Aussie Pro Rugby
-
I was just reading that. Some interesting stats in the article too.
The Blues are more popular in Aust than the Reds.
-
Forget the Kiwis, Australian rugby's future is local A national club competition culminating in a state-based representative season should replace a "broken" Super Rugby model in Australia, a leading sports consultancy group says.@KiwiMurph Interesting concept and I do think that there may be something more appealing to fans in the UK / European "club" model than in the US "franchise" model, which was adopted way back in 1996.
That said, I do not think there is enough interest in club rugby in Australia to get this off the ground.
-
An excellent dissection, as always
-
A question I've been thinking about since I read this interesting article on the future of Aussie rugby: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/maybe-just-cant-professional-rugby/
The article posits a future where professional rugby ceases to exist in Australia, and we broadly head back to the 70s and 80s. I'd say it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
If that happened, what would be the impact on NZ rugby? Would NZ have the scale to sustain a domestic pro comp? Or would you keep Super Rugby going with just the Saffers and Argies?
-
A question I've been thinking about since I read this interesting article on the future of Aussie rugby: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/maybe-just-cant-professional-rugby/
The article posits a future where professional rugby ceases to exist in Australia, and we broadly head back to the 70s and 80s. I'd say it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
If that happened, what would be the impact on NZ rugby? Would NZ have the scale to sustain a domestic pro comp? Or would you keep Super Rugby going with just the Saffers and Argies?
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
A question I've been thinking about since I read this interesting article on the future of Aussie rugby: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/maybe-just-cant-professional-rugby/
The article posits a future where professional rugby ceases to exist in Australia, and we broadly head back to the 70s and 80s. I'd say it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
If that happened, what would be the impact on NZ rugby? Would NZ have the scale to sustain a domestic pro comp? Or would you keep Super Rugby going with just the Saffers and Argies?
Yes and probably yes. That said, surely the answer is to accept that Australia can't manage 4-5 competitive super teams, so go with 2-3, not 0 and fold. Yes, TV rights aren't what they were, but is the market so stuffed that they can't even go back to just NSW and Queensland?
-
A question I've been thinking about since I read this interesting article on the future of Aussie rugby: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/maybe-just-cant-professional-rugby/
The article posits a future where professional rugby ceases to exist in Australia, and we broadly head back to the 70s and 80s. I'd say it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
If that happened, what would be the impact on NZ rugby? Would NZ have the scale to sustain a domestic pro comp? Or would you keep Super Rugby going with just the Saffers and Argies?
@barbarian it's completely unrealistic that a wealthy country like Australia, with its athletic people, weather, and outdoor lifestyle, can't have a professional rugby comp.
The entire thing is held back by narrow minded self interest. And this article reeks of it. If we can't have everything, then fuck it, we'll go back to club land.
There's also the very Australian attitude of "if we can't be the best, then what is the point?" which serves the country very well at times.
-
Not a good buy IMO, with the way things are going clubs need to concentrate on home gorown talent with a future, not bust up already well into decline foreign 'stars'
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/racing-92-confirm-signing-of-veteran-wallabies-star-kurtley-beale/
-
A question I've been thinking about since I read this interesting article on the future of Aussie rugby: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/maybe-just-cant-professional-rugby/
The article posits a future where professional rugby ceases to exist in Australia, and we broadly head back to the 70s and 80s. I'd say it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
If that happened, what would be the impact on NZ rugby? Would NZ have the scale to sustain a domestic pro comp? Or would you keep Super Rugby going with just the Saffers and Argies?
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
A question I've been thinking about since I read this interesting article on the future of Aussie rugby: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/maybe-just-cant-professional-rugby/
The article posits a future where professional rugby ceases to exist in Australia, and we broadly head back to the 70s and 80s. I'd say it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
This bit on it's own shows the author is ignorant of the realities playing out in professional competitions overseas:
Once Super Rugby is done, and with no viable alternative, expect 95% of our Super Rugby and Wallaby players to go overseas. And a few more from the rung below. We will not be able to stop them.Clubs are under financial pressure as well as being required to maintain an increasing ratio of national qualified/ developed players. The market simply doesn't exist for all of these professionals to move elsewhere.
The problem stems back to the shortsightedness of the ARU in making SANZAR expand Super Rugby. I can see the logic at the time; a greater base of professional players providing a pathway and increased depth to the Wallabies, additional product bringing in more revenue but the effect was to weaken the existing teams. Poor results lead to disinterested fans making leading to reduced broadcast rights bids.
If that happened, what would be the impact on NZ rugby? Would NZ have the scale to sustain a domestic pro comp? Or would you keep Super Rugby going with just the Saffers and Argies?
New Zealand recognised decades ago that it was to its benefit if rugby was also viable in Australia. This IMO is doubly so in the professional era, hence why NZR are reportedly looking to alternative sources in the long term. It would be difficult to maintain five SR teams buy itself when you look at the population, GDP and distance. Even Victoria can only manage 10 local teams in the AFL and there's always talk that one or two of them should relocate.
-
Not a good buy IMO, with the way things are going clubs need to concentrate on home gorown talent with a future, not bust up already well into decline foreign 'stars'
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/racing-92-confirm-signing-of-veteran-wallabies-star-kurtley-beale/
@Machpants said in Aussie Rugby:
Not a good buy IMO, with the way things are going clubs need to concentrate on home gorown talent with a future, not bust up already well into decline foreign 'stars'
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/racing-92-confirm-signing-of-veteran-wallabies-star-kurtley-beale/
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Can't say Racing 92 fans would be happy.
-
@Machpants said in Aussie Rugby:
Not a good buy IMO, with the way things are going clubs need to concentrate on home gorown talent with a future, not bust up already well into decline foreign 'stars'
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/racing-92-confirm-signing-of-veteran-wallabies-star-kurtley-beale/
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Can't say Racing 92 fans would be happy.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Beale was a notable omission from the wider squad wasn't he?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Beale was a notable omission from the wider squad wasn't he?
@Bovidae said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Beale was a notable omission from the wider squad wasn't he?
Yes he was and I recall reading he admitted his own form wasn't where he'd like it to be.
-
@Bovidae said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Beale was a notable omission from the wider squad wasn't he?
Yes he was and I recall reading he admitted his own form wasn't where he'd like it to be.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@Bovidae said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
He hasn't been providing much in the way of on field leadership for a young Tahs team this year and I doubt Rennie would want him in the Wallaby squad.
Beale was a notable omission from the wider squad wasn't he?
Yes he was and I recall reading he admitted his own form wasn't where he'd like it to be.
and where is that? He's a 30+ year old back that has never relied on his brain. And his form has been at best patchy except for a couple of purple patches, the most notable being 9 years ago.
the ARU should be stoked to have his salary off the books.
-
@barbarian it's completely unrealistic that a wealthy country like Australia, with its athletic people, weather, and outdoor lifestyle, can't have a professional rugby comp.
The entire thing is held back by narrow minded self interest. And this article reeks of it. If we can't have everything, then fuck it, we'll go back to club land.
There's also the very Australian attitude of "if we can't be the best, then what is the point?" which serves the country very well at times.
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby:
@barbarian it's completely unrealistic that a wealthy country like Australia, with its athletic people, weather, and outdoor lifestyle, can't have a professional rugby comp.
The entire thing is held back by narrow minded self interest. And this article reeks of it. If we can't have everything, then fuck it, we'll go back to club land.
That's the broader issue - the clubs have political power and want money. Expansion was a fuck up, as they found there were too many mouths to feed in terms of players who didn't do it for the love of the game (egad!) or the administrators' junket desires. In the last 5 years sections of Sydney Premier Rugby has done its best to undermine the NRC.
So I see the point of the article, which is sort of along the lines of my own thinking: if the clubs think they can do it, then fucking pull the pin on that grenade and throw it.
They're going to need to take a serious look at how they're structured tho - my aforementioned comments are pertinent about playing out of derelict cowsheds, not much in the way of sustainable capital in the face of running 7 teams per club, 6 of which are amateur and 1 of which is semipro at best.
Then you've got Suburban clubs who have more money and more willing backers than the "Big" boys, who might fancy a crack at promotion for a cash grab. A lot of the First Division clubs would challenge for a Top 6 spot in Premier Rugby at First Grade level.
After that, the issue is Subbies is no longer amateur, which IMHO has actually served the system very well in keeping park footy alive.
-
News Ltd continues its attack on RA and Castle:
Rugby Australia, Raelene Castle spent $1m on failed broadcast negotiations
Rugby Australia last year paid close to $1m to broadcast rights strategists, who ultimately rejected a $US25m-a-year TV deal and then failed to secure a bid for the beleaguered code.
Former chief executive Raelene Castle hired Shane Mattiske and Michael Tange, who pushed RA to walk away from a five-year deal with Fox Sports last November in the hope of starting a bidding war. It never materialised.
It was revealed last week that Optus was never seriously in the running for the broadcast rights.
Today rugby faces financial collapse as Optus and Fox Sports (owned by News Corp, publisher of The Australian) turn their back on the struggling code, leaving the game with few if any options for broadcasting beyond 2020.
The Australian on Monday revealed a document affirming RA’s dire financial situation, which has the code staring at liabilities well in excess of $20m and facing insolvency. The game has blown $500m over the last four years and currently has no assets, no firm competition start date and no broadcast deal.
-
News Ltd continues its attack on RA and Castle:
Rugby Australia, Raelene Castle spent $1m on failed broadcast negotiations
Rugby Australia last year paid close to $1m to broadcast rights strategists, who ultimately rejected a $US25m-a-year TV deal and then failed to secure a bid for the beleaguered code.
Former chief executive Raelene Castle hired Shane Mattiske and Michael Tange, who pushed RA to walk away from a five-year deal with Fox Sports last November in the hope of starting a bidding war. It never materialised.
It was revealed last week that Optus was never seriously in the running for the broadcast rights.
Today rugby faces financial collapse as Optus and Fox Sports (owned by News Corp, publisher of The Australian) turn their back on the struggling code, leaving the game with few if any options for broadcasting beyond 2020.
The Australian on Monday revealed a document affirming RA’s dire financial situation, which has the code staring at liabilities well in excess of $20m and facing insolvency. The game has blown $500m over the last four years and currently has no assets, no firm competition start date and no broadcast deal.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
The game has blown $500m over the last four years and currently has no assets, no firm competition start date and no broadcast deal.
Think I saw another figure quoting income was just over $500m for the same period, so yeah whatever Murdoch.
-
The captains are at it again
The 10 dissident Wallabies captains are threatening to revive their threat to propose a special general meeting of Rugby Australia members unless RA chairman Paul McLean and his directors honour promises made by former board member Peter Wiggs before he resigned from the board. The threat was contained in a letter distributed by Rugby Union Players Association chief executive Justin Harrison on behalf of the 10 captains on Tuesday to member unions and Super Rugby chief executives. A copy of his letter was leaked to The Australian. Wiggs was seemingly on his way to becoming RA chairman when he met with former Wallabies captains Nick Farr-Jones and Phil Kearns and Harrison on April 27. At that meeting, which the captains describe as “very positive”, Wiggs gave the players a number of undertakings that RA would: • Confirm a review process, consistent with the one outlined in the captains’ Australian Rugby Review Board charter. • Form three operating committees in the areas of 1) finance, business and governance; 2) current financial position, efficiencies, forecasts, relationships with member unions, options for appropriate corporate structures, etc; and 3) broadcasting, sponsors and relationships, creation and management of external relationships with parties to bring the required capital to the game, “Community to Wallaby”, rebuilding the links with our grassroots clubs, developing viable competition structures, revisiting performance at all levels, including high performance. Wiggs was, at the time, preparing for a “deep dive” into RA financial records. -
The captains are at it again
The 10 dissident Wallabies captains are threatening to revive their threat to propose a special general meeting of Rugby Australia members unless RA chairman Paul McLean and his directors honour promises made by former board member Peter Wiggs before he resigned from the board. The threat was contained in a letter distributed by Rugby Union Players Association chief executive Justin Harrison on behalf of the 10 captains on Tuesday to member unions and Super Rugby chief executives. A copy of his letter was leaked to The Australian. Wiggs was seemingly on his way to becoming RA chairman when he met with former Wallabies captains Nick Farr-Jones and Phil Kearns and Harrison on April 27. At that meeting, which the captains describe as “very positive”, Wiggs gave the players a number of undertakings that RA would: • Confirm a review process, consistent with the one outlined in the captains’ Australian Rugby Review Board charter. • Form three operating committees in the areas of 1) finance, business and governance; 2) current financial position, efficiencies, forecasts, relationships with member unions, options for appropriate corporate structures, etc; and 3) broadcasting, sponsors and relationships, creation and management of external relationships with parties to bring the required capital to the game, “Community to Wallaby”, rebuilding the links with our grassroots clubs, developing viable competition structures, revisiting performance at all levels, including high performance. Wiggs was, at the time, preparing for a “deep dive” into RA financial records.@KiwiMurph They want the current interim chairman to be held to promises that may have been made by a bloke who spat the dummy after five minutes in the job? Are these clowns retarded?
-
@KiwiMurph They want the current interim chairman to be held to promises that may have been made by a bloke who spat the dummy after five minutes in the job? Are these clowns retarded?
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@KiwiMurph They want the current interim chairman to be held to promises that may have been made by a bloke who spat the dummy after five minutes in the job? Are these clowns retarded?
yes.
-
@KiwiMurph They want the current interim chairman to be held to promises that may have been made by a bloke who spat the dummy after five minutes in the job? Are these clowns retarded?
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
Are these clowns retarded?
Rugby Union Players Association chief executive Justin Harrison
Yes.
