Where to for Super Rugby?

[KevinO]

I think people could buy more than one share.

So you think about 70% of people bought 2 shares? Come on the maths is so far off the mark.

 

[todd4]

So you think about 70% of people bought 2 shares? Come on the maths is so far off the mark.

To be honest I don't know the details, just trying to explain why the total is > 4.7m

 

[ChargerWA]

So you think about 70% of people bought 2 shares? Come on the maths is so far off the mark.

I agree the maths seems off, but also remember seeing a tweet where one of the local clubs bought 10 shares, another 7 etc.

I only bought 1, but the other person I've met who bought any, bought 4. One for each family member.

But I'm still suss on the $8.5M figure too.

 

[Micheal]

So you think about 70% of people bought 2 shares? Come on the maths is so far off the mark.

Is it though?

The average could be >2 and I wouldn't be surprised.

Think about every Western Force squad member earning $100k+. They'd have purchased two or more (I'd say significantly more).

Think about every ex-Western Force player, the admin and office staff behind the organisation, the board (who may want to publicly or privately show their 'skin-in-the-game'), Western Australia clubs, sponsors etc.

Individuals like Hans Sauer could purchase 10+ and not bat an eyelid. Hodgo probably owns 20 and is digging through his loose change draw in an attempt to purchase more.

The high profile backers the Force have been sprouting have purchased multiple, and then you have Twiggy Forrests guarantee to finance the purchase of others.

Even multiple GAGR forum members, many who have no affiliation with the Force, have reported that they have bought multiple.

I really don't think the multiple purchasing of shares is to be unexpected. If anything, I actually think most of the funds would come from multiple shareholders.

 

[Omar Comin']

So you think about 70% of people bought 2 shares? Come on the maths is so far off the mark.

4700 people pledged to buy $8 million or so in shares. That would include many people pledging to buy multiple shares (in the prospectus it says that shareholders of 20 or more A Class Shares are entitled to two free season tickets for five years, so there may even be some people who've pledged to buy that many).

I don't know how many shares have actually been bought though as I'm sure many people have held off due to the uncertainty around the Force's future. This move by Twiggy Forrest will undoubtedly give a big boost, as would the Force winning the arbitration.

 

[Slim 293]

Missed the point that they (the Brumbies) had been beneficiaries of substantially higher Wallaby tops than us.........

.........

On a number of occasions, Clyne kept mentioning the unbudgeted costs of $28m to support Super Rugby franchises in the last 7 years and the $11m in unbudgeted "additional" support to the Rebels since inception. He did not acknowledge that this does not include the Wallaby top ups that the Reds, Waratahs & Brumbies get as opposed to what the Force and Rebels get. A true like for like comparison of ARU support has to include these numbers or it is deliberately misleading.

I'm not sure what relevance Wallaby player top ups have to do with this..........

 

[Quick Hands]

He would not accept this and said Australia had a culture of blame and not taking ownership...whilst not seeing the irony of himself blaming the franchises for dragging out the 72 hours to 4 months!

That the head of the ARU could make such a statement is truly mind-blowing.

If any organisation has raised the standard of blame shifting, lack of accountability and lack of responsibility to olympic level, it's the ARU.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm not sure what relevance Wallaby player top ups have to do with this....

I assume because he was referring to costs and Wallaby top ups are a cost?

 

[Slim 293]

I assume because he was referring to costs and Wallaby top ups are a cost?

Relevant costs?

Missed the point that they had been beneficiaries of substantially higher Wallaby tops than us and in recent years had not produced the talent locally that they did 20 years ago.

Missed what point? Of course they (as well as the Tahs and Reds) receive more Wallaby top ups than the Rebels........ what does that have to do with the price of fish?

As for the second part regarding talent......... well, it's hard to take their cause seriously when they make such idiotic claims.

 

[Dave Beat]

Frustrates me that we are arguing amongst our peers - ARU / WRU / VRU, would loveto see are combine as one and tell SANZAR to screw their desision we are having 5 teams, and as a united front go back to them.

We are going to burn more money fighting in house - this money can could be used on rugby.

 

[Jon]

I think people could buy more than one share.

Yep, you can buy multiple. Don't quote me on this because I haven't looked in months but I think it's capped at 20? A lot of people have gone in for multiple.

IE: husband and wife only have one purchaser but bought one for each of them. Or one parent buying shares for each family member in one transaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yes and now SA with their cutting two teams have these two teams in Pro 14 and now involved in two major leagues which actually makes it a much better outcome for Saffa's as not all eggs in the Super Rugby basket and opportunity to trial pro 14 as opportunity for further investment there.

Meanwhile ARU looks to cut a team with no discussion of frigging plan b as to what they would do to address damage to rugby in the region for the team they cut. I am sorry but the ARU are an absolute disgrace to this code and it is unfortunate they are not elected by the rugby public as otherwise they would all pretty much be booted.

While the ARU are in charge I have little confidence rugby can move forward in this country without a wholesale shakeup of our rugby administration.

 

[dru]

Relevant costs?





Missed what point? Of course they (as well as the Tahs and Reds) receive more Wallaby top ups than the Rebels.... what does that have to do with the price of fish?

You can't see how this would be seen in WA and Melbourne? It isn't that much of a stretch in comprehension.

When talking the relative cash support from the ARU to each franchise, outside of the reported cash input their is a skew in where ARU player top up funds go.

There are other elements to this to be sure, but it is still
cash from the ARU that is monopolised in Sydney and Brisbane.

 

[lou75]

Relevant costs?





Missed what point? Of course they (as well as the Tahs and Reds) receive more Wallaby top ups than the Rebels.... what does that have to do with the price of fish?

As for the second part regarding talent... well, it's hard to take their cause seriously when they make such idiotic claims.

I think he was referring to Clyne's statement that Rebels receives more money than the other franchises but if you include the Wallaby top up payments, they receive less than Waratahs, so Clyne is using a sleight of hand in his numbers and is not acknowledging the full picture.

 

[Slim 293]

You can't see how this would be seen in WA and Melbourne? It isn't that much of a stretch in comprehension.

It doesn't matter how it's seen........... it's not the teams receiving extra money - it's the Wallaby players.

 

[Slim 293]

I think he was referring to Clyne's statement that Rebels receives more money than the other franchises but if you include the Wallaby top up payments, they receive less than Waratahs, so Clyne is using a sleight of hand in his numbers and is not acknowledging the full picture.

He's not though........ I think it's rather disingenuous to try and tie the Wallaby top ups with the funding the ARU allocates teams.

 

[lou75]

He's not though.... I think it's rather disingenuous to try and tie the Wallaby top ups with the funding the ARU allocates teams.

how is it different ? Money allocated to teams goes to players, money paid to Wallabies goes to players

 

[Slim 293]

how is it different ? Money allocated to teams goes to players, money paid to Wallabies goes to players

Because it's not part of the general funding the teams receive from the ARU...........

If the Rebels had that many Wallabies in their team then they would get that money too on top of the already increased amount from the ARU.

The reference to the Brumbies' top ups also seemed to have no relevance to the discussion except for the purpose of inciting the Rebels members.

 

[Braveheart81]

how is it different ? Money allocated to teams goes to players, money paid to Wallabies goes to players

It's payment for half the games of their season that they play for the test team.

Those players are still paid a Super Rugby salary and none of them are paid a pittance by their Super Rugby club because they get paid to play for the Wallabies.

The ARU is never going to dictate where their key players must live if they want to play for the Wallabies.

Each team needs to attract players on their own merits. Clearly it is easier for the east coast teams to attract players because that is where the majority of them come from originally.

Perth's position is improving in that regard because they have more local players which are keen to live in Perth. They have also seemingly built a really strong culture this year and that sort of thing also helps attract players.

This argument that somehow the ARU are going to stop paying to retain the key Wallabies and instead let the Super Rugby sides control all that spending or alternatively dictate where they must live if they want to play for the Wallabies is complete fantasy.

 

[zer0]

Page 400?

EDIT: Bugger. Got math wrong. Me be dumb.