- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The Rebels will be financially viable from 2018, past financial performance was not taken into consideration.
- ARU
Future of Super Rugby
- Thread starter Seedsfan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The Rebels will be financially viable from 2018, past financial performance was not taken into consideration.
- ARU
- Thread starter
- #452
Your point the Force almost had to close a little over a year back because of there financial problems. Neither the Force or Rebels have ever received the same amount of support of the Reds it Tahs
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The Rebels gobbled up much more than the Force. Rugby is a mess and the Reds and Tahs were never on the block. Even the Force/Rebels thing was a charade. The ARU are a corrupt joke.
- Thread starter
- #454
But the Force and Rebels never made the finals as they were in the bottom two for funding. That was never sustainable
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Probably makes sense to keep the team that outperformed the Rebels, Reds and Waratahs in 2017 then.
- Thread starter
- #456
Look shrinking rugby in Australia isn't an idea I support regardless of the team on the block
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Not an idea I support either, but the ARU maintain dropping to 4 teams was a SANZAAR requirement and they had to go along with it.
If the decision to go from 5 to 4 had any degree of transparency or foresight about it, then either the Rebels would've been axed or some kind of Rebels/Brumbies merger/relocation would've been floated.
The only reason the Force were axed is because it was the path of least (legal) resistance. Everyone knows that.
- Thread starter
- #458
The Brumbies was a short sighted move. I agree I thought merging the Rebels with the Brumbies and having the Melbourne Brumbies would of been the best way forward
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The order of players produced to Super Rugby according to the ARU's own numbers is NSW, Qld, WA, ACT, Vic. There's not a massive gulf difference between WA, ACT and Vic - 9%, 8%, 6% compared with ~30% from the big two and other smaller contributors.
The problem is geography. IMO Perth is much more likely to dry up as a talent pool isolated 3,000km away from the nearest Super Rugby presence than the Brumbies zone which encompasses NSW anyway. The Brumbies have historically been full of Shute Shield players anyway. We're seeing now that the Force and Rebels are basically merging in terms of resources with our good players and coach heading to Melbourne, but I see that as a bit of a one time thing and we'll end up where we were 10 years ago where DHPs etc. didn't come along. It's such a poor outcome for the game.
The problem is geography. IMO Perth is much more likely to dry up as a talent pool isolated 3,000km away from the nearest Super Rugby presence than the Brumbies zone which encompasses NSW anyway. The Brumbies have historically been full of Shute Shield players anyway. We're seeing now that the Force and Rebels are basically merging in terms of resources with our good players and coach heading to Melbourne, but I see that as a bit of a one time thing and we'll end up where we were 10 years ago where DHPs etc. didn't come along. It's such a poor outcome for the game.
- Thread starter
- #460
That's why the ACT and Vic should have merged. The amount of Vics coming through is going to see that percentage grow soon as the pathway becomes more established. Melbourne and Perth are two markets that they had to keep a team in
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Lost among the SSM vote and every other politician being a dual citizen...
https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/r...ustralias-deals-before-western-force-cull-ng-b88661325z
Not that exciting.
Been saying this all along. If the Alliance Agreement is dissolved/invalid, then the IP should return to RugbyWA. Double dipping by the ARU to get to not abide by the agreement and still maintain the IP.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/r...ustralias-deals-before-western-force-cull-ng-b88661325z
Not that exciting.
Been saying this all along. If the Alliance Agreement is dissolved/invalid, then the IP should return to RugbyWA. Double dipping by the ARU to get to not abide by the agreement and still maintain the IP.
- Jun 27, 2006
- 12,863
- 4,026
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Lakers,Internazionale, Man U
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/rugbywa-goes-into-voluntary-administration-20171116-gzn9a3.html
hope you are proud of yourselves the ARU. killing your own sport for rupert and friends.
* you.
hope you are proud of yourselves the ARU. killing your own sport for rupert and friends.
* you.
- Moderator
- #463
RugbyWA opted to take legal action on such limited grounds, plus they said they had people like Twiggy to fund their legal costs if the worst happened. Funny that
- Jun 27, 2006
- 12,863
- 4,026
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Lakers,Internazionale, Man U
limited grounds based on what? the lies and bullshit the ARU spilled about the decision to axe the team? yeh right. the earth is also flat and harvey weinstein is a feminist.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
That is a really strange attitude to take even if it is factual.
That attitude makes a total joke of the aim of improving rugby in WA and establishing the team in the first place
or wasn't that the ARU's intention ? Why did the state of WA spend $100s millions in attracting a rugby union team.
Why should the state of WA try attracting a rugby league team or any other new sport
if that is the way a main body shows it's contempt for WA ?.
- Thread starter
- #467
If they had a strong case they would have won the case simple. While I by no means support the decision of the ARU (you can look back at my posts in this thread if you want) but legal action for the sake of legal action wasn't smart
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The ARU have 3 options:
(a) try and get costs hoping Twiggy and co foot the bill
(b) try and get costs at the expense of sending RugbyWA to the wall
(c) accept that (a) won't be happening and don't push (b)
It's just a pissing contest.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,019
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I really don't think they initiated legal action for the sake of it.
The Alliance Agreement was supposed to protect the interests of the Force, not introduce a mechanism for the ARU to easily cancel their SR license.
If the law is on the side of the ARU then it's on the side of the ARU, but not challenging it would've been bizarre.
- Moderator
- #470
The Super Rugby Broadcast agreement not changing by cutting teams from 18 to 15. That was the only ground RugbyWA argued in Arbitration and in Federal Court. Everything else you raise is a moot point as they didn't argue it which even the Judge commented on as it limited his decision to find in favour of the ARU. Maybe you would have a team if you didn't use the QC of Malcolm Roberts
- Moderator
- #471
Once they won they were always getting costs, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the ARU chases that money as they have to pay their legal costs. What surprises me is that RugbyWA hasn't followed up on the commitments made by locals such as Twiggy who said they would cover the costs (because no State Union is in a position to pay for such a legal challenge without outside help or insurance) so yes this is a pissing contest directed at making each look as bad as they other.
Monocle
And the rebuild begins.
- Sep 18, 2003
- 11,796
- 35,942
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Claremont NE Patriots Eagles AFLW
Why should Twiggy ( and the folk in WA ) dig deeper to help pay RugbyWA's legal costs, only to feather the coffers of an organisation that clearly cares little about Rugby in WA.
Better to close shop, start again and spend the money in WA for WA.
Whilst you post well written posts, there is an insidious non to subtle under current in a lot of your posts, that whispers, a certain satisfaction and joy in the Force's demise.
Last edited:
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
Probably because they would still be bankrupt.
- Moderator
- #474
Paying legal cost in no way feathers the coffers of the ARU, just the lawyers involved. RugbyWA made commitments to the WA Supreme Court that they could cover legals costs if they lost so their action could proceed.
Forgetting that your largest creditor going forward is still the ARU. Putting that aside, I have no issue with RugbyWA looking inside to support itself and grow, with the IPR supporting it from 2019. Once Super Rugby implodes in 2020 Twiggy will have a competition setup ready to crush the Eastern States in response and mould Rugby in Australia into a better functioning less faction riddled sport.
You have that wrong. I would rather have stayed at 5 teams and if we had to cut a team it should of been the Brumbies, why should WA lose a team (and thus the footprint) and its madness to drop out of Melbourne. The ACT could of merged with either of NSW or the Rebels and gone from there and improved Rugby in this country
- Thread starter
- #475
Because if you promise to fund legal action to get something to court and bail when the bill comes you look like a campaigner
