Aussie Pro Rugby
-
just kind of noticed, looks like the Red, Tahs and Rebels are all missing jersey sponsors, cant be a good sign for rugby in aus that two of their bigger team cant get a sponsor
-
just kind of noticed, looks like the Red, Tahs and Rebels are all missing jersey sponsors, cant be a good sign for rugby in aus that two of their bigger team cant get a sponsor
@kiwiwomble said in Aussie Rugby:
just kind of noticed, looks like the Red, Tahs and Rebels are all missing jersey sponsors, cant be a good sign for rugby in aus that two of their bigger team cant get a sponsor
??
Reds have Westpac on the front of their jersey - was announced late last week and they definitely had them on the front on Saturday.
Rebels had someone called Ebury on theirs.
The Tahs are still looking - maybe nobody wants to pay the price HSBC or Volvo did previously?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Aussie Rugby:
just kind of noticed, looks like the Red, Tahs and Rebels are all missing jersey sponsors, cant be a good sign for rugby in aus that two of their bigger team cant get a sponsor
??
Reds have Westpac on the front of their jersey - was announced late last week and they definitely had them on the front on Saturday.
Rebels had someone called Ebury on theirs.
The Tahs are still looking - maybe nobody wants to pay the price HSBC or Volvo did previously?
-
@nta ok, when i googled reds and rebels jerseys didnt have a major one of the front but if they came in only last week then the might not have made it to promotional pics etc
-
@kiwiwomble they're not doing much on those "Team" pages - no player stats or anything...
@nta and sponsors have obviously come in after the supporters jerseys were produced, not quite as bad but still not a good sign
-
@nta and sponsors have obviously come in after the supporters jerseys were produced, not quite as bad but still not a good sign
@kiwiwomble You'd think an entire fucking off-season lasting 6 months would allow them the time to sort their shit out.
-
@nta and sponsors have obviously come in after the supporters jerseys were produced, not quite as bad but still not a good sign
-
@nta said in Aussie Rugby:
@kiwiwomble https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/the-value-will-go-up-waratahs-hold-out-in-1m-sponsorship-gamble-20220220-p59y19.html
Time for tahs supporters to buy a replica, less adverts the better! That's why I'm a fan of RWC shirts
-
@nta said in Aussie Rugby:
@kiwiwomble https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/the-value-will-go-up-waratahs-hold-out-in-1m-sponsorship-gamble-20220220-p59y19.html
Time for tahs supporters to buy a replica, less adverts the better! That's why I'm a fan of RWC shirts
@machpants as a fan agreed, last jersey i bought was 2016 before the highlanders sign pulse energy
Queensland welcomed big five bank Westpac to the Reds family on the eve of their opening match against the Rebels, while the Western Force secured the coup of the pre-season signing French industrial company Altrad. -
Bye bye Giteau’s Law, hello to (I think the same as) Wales law
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugby-australia-end-giteau-law-reveal-new-overseas-player-policy/
@machpants so it was you must be playing in Australia, then you could be overseas but played for the Wallabies 60 times, now it's half that. Entirely predictable slide down the slope to "are you eligible and willing to play for Australia?"
-
@machpants so it was you must be playing in Australia, then you could be overseas but played for the Wallabies 60 times, now it's half that. Entirely predictable slide down the slope to "are you eligible and willing to play for Australia?"
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@machpants so it was you must be playing in Australia, then you could be overseas but played for the Wallabies 60 times, now it's half that. Entirely predictable slide down the slope to "are you eligible and willing to play for Australia?"
There a max of 3 though, so that’s one tightening of rules
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@machpants so it was you must be playing in Australia, then you could be overseas but played for the Wallabies 60 times, now it's half that. Entirely predictable slide down the slope to "are you eligible and willing to play for Australia?"
There a max of 3 though, so that’s one tightening of rules
@machpants not quite open slather, but means a lot of our 2- or 3-season Wallabies can head overseas and take the risk.
-
@machpants so it was you must be playing in Australia, then you could be overseas but played for the Wallabies 60 times, now it's half that. Entirely predictable slide down the slope to "are you eligible and willing to play for Australia?"
-
@antipodean open slather is inevitable. Probably for NZ too, a bit further down the line.
@derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean open slather is inevitable. Probably for NZ too, a bit further down the line.
Nah bro, NZR has one hundred billion south pacific pesos now, didn't you hear?
-
The news comes as Australia’s credibility as a host nation hangs in the balance. The Herald can reveal that with a little more than two months before the World Rugby Council votes to award hosting rights, RA has not yet secured a federal government funding commitment worth about $120 million.
The governing body has locked in a similar amount in state government funding but is yet to receive a commitment from Canberra. A federal government source indicated the Morrison Government was supportive of the bid but potentially not at the price RA was asking.
$120M to have a knock-on tourism effect of at least twice that. In limbo.
$4B disaster fund established after the fires of 2019 that is basically untouched.
$600M for a gas plant in NSW that could be a stranded asset before construction even begins? Shit yeah!
Priorities.
-
thats got to be good news
