Future of Super Rugby

[robbieando]

This sums up why cutting the Force or the Rebels won't solve the ARU's problems

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...ainty-loom-as-challenges-20170413-gvku4o.html

There are about five million reasons why Australian rugby's problems will not disappear with the forcible dissolution of one of its Super Rugby teams. Last year the Waratahs, Reds and Brumbies combined attracted $5 million in national top-ups over and above their $5 million salary caps, according to Australian Rugby Union figures obtained by Fairfax Media.

That's $5 million worth of the country's best players, as valued by the contracting bosses at the ARU, all poured into the country's three oldest and most successful teams. The Force and the Rebels? Between them they attracted less than $400,000 in national top-ups last year. That was one player at the Western Force, on a contract "top-up" worth $270,000, and one player at the Rebels on a top-up worth $120,000. The two clubs have long been Australia's poorest performing teams and last season was no different, with the Rebels finishing 12th on the 18-team Super Rugby ladder and the Force languishing in 16th spot.

But what did the Waratahs do with their prized roster, worth $2.6 million over and above the salary cap? They finished 10th – well outside a finals spot – while the Reds finished 15th despite boasting $1.05 million of the national top-up pie. Only the Brumbies made the finals, deploying their $1.3 million in top-ups to secure a home quarter final against the Highlanders.

What does the distribution of last year's national top-ups have to do with the future of Australian rugby? For starters it exposes the impossible conditions under which the two teams being fingered for the axe were asked to operate and succeed. Look a little closer and it also hints at the structural flaws in the game that mean slicing off one-fifth of the ARU's Super Rugby admittedly bloated cost base will not on its own usher in a new golden era for the sport.

 

[robbieando]

https://melbournerebels.com/2017/04/14/melbourne-rebels-statement-2/

The following is a statement from the Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Limited board and management:

Not on our Watch

The Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union (MRRU) deny the right of the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) to “cut or chop” the Melbourne Rebels from the Super Rugby Competition. MRRU expresses great disappointment in the manner in which the matter has been managed and immediately calls on the ARU to publicly state that MRRU can not and is not being ‘cut or chopped’ from the Super Rugby Competition and advise the public that it had no right to say it could do this or to ‘request the Melbourne Rebels to ‘make its case’.

Legal position

Last Sunday evening, ARU Chair Cameron Clyne advised MRRU Chair Jonathan Ling that the ARU had decided to reduce the Australian representation from five to four teams and, further, that the Brumbies were ‘safe’ and that either the Rebels or the Force would be “cut”. This was contrary to advice that MRRU had previously received from ARU management.

We unequivocally reject that the ARU has any ability to “chop” or “cut” (ARU words) the Melbourne Rebels Super Rugby licence. Any representation by the ARU, including its Chairman, to that effect is legally incorrect and in complete conflict with the constitution of the ARU. The ARU’s continued use of these terms and perpetuation of this myth continues to cause significant damage to MRRU and its players and staff.

Despite being advised of its inability to “chop” MRRU, the ARU proceeded down this path thereby knowingly causing significant additional damage to MRRU – its players, coaches and stakeholders

MRRU is steadfast in its stance that the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) does not have the legal right to “cut” MRRU from the competition and that MRRU is in full compliance with the requirements of its Super Rugby Participation Deed. Further, MRRU will continue to perform all of its responsibilities to the Australian Rugby Union under its licence, and fully expects the Australian Rugby Union to do the same.

MRRU notes, and is very disappointed to hear and read statements that the board and senior management of the ARU did not believe for many years in the 5 team model and did not believe that model was financially viable. MRRU notes that this concern was not conveyed to Imperium Sports Management prior to its acquisition of MRRU despite the full board and management of the ARU having the opportunity to do so.

Patently through no fault of our own MRRU has suffered significant damage (financial, reputational, commercial and personal) by the ARU’s handling of this whole process and its unnecessary public statements and actions. Given these actions MRRU has notified the ARU of its intention to seek compensation and at this time has reserved all rights.

Support of our Fans and Stakeholders

MRRU would like to acknowledge the unwavering support it has received from the club’s members, fans and commercial partners during this unsatisfactory decision-making process.

MRRU is disappointed that its staff, players, members, fans and partners have suffered anguish and emotional distress.

MRRU appreciates all the support it has received from Victoria, Australia and around the World. MRRU acknowledges the frustration of some of its fans and social media followers and apologises for that perceived lack of communication while MRRU has been confirming its legal rights. With MRRU’s position now firmly established MRRU will be very public in its stance.

Rebels and the Victorian Rugby Union

MRRU, in conjunction with the Victorian Rugby Union (VRU), is totally committed to supporting the development and growth of rugby from grassroots to elite levels.

MRRU notes the ongoing support of the VRU and its President and Eminent QC, Tim North, who said:

“The VRU is strongly committed to its partnership with MRRU and its objectives of growing the game in Victoria and a successful Super Rugby Licencee in Melbourne is critical to that realisation.”

Ironically while the ARU has been looking to “chop” the MRRU team, rugby in Victoria has never been healthier. We have experienced unprecedented growth in participation, development and national success. And the MRRU’s and VRU’s commitment to rugby’s development pathways is yielding results with a record six home-grown players contracted to the Rebels this season and a record 10 Rebels named in the 2017 Australian U20s squad.

MRRU also wants to publicly acknowledge the Premier Daniel Andrews, Treasurer Tim Pallas, Sports Minister John Eren and their teams for their support of the MRRU and Victorian Rugby in general and specifically thoroughout this whole unnecessary and damaging saga.

ARU Broadcast Money

MRRU reluctantly accepts that the ARU board has voted to reduce the number of Super Rugby teams but it does not accept that the ARU arbitrarily takes the surplus funds ($6.0m) resulting from this decision.

This money is generated by the Super Rugby licencees and should be going back to the Super Rugby licence holders on an equal basis to ensure that they can be financially independent going forward – a stated ARU objective.

Growth of the game at all levels relies heavily on the success and sustainability of the Super Rugby teams and with their success will come greater participation and a profile for the game. The ARU has substantial revenue outside of this broadcast money and a judicious and unbiased allotment of this money will be sufficient to fund the direct investment they wish to allocate to the grassroots level of the game.

Competition Structure

The ARU has made it clear that Super Rugby is not delivering for the fans or viewers and the teams are all financially marginal. MRRU is disappointed that SANZAAR and the ARU did not use the strategic review as an opportunity to ensure that all teams played each other once by simply extending the Super Rugby Competition by two (2) more rounds, this could easily be fitted into the existing schedule by playing two rounds during the four week test window with limited impact.

This additional content would also be welcomed by the broadcaster, would make the competition fairer and importantly assist the Super Rugby teams with more opportunities to engage with fans and sponsors. We all want more Super Rugby not less, and we all want a fairer draw.

MRRU immediately requests the ARU to put an end to this ongoing saga and to allow the Australian rugby community and our Rebels Family, including players, staff, families, members, fans and stakeholders, to focus on rugby without further unwarranted distraction and mitigate any further damage.

 

[robbieando]

So that's the Rebels seeing the ARU then....

 

[robbieando]

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...melbourne-rebels-are-cut-20170414-gvkwwg.html

Ewen McKenzie and Andrew Heath attended Scotch College and went on to play for the Wallabies, while Digby Ioane and Christian Lealiifano grew up in Melbourne before moving interstate and playing for Australia. To their families they are Victorian, to the rest of the world they are Reds or Waratahs or Brumbies because for too long the only Victorian rugby pathway was a drive up the highway.

Besides the above quoted, this article shows the impact the Rebels have had at a grassroots level in Melbourne.

 

[Scotland]

As a Melbourne Rebels member and a former player of local rugby in Melbourne if they ace the Rebels Australian rugby is dead to me and I will never support super rugby or the Wallabies.

A lot over here are saying similar. This is a lose lose situation for Australian Rugby.

At the end of the day (and yes I know NSW, QLD and the Brumbies have been lower) you can't get 8k crows and for questions to not be asked. Honestly be serious are there more than say 5 maybe 6 genuine top line players in that Force side? Surely those 5-6 will get picked up anyway. It makes the other sides stronger.

Ridiculous post. Brumbies have two 8k crowds this season, Rebels one. If low crowds are the basis for culling teams we'll be down to zero before long.

 

[Scotland]

Phil Waugh pushing the 'no one turns up to watch the Force' barrow on Bill and Boz tonight. I note no published crowd figure for Rebels vs Brumbies...

 

[Seedsfan]

Phil Waugh pushing the 'no one turns up to watch the Force' barrow on Bill and Boz tonight. I note no published crowd figure for Rebels vs Brumbies...

We didn't get a great crowd as a member I wanted to go but unfortunately had family commitments. If the Force do get cut I really do feel for you it will be a big loss for Australian Rugby

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

...I'm actually quite pragmatic about the whole thing compared to a lot of other Force die-hards. My major concern is that rugby has a legitimate development area here in WA. I quite frankly don't care that much about the Force itself, but more about rugby in WA. I was an advocate of getting rid of the Force years ago and replacing them with a new WA team, after being frustrated at the mismanagement of the side. Unfortunately, after attending members/board meetings, I have since discovered that a lot of the problems with the Force didn't actually come from the Force itself, it was a combination of State government, ARU and other States' shenanigans that has made a significant contribution to leading us down this path of sub-mediocrity. (For example, Dave Wessels is the first coach we have actually appointed ourselves, all our other coaches have come from extenuating circumstances or outside influences, I was astonished when I found that out.) Having said that though, our own decision-making didn't help the issue which is why I wanted someone else to take over the WA license.

Regardless of whether it's the Force or not, I would not like to see WA miss out on professional rugby, I think it's imperative to have a pathway here. We are in too unique a position by having no NRL presence here, that is something that must be taken advantage of. The ARU must understand also, that the RL vs RU cultural divide is not as prevalent here, schools that play a rugby game have both codes therein. It's why so many WA leaguies have a union background. The NRL therefore has a ready-made pool of players which it can develop quite swiftly once union leaves town. That would be the death-knell of the fifteen-man code.

Because of that impending threat, I am actually quite serious in proposing that as a compromise for the Sunwolves entering the Australian conference, RugbyWA should be aided by the ARU or even SANZAAR in getting a Western Australian team into the Japanese Top-League. The quality of the local players/Perth Spirit would be strong enough to compete, especially if they are all professionalised. I know it's a long-shot though and I can't see why Japan would want us, but there has been a push in Japan recently by the company teams to seek a greater stage for their rugby, so there may be a seed that can bear fruit there, especially if the Hong Kong Rugby Union can be brought along for the ride.

Great post and interesting ideas.
I too have never really adopted the Force but I care about Rugby in WA. I always hated The Force name and felt they marketed themselves poorly to born and bred Sandgropers who may be AFL first but open and accepting of Rugby Union and already follow the Wallabies.
Very true about the weaker divide between RU and RL in WA, we don't care as much. As a junior I played Union on Saturday mornings for Leeming (now Southern Lions?) and League on Sunday mornings for Applecross Jets (folded or merged with South Perth?)

A watered down version of your Sunwolves idea is what if the Sunwolves fixtures in Australia are played in the city that loses their team, be it Perth or Melbourne. Meaning the remainder 4 Australian teams give up one home game and Perth or Melbourne get 4 Super Rugby games a season of the Sunwolves vs the Aussie sides.

 

[Scotland]

I find it convenient that only the home crowds of the Force are being discussed. I mean the Waratahs have a squad full of Wallabies paid for by the ARU and represent the biggest population by state and local rugby participation and their season opener drew a whopping 11,000. But hey the Force drew 8,000 when it's more than likely we are going to get the chop so let's focus on that.

 

[Scotland]

A watered down version of your Sunwolves idea is what if the Sunwolves fixtures in Australia are played in the city that loses their team, be it Perth or Melbourne. Meaning the remainder 4 Australian teams give up one home game and Perth or Melbourne get 4 Super Rugby games a season of the Sunwolves vs the Aussie sides.

If the ARU axe the Force there's not a chance I'll be attending any Super Rugby games hosted in Perth out of tokenism. Same goes for Wallabies tests at the new stadium. The handling of the whole saga has been a giant FU to WA rugby. If the ARU's vision of 'Australian rugby' is an Eastern seaboard comp centred around a strong Waratahs and strong Shute Shield then they won't be funding it from my pocket.

 

[Maester]

I find it convenient that only the home crowds of the Force are being discussed. I mean the Waratahs have a squad full of Wallabies paid for by the ARU and represent the biggest population by state and local rugby participation and their season opener drew a whopping 11,000. But hey the Force drew 8,000 when it's more than likely we are going to get the chop so let's focus on that.

Yeah, the competition itself is what's broken, it's not like just 1 or 2 teams are struggling while everyone else thrives. The number of people with at least a casual interest in the sport would be roughly the same as it was 5 or 10 years ago, but the competition is hemorrhaging fans, and there's a huge disconnect with the grassroots and the professional game.

But look, I do think the Force and their fans have some control over their destiny through the the Own the Force initiative. The more successful it is the more likely the Force survive. For instance, if it raised $10 million there's surely no way the ARU could ignore that.

 

[Scotland]

The only way the Force survive is if the ARU do a deal do buy the license back from the Rebels then sell it to the Force.

 

[Maester]

The only way the Force survive is if the ARU do a deal do buy the license back from the Rebels then sell it to the Force.

Well Rugby WA obviously have some legal case for remaining until at least 2020 so we'll see how that plays out. And I'd also say that while it might seem unlikely, the ARU could also change its mind. Nothing is set in stone and even with a 15 team model for next year it would not be difficult to switch the Sunwolves with a 5th Australian team. The ARU has made a decision based purely on financial sustainability. If the Force prove they're financially stable for the long term through Own the Force then that may change some assumptions the ARU have made.

 

[Scotland]

Well Rugby WA obviously have some legal case for remaining until at least 2020 so we'll see how that plays out. And I'd also say that while it might seem unlikely, the ARU could also change its mind. Nothing is set in stone and even with a 15 team model for next year it would not be difficult to switch the Sunwolves with a 5th Australian team. The ARU has made a decision based purely on financial sustainability. If the Force prove they're financially stable for the long term through Own the Force then that may change some assumptions the ARU have made.

Super Rugby is going to 15 teams because SANZAAR want it that way. The ARU are along for the ride because (a) they have no balls, and (b) they see it as easier to give money to 4 teams instead of 5. It would be very difficult to 'switch' the Force/Rebels with the Sunwolves because that's not an ARU call, it's a SANZAAR one. They want a presence in Argentina and Japan more than they want the Kings/Cheetahs/Force/Rebels.

I don't think any of the Australian Super Rugby franchises are financially stable. The ARU haven't made a decision, or at least haven't publicly justified one. The major reason the Force are in the gun is that the ARU hold the license whereas they do not for the Rebels. My read is that the ARU have decided the Force will go because it's the path of least resistance and are now building a justification for that decision. Exactly how the Force agreement to 2020 works with the ARU holding the Force license I don't know.

What shits me the most is that Perth vs Melbourne for the 4th franchise took place over a decade ago. What has fundamentally changed in that time? What has fundamentally changed since 2011 when the Rebels joined? Two poorly performed teams who draw low crowds and leak money. Sounds like the Reds... I would like to see the ARU come out and justify their selection, and if as I suspect it will be that is the Force, why the license was granted to Perth over Melbourne only for a license to be granted to Melbourne 5 years later and kept.

 

[chibimatty]

...I always hated The Force name and felt they marketed themselves poorly to born and bred Sandgropers who may be AFL first but open and accepting of Rugby Union and already follow the Wallabies.

Ditto, I think the name is silly and I hate the colours, especially as it contains blue and yellow, ie Eagles colours. The Force are the only provincial team in Super Rugby which doesn't use it's provincial colours, always irritated me. It is especially embarrassing when you find out they were taken from a generic stockpile of franchise name/colour combinations. As a point of interest, they were taken from the Cleveland Force and the Georgia Force. One could even argue that the shape of the new logo emulates their logos also; though I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it's in the shape of a rugby ball

A watered down version of your Sunwolves idea is what if the Sunwolves fixtures in Australia are played in the city that loses their team, be it Perth or Melbourne. Meaning the remainder 4 Australian teams give up one home game and Perth or Melbourne get 4 Super Rugby games a season of the Sunwolves vs the Aussie sides.

I like the idea of top class rugby in Perth, but I concede that that idea will never work. Funnily enough, I'm one of the few people who would actually watch the SunWolves, as I treat them as my second team. If the Force are cut, I'll still be following them, purely as I have an interest in Japanese rugby. But no, Perth people will stay away in droves, and rightfully so to be honest.

If the ARU axe the Force there's not a chance I'll be attending any Super Rugby games hosted in Perth out of tokenism...The handling of the whole saga has been a giant FU to WA rugby...

Yep, couldn't agree more. More so when you consider how we were set up and then interfered with over the last decade.

Yeah, the competition itself is what's broken, it's not like just 1 or 2 teams are struggling while everyone else thrives. The number of people with at least a casual interest in the sport would be roughly the same as it was 5 or 10 years ago, but the competition is haemorrhaging fans, and there's a huge disconnect with the grassroots and the professional game.

That's true, it's not like the Force are unique in their dismal situation. The other thing that puzzles me is that cutting teams isn't going to solve the biggest problem in Australian rugby, that the game is shrinking in it's heartlands. Mismanagement in NSW and QLD, whomever's fault it may be, has resulted in a smaller player pool having to contend with the pro-player drain to Europe and more worryingly, the number of players scouted over to RL at young ages. Then there is the growth of AFL with the founding of more new junior clubs and also soccer & RL getting themselves into rugby schools, you wonder who is responsible for dropping the ball in such a way? And that's gonna "trickle up" to the pro-level and the wider community of fans who watch it.

It's taken a good 15 years, but we can all see the negative impact coming through now. Question is, if they cut the teams or not, are they going to make the changes required to stop the game shrinking? Even more so, can they actually do it, with the structure of governance they currently have?

 

[robbieando]

What shits me the most is that Perth vs Melbourne for the 4th franchise took place over a decade ago. What has fundamentally changed in that time?

The ARU at the time believed Perth had the advantage of better corporate sponsorships in place and a better Stadium development promise from their State Government. The ARU also used the WST timeslot for future TV deals and access to the Perth expat market as tipping points.

Since then the WA Government's promised stadium deal was downgraded while the Victorian Government followed though with AAMI Park against the ARU's belief at the time that they wouldn't deliver on it and the corporate sponsorship advantage the Force had was really shares in Firepower. The other 2 facts really are a wash when you consider Tokyo now play in the WST timeslot and the expat market isn't the bonus when crowds for the Force and the Rebels match up.

So the bids from 2004 were quickly out of date, the Force were caught up in a fraud soon after starting and a competition that has basically gone backwards

 

[Scotland]

The ARU at the time believed Perth had the advantage of better corporate sponsorships in place and a better Stadium development promise from their State Government. The ARU also used the WST timeslot for future TV deals and access to the Perth expat market as tipping points.

Since then the WA Government's promised stadium deal was downgraded while the Victorian Government followed though with AAMI Park against the ARU's belief at the time that they wouldn't deliver on it and the corporate sponsorship advantage the Force had was really shares in Firepower. The other 2 facts really are a wash when you consider Tokyo now play in the WST timeslot and the expat market isn't the bonus when crowds for the Force and the Rebels match up.

So the bids from 2004 were quickly out of date, the Force were caught up in a fraud soon after starting and a competition that has basically gone backwards

I'm not sure how relevant stadium promises are currently given neither team go close to filling the stadiums they play in. AAMI Park holds 30k, Nib Stadium 20k. AAMI Park (or a lack thereof) might have been a cross against Melbourne's bid in 2004 but it's hardly a big tick for them now. 20,000 empty seats is no more valuable than 10,000. We have the newest and shiniest stadium in the country opening next year anyway if rugby explodes. It's not going to sway the ARU/SANZAAR but Nib Stadium needs its 2nd tenant a lot more than AAMI Park needs its 4th. Our crowds were also a lot healthier when we weren't in the process of being booted out of the comp. Melbourne's crowds after the first game haven't been anything special.

Phil Waugh (who is a NSW puppet) isolated the Force on Bill & Boz the other night as 'well you have the 4 Eastern states sides and Japan over here, then the teams in NZ, and then South Africa and the Jaguars (sic)' as though we are based in Alaska or something. Tokyo is GMT+9, smack bang between WST and EST. I'd say having a WST team in Australia is still a bonus given rugby goes for two hours and there is a two hour difference from WST to EST then EST to NZST. The later the start times of Australian matches the better for the South African audience, the earlier the better for NZ. The Sunwolves aren't going to be playing at home every week.

The Firepower debacle hurt us, but the Rebels aren't exactly a financial success story. Bled the ARU, sold to private ownership and still bleeding the ARU - how does that work?

I'm still yet to see any cogent argument for keeping the Rebels over the Force.

 

[Scotland]

That's true, it's not like the Force are unique in their dismal situation. The other thing that puzzles me is that cutting teams isn't going to solve the biggest problem in Australian rugby, that the game is shrinking in it's heartlands. Mismanagement in NSW and QLD, whomever's fault it may be, has resulted in a smaller player pool having to contend with the pro-player drain to Europe and more worryingly, the number of players scouted over to RL at young ages. Then there is the growth of AFL with the founding of more new junior clubs and also soccer & RL getting themselves into rugby schools, you wonder who is responsible for dropping the ball in such a way? And that's gonna "trickle up" to the pro-level and the wider community of fans who watch it.

It's taken a good 15 years, but we can all see the negative impact coming through now. Question is, if they cut the teams or not, are they going to make the changes required to stop the game shrinking? Even more so, can they actually do it, with the structure of governance they currently have?

The game is shrinking in the heartlands because the heartlands are the sort of places that don't want to grow or change. It's an old money game run by people with an old money mindset. There'd be a fair contingent who want the rugby pathway to always be top private school -> Randwick -> Waratahs -> Wallabies.

The AFL plonked a team in Western Sydney and has them playing out of Olympic Park. I can't imagine the ARU doing that even if they did have the resources. The AFL does camps and clinics and promos etc. to get people interested in the code whether they're already playing soccer or a rugby code, are kids looking to play a sport for the first time, are new migrants - whoever. The GC/GWS expansion has plenty of critics but people can at least see the benefits and long term strategy. Do the ARU have a strategy at all? I mean they seem to think keeping a loss-making team in Canberra is preferential to having a presence in WA or Victoria.

I thought the expansion into WA and then Victoria was a progressive move forward away from Qld/NSW private schools being the sole base of Australian rugby. 10 WA players in the Force team last weekend. DHP, Godwin in the Wallabies squad. Others like Pocock, Cummins etc. have been given a start at SR level in WA. Perth has the 3rd biggest club rugby comp in the country, and for whatever it's worth we won the NRC. The game is growing and the ARU's response is to try and kill off the pathway to Super Rugby to funnel money back into the Shute Shield. So, so short sighted.

 

[robbieando]

I'm not sure how relevant stadium promises are currently given neither team go close to filling the stadiums they play in. AAMI Park holds 30k, Nib Stadium 20k. AAMI Park (or a lack thereof) might have been a cross against Melbourne's bid in 2004 but it's hardly a big tick for them now. 20,000 empty seats is no more valuable than 10,000. We have the newest and shiniest stadium in the country opening next year anyway if rugby explodes. It's not going to sway the ARU/SANZAAR but Nib Stadium needs its 2nd tenant a lot more than AAMI Park needs its 4th. Our crowds were also a lot healthier when we weren't in the process of being booted out of the comp. Melbourne's crowds after the first game haven't been anything special.

The stadium point was a major question in 2004 which was why I raised them (you did ask what has changed between then and now between the two bids) but your right they are pointless now because the dip in crowds in Super Rugby. We both know crowds across the board have fallen backwards this year, but even then they weren't coming from a high point.

Phil Waugh (who is a NSW puppet) isolated the Force on Bill & Boz the other night as 'well you have the 4 Eastern states sides and Japan over here, then the teams in NZ, and then South Africa and the Jaguars (sic)' as though we are based in Alaska or something. Tokyo is GMT+9, smack bang between WST and EST. I'd say having a WST team in Australia is still a bonus given rugby goes for two hours and there is a two hour difference from WST to EST then EST to NZST. The later the start times of Australian matches the better for the South African audience, the earlier the better for NZ. The Sunwolves aren't going to be playing at home every week.

I don't think the extra timeslot has been the bonus TV Rights wise as the ARU expected at the time, the ratings don't show it and only reason the Super Rugby rights have increased has been via the very expansion which has put the Force and the Rebels in the gun now.

The Firepower debacle hurt us, but the Rebels aren't exactly a financial success story. Bled the ARU, sold to private ownership and still bleeding the ARU - how does that work?

Entitled to the same funding from the ARU as the other clubs as part of the sale. The Force had to return their licence to the ARU last year keep in mind, so that is twice now. But I'm not here claiming the Rebels are in great financial shape, I doubt any Super Rugby team in Australia is.

I'm still yet to see any cogent argument for keeping the Rebels over the Force.

Cheapest of the two team to cut, plain and simple. As harsh as that sounds, you can raise most points and both clubs would be quite close to each other but the ARU will cover their own arse and take the cheap way out.

Moving away from Rebels vs the Force because I don't think it should be down to these two clubs as both provide a national footprint and larger growth to move into with the right grassroots development which both have shown. I want to know why the Brumbies aren't in the gun as well?

 

[Scotland]

The stadium point was a major question in 2004 which was why I raised them (you did ask what has changed between then and now between the two bids) but your right they are pointless now because the dip in crowds in Super Rugby. We both know crowds across the board have fallen backwards this year, but even then they weren't coming from a high point.

Fair enough. Nib vs AAMI should play no part in who goes and who stays.

I don't think the extra timeslot has been the bonus TV Rights wise as the ARU expected at the time, the ratings don't show it and only reason the Super Rugby rights have increased has been via the very expansion which has put the Force and the Rebels in the gun now.

I don't know the details of the TV rights agreement(s) but I can't see the ARU having a win from a competition with fewer teams. The AFL TV rights have gone up substantially and having a game in each major state every weekend was part of the focus of expansion. I'd like to think the ARU/SANZAAR put at least some sort of thought into this ahead of negotiations for future TV rights deals.

Entitled to the same funding from the ARU as the other clubs as part of the sale. The Force had to return their licence to the ARU last year keep in mind, so that is twice now. But I'm not here claiming the Rebels are in great financial shape, I doubt any Super Rugby team in Australia is.

No team is in great financial shape, no team is playing particularly good rugby, no team is drawing big crowds. One team is being punted on these alleged grounds.

Cheapest of the two team to cut, plain and simple. As harsh as that sounds, you can raise most points and both clubs would be quite close to each other but the ARU will cover their own arse and take the cheap way out.

Moving away from Rebels vs the Force because I don't think it should be down to these two clubs as both provide a national footprint and larger growth to move into with the right grassroots development which both have shown. I want to know why the Brumbies aren't in the gun as well?

Agree 100%.

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

Ditto, I think the name is silly and I hate the colours, especially as it contains blue and yellow, ie Eagles colours. The Force are the only provincial team in Super Rugby which doesn't use it's provincial colours, always irritated me. It is especially embarrassing when you find out they were taken from a generic stockpile of franchise name/colour combinations. As a point of interest, they were taken from the Cleveland Force and the Georgia Force. One could even argue that the shape of the new logo emulates their logos also; though I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it's in the shape of a rugby ball

The Force colours don't bother me at all. Their original away Jersey had the State colours of Black and Gold but it was eventually dropped, a merchandise sales decision?
I hope its not that Wellington that turned the Force away from the State colours as the sole colour sceme. Numerous teams have similar colours such as Melbourne and the Stormers Navy and Red or the Cats, Crusaders and Sunwolves Black and Red.

If the Force somehow survive, I'd like to see a full relaunch, rebranding. Western Australia is a cumbersome 6 syllable word name that has generally been avoided by WA sides. WA is phonetically more friendly as is the vauge Western. I don't mind the name WA/Western Tiger Snakes. fearsome animal, one of the bigger tiger snake subspecies, banded in the WA's Colours like the horizontal hoops of the traditional WA Rugby jersey.

 

[robbieando]

Fair enough. Nib vs AAMI should play no part in who goes and who stays.

Agreed. It did in 2004 when crowds were high but not now and even if it was a factor both Stadiums suit both teams and both markets so not a for or against for either team.

I don't know the details of the TV rights agreement(s) but I can't see the ARU having a win from a competition with fewer teams. The AFL TV rights have gone up substantially and having a game in each major state every weekend was part of the focus of expansion. I'd like to think the ARU/SANZAAR put at least some sort of thought into this ahead of negotiations for future TV rights deals.

Keep in mind SANZAAR do the overall negotiations before splitting the money between the Unions. Only reason the Super Rugby Rights have gone up has been overtime the Rights have expired they have undergone another round of expansion. New Zealand is locked in, so Australia and South Africa have got the extra teams before moving into Argentina and then Japan. The next round in 2020 will be interesting with 2 less teams in SA and 1 less team in Australia. Each Union has the veto but doesn't use it, the increase in TV Rights is why not what is best for Rugby.

No team is in great financial shape, no team is playing particularly good rugby, no team is drawing big crowds. One team is being punted on these alleged grounds.

Agree 100%, its shameful considering the two teams in the gun only get one player each for Wallaby top up totalling $400,000 out of $5,000,000 competition wide. Thats where the problem is

 

[Scotland]

Brumbies seem to get a free pass because they've been around for 20 years instead of 10. And won a couple of titles early on.

They currently have a dozen Wallabies, and none of them are from Canberra. The Fainga'as are from Queanbeyan.

It's an established franchise and established setup which is successful. Even though they don't attract big crowds (and never will) and don't really produce many players.

 

[chibimatty]

That stadium débâcle is such a is such a disappointing issue for WA. I remember seeing the proposed designs for:

-Wellington Street, where Perth Arena now stands, 2 versions.
-Leederville Oval's redevelopment, both rectangular proposals
-the WACA with a north-south pitch in the north-west corner of the cricket oval below the Inverarity Stand with movable seats for a rectangular configuration.
-Esplanade where the convention centre now stands.
-Burswood Dome with the roof removed.

All of them looked good, none came to fruition. Especially annoying considering that the new stadium was touted back in 1994 when the Perth Kangaroos were in the Singapore League.

The Force colours don't bother me at all. Their original away Jersey had the State colours of Black and Gold but it was eventually dropped, a merchandise sales decision?

Ironically enough, demand from the fans brought this colour-scheme back. Apparently the "Captain's Run" training tee-shirts in State colours have been a hit, leading to calls for the away kit to make a comeback.

I hope its not that Wellington that turned the Force away from the State colours as the sole colour scheme.

Ha! I would hope not, seeing as seven other teams wear blue! Was worried Argentina would come in wearing blue also!

If the Force somehow survive, I'd like to see a full relaunch, rebranding. Western Australia is a cumbersome 6 syllable word name that has generally been avoided by WA sides. WA is phonetically more friendly as is the vague Western.

I like the idea of having "WA" somewhere prominent in the logo, especially if State colours are going to be used in a rebrand. Despite being a long name, "Western Australia" leaves one under no illusion as to where the team comes form geographically, which is one of the problem the league currently has with its lack of geographic identifiers. May very well be too cumbersome for some, though "New South Wales Waratahs" gets a run, so who knows?

 

[Maester]

Super Rugby is going to 15 teams because SANZAAR want it that way. The ARU are along for the ride because (a) they have no balls, and (b) they see it as easier to give money to 4 teams instead of 5. It would be very difficult to 'switch' the Force/Rebels with the Sunwolves because that's not an ARU call, it's a SANZAAR one. They want a presence in Argentina and Japan more than they want the Kings/Cheetahs/Force/Rebels.

I don't think any of the Australian Super Rugby franchises are financially stable. The ARU haven't made a decision, or at least haven't publicly justified one. The major reason the Force are in the gun is that the ARU hold the license whereas they do not for the Rebels. My read is that the ARU have decided the Force will go because it's the path of least resistance and are now building a justification for that decision. Exactly how the Force agreement to 2020 works with the ARU holding the Force license I don't know.

Australia is losing a team because the ARU wanted it. SANZAAR is not really some separate thing to the ARU - decisions like Super Rugby structure have to be unanimous, so each union essentially has a power of veto. Thus any SANZAAR call is also an ARU call.

Malcolm McCusker is now representing Rugby WA in their legal battle to keep the Force in the competition. It's not going to be so simple for the ARU to get rid of them. The Force gave up their IP to the ARU in an alliance agreement with the ARU that Rugby WA believe guarantees their participation until 2020. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but I'm still hopeful that if Own the Force raises considerably more than $5 million and that the Rebels private owners dig their heels in that the ARU's best play will be to change their decision.