Future of Super Rugby

Remove this Banner Ad

Seedsfan said:
And why should they?
Click to expand...

Expansion of Super Rugby into WA wasn't a spur of the moment thing. There was a bid process and the license was awarded to WA. Commitments were made on the back of it being a long term decision for the sport in this state, including funding the redevelopment of the stadium.

The same level of consultation, transparency coming in has not been present going out.
 
Scotland said:
Expansion of Super Rugby into WA wasn't a spur of the moment thing. There was a bid process and the license was awarded to WA. Commitments were made on the back of it being a long term decision for the sport in this state, including funding the redevelopment of the stadium.

The same level of consultation, transparency coming in has not been present going out.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that they should of been cut but I don't think the fact that there is no other winter tenant for the ground is a reason for the Force to be retained
 
Scotland said:
Expansion of Super Rugby into WA wasn't a spur of the moment thing. There was a bid process and the license was awarded to WA. Commitments were made on the back of it being a long term decision for the sport in this state, including funding the redevelopment of the stadium.

The same level of consultation, transparency coming in has not been present going out.
Click to expand...

You mean the bid that based itself upon the money from "Firepower" to fund the Force and the State Government committing only $25 million to a redevelopment of nib Stadium. Yep real transparency there
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Scotland said:
Australian rugby was stronger before expansion to Argentina and Japan, and the competition worked better. It's not really a move forward to pocket extra TV rights money at the expense of our own playing standards. We approved expansion, signed on to a 5 year TV rights deal for an 18 comp then two years in we kick out a team.
Click to expand...

Historically Australian Rugby was stronger before expansion to 14 teams as well, but I don't see you arguing going back to three teams. Like it or not, Australian Rugby only has one vote at the table and the others got expansion to meet their needs because NZRU and SARU stick together. Now that the expansion to 18 has been a flop for all parties they had to get the best deal that worked for everyone while keeping the TV networks and World Rugby happy.

Argentina are only a full member of SANZAAR because we allowed them to be. Japan are not a member.
Click to expand...

True, same as we are only a member because New Zealand and South Africa allowed us to be....

Is the ARU supposed to just go along with whatever because SANZAAR? Someone should have an eye on what is best for Australian rugby, and that someone should be the ARU.
Click to expand...

You say that as if the ARU has any power over the NZRU or SARU. They only see us as a rest stop between each other.

But no other side in Australia is being cut, or has been in danger of being cut. Not a whole lot of due process going on.
Click to expand...

But if the Rebels had been cut I very much doubt you would be saying effort and money has gone into the Rebels, AAMI Park and the VRU, its as if this can only apply to the Force/RugbyWA. End of the day regardless of who got cut, they would of had the same complaints.
 
robbieando said:
Historically Australian Rugby was stronger before expansion to 14 teams as well, but I don't see you arguing going back to three teams. Like it or not, Australian Rugby only has one vote at the table and the others got expansion to meet their needs because NZRU and SARU stick together. Now that the expansion to 18 has been a flop for all parties they had to get the best deal that worked for everyone while keeping the TV networks and World Rugby happy.
Click to expand...

Going backwards isn't the way forward. It's a waste to cut the Force now and it would be a waste to cut the Rebels now. If the ARU thought that a 3 team model was really the best thing then it should be Qld, NSW and WA based on strength and size of local rugby...

robbieando said:
True, same as we are only a member because New Zealand and South Africa allowed us to be....
Click to expand...

SANZAR operated for 15 years without Argentina, not really apples with apples.

robbieando said:
You say that as if the ARU has any power over the NZRU or SARU. They only see us as a rest stop between each other.
Click to expand...

And that's part of the problem. No one seems to have the best interests of Ausralian rugby at heart.

robbieando said:
But if the Rebels had been cut I very much doubt you would be saying effort and money has gone into the Rebels, AAMI Park and the VRU, its as if this can only apply to the Force/RugbyWA. End of the day regardless of who got cut, they would of had the same complaints.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the Rebels, I'm not a Rebels fan. If they were cut after 7 seasons it would be almost as much of a waste as cutting the Force after 12 and I'm sure had the Rebels been cut the equivalent people/groups in Victoria would be angry and exploring legal options.

Perth was selected over Melbourne for Super 14, and nothing I've seen from the Rebels to date has convinced me that decision was wrong. The Rebels have bled money from the ARU, been ordinary on field and haven't really captivated the people of Melbourne. All things you can say about the Force and the other 3 teams to varying degrees.

Axing the Force is a huge decision for rugby, and it seems to have been made by a bunch of ARU cronies behind closed doors without consultation. The ARU don't believe 4 teams is the way forward, they've gone along with it and tried to take the path of least resistance.
 
RedV3x said:
I think we all think this.
It's all a question of do you focus on Australian rugby or the Wallabies
because atm you cannot have both (functioning well).
Click to expand...

The ARU are focusing on the wants of SANZAAR WRT Super Rugby and nothing more. There's no clear strategy at all.

Assuming that Super Rugby goes ahead in 2018 with 15 teams and 4 from Australia as planned, does anyone expect the Wallabies to be stronger this time next year? Or when the TV rights deal is up at the end of 2020? Does anyone expect the remaining 4 Super Rugby sides to be noticeably stronger and attract bigger crowds etc?

Axing the Force will just mean that current Force players will end up at the other 4 teams. Some won't get picked up, some will go overseas, but the rest will be Reds, Rebels, Waratahs and Brumbies. Remember that the Force squad isn't filled with star Wallabies, it's mostly cast-offs and locals. Our share of Wallaby ARU contracts is pretty small. But that's it, really. The support from people that attend Force games, companies that sponsor the club isn't going to magically shared between the other 4 teams - that support goes away. I don't know if the TV rights share to the ARU was renegotiated down at all as part of the reduction from 18 to 15 sides but that share will be between 4 only which is the only positive from an ARU perspective. WA rugby isn't going to just keep producing Haylett-Pettys and Hardwicks without a Super Rugby presence. WA rugby will weaken and the talent pool coming out of WA will become shallower, as it was before the introduction of the Force.

If you go back to the final season of Super 12 in 2005 I'm battling to think of any WA players who were playing. Brett Sheehan maybe? Fast forward 12 years and half the Force squad is from WA. The ARU seem to have put no thought whatsoever into what happens in WA after the Force are gone. Sure most of them are never going to be George Gregan but it's still a talent pool that didn't exist 10 years ago. It would not surprise me at all (assuming Super Rugby survives as a concept) if the ARU bail on the Rebels at the first available opportunity and return to the original 3 teams.
 
Scotland said:
Assuming that Super Rugby goes ahead in 2018 with 15 teams and 4 from Australia as planned, does anyone expect the Wallabies to be stronger this time next year? Or when the TV rights deal is up at the end of 2020? Does anyone expect the remaining 4 Super Rugby sides to be noticeably stronger and attract bigger crowds etc?.
Click to expand...

Nothing much will improve the Wallabies in the short term but the status quo would only weaken both rugby and the Wallabies.
For the long term it's a choice between rugby or the Wallabies until the situation improves to afford both.
 
RedV3x said:
Nothing much will improve the Wallabies in the short term but the status quo would only weaken both rugby and the Wallabies.
For the long term it's a choice between rugby or the Wallabies until the situation improves to afford both.
Click to expand...

How will the Wallabies improve without a player pool?
 
RedV3x said:
Nothing much will improve the Wallabies in the short term but the status quo would only weaken both rugby and the Wallabies.
For the long term it's a choice between rugby or the Wallabies until the situation improves to afford both.
Click to expand...

If Super Rugby is weak in Australia then the Wallabies will be weak. If you assume that cutting the Force translates to cutting the bottom 20% of players across the 5 sides then that still leaves the 80% that the Wallabies squad is picked from.

In the 17 tests against NZ over the 5 year period 2006-2010 we won 3 and lost 14. In the 17 tests since we've won 2, drawn 2 and lost 13. The reality is that outside a golden run from 1998-2002 we have a pretty ordinary record against NZ over the course of history, hence the Bledisloe Cup ledger sits at 45-12. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the Force we won 1 of 6, so it's not like we a dominant world power and expansion of Super Rugby killed that. Coincidentally, NZ have had a very good team over the last decade even by their standards. We had Gregan, Larkham, Eales etc. in the 90s. Their equivalent came in the 2000s.

The biggest problem with Super Rugby from an ARU perspective is the players that aren't in it. Matt Giteau was in France for 5 years until the ARU changed the rules to get him in the Wallabies squad. Digby Ioane, Berrick Barnes, O'Connor, Rob Horne, Cummins, Morahan, Toomua, Charles, Skelton, Beale... the list of players who have played or are currently playing overseas goes on and on.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It is the culture of Australian rugby you see the NZ boys give there best years to their country then cash out our blokes leave young and when they come back they are never as good.

We need a cultural change and I think in the current circumstances that could happen. Forrest can force change with his money. It will best for the game if he forces the ARUs hands and get the Force back in the comp. He could help drive the financial injection the game needs to turn it around.

First thing is we need more money at grass roots level. I was talking to someone at the VRU grand finals about it and the problem is the ARU only funds school rugby in Victoria and all the club comp is supported by the VRU. The VRU have no money and charge $350 for junior registration most Aussie rules clubs charge between 150-200. Now if you were a parent and had three kids wanting them to play you would prefer them playing footy.

At some point money talks and I saw something about Forrest saying he wants to support Australian rugby as a whole but the Force have to be a part of that.

I also think schoolboys rugby in Vic at least should be moved to mid week. I can remember all them years back when I played sometimes you would have to play short if the schoolboys couldn't make it in time and this hurts club rugby. For Australian rugby to be strong it has to grow the club comp and not just focus on those who can afford a private education
 
Best way forward would be for the Africans to do what they always wanted and join the Europeans.
Then you have the 5 Aussies, 5 kiwis, Japan, Argies and a Pacific team.

ARU are doing an FFA and shooting themselves in the foot.

Wont ever happen though.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Andrew Forrest is obsessed with self-promotion. Not surprised he's come in after the end. Promising to give money to a dead team makes him look oh so wonderful, sticking up for WA blah blah etc, even if the team stays dead.
 
Bomberboyokay said:
Andrew Forrest is obsessed with self-promotion. Not surprised he's come in after the end. Promising to give money to a dead team makes him look oh so wonderful, sticking up for WA blah blah etc, even if the team stays dead.
Click to expand...

He's been funding the Force academy for a few years now.
 
Bomberboyokay said:
Andrew Forrest is obsessed with self-promotion. Not surprised he's come in after the end. Promising to give money to a dead team makes him look oh so wonderful, sticking up for WA blah blah etc, even if the team stays dead.
Click to expand...
The guy has been massive for years for grassroots rugby in W. A. For years. Also offered the ARU 50 million dollars.
 
Scotland said:
Which court are we off to next?
Click to expand...

If RugbyWA wish to appeal further its off to the NSW Court of Appeal to seek leave. ARU as the owners of the club (hold the SR licence, Western Force name and IP, player contracts and employ the staff) will likely close the Force before then however which would render it moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Numero 31
Melbourne Rebels (Super Rugby Pacific)
Replies
3
Views
740
joey_jo_jo
J
robbieando
Test Rugby 2023 Rugby Union World Cup - France - 8th September to 28th October
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
6K
IKnowtheDog
IKnowtheDog
Santana
Australia confirmed as hosts of Rugby World Cup 2027
Replies
1
Views
1K
Allezjuel
Allezjuel

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top