume NZ has a similar structure to this with their central contracting.

...and no one else is going to now after the way the ARU has used it against the force

 

[Slim 293]

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.