Melbourne rugby franchise not so super
By Melissa Woods, 30 Dec 2009 Melissa Woods is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- ARU, Melbourne, Rugby Union, VicSuper15
The new Melbourne Super 15 franchise is in disarray with investors pulling out after failing to agree to terms with the Australian Rugby Union over funding.
Members of the VicSuper15 group, who were involved in the winning bid for the new licence in the expanded 2011 competition, have “ceased negotiations” with the ARU, according to spokesman Ray Evans.
He said the group had European Cup-winning Australian coach Michael Cheika, who is currently with Irish side Leinster, lined up to coach Melbourne, and “possibly (Wallaby skipper) Rocky Elsom” but was unsure if that would now eventuate.
Mining magnate Kevin Maloney, one of the main backers of the franchise, is among investors to walk away saying the operation isn’t viable.
The parties reached an impasse over funding, with the ARU unwilling to match an annual grant of $4.2m to the existing Australian Super sides.
They initially offered $2.1m which was upped to $3m but members of VicSuper15 say it’s insufficient.
The Melbourne side was set to be the first privately-funded franchise in a departure from traditional state-owned Super rugby teams, however if the ARU runs the team it will put it in a position of conflict of interest with the other state-run sides.
“They won’t provide parity so we’ve basically said it’s not commercial,” Evans said.
“They’re going to set it up now and hope that somebody’s going to pay for it and make money out of it, I don’t know how they’re going to make it work.
“That’s the major sticking point, that they weren’t prepared to provide the same amount of TV rights as the other states.”
Another investor, media buyer Harold Mitchell, is also said to be disillusioned with the ARU offering but is attempting to continue negotiations.
While the ARU will give the franchise a dispensation on the number of foreign players it can recruit, allowing up to 10, it’s understood investors are concerned how they will pay for such players.
They are also wary of other costs such as marketing a new rugby franchise in the AFL heartland.
Evans said the ARU should look at the AFL, who are providing hefty financial and player concessions for the start-up of new franchises Gold Coast and Western Sydney.
“The ARU are trying to get us to start it up without any start-up costs and at a reduced income stream,” Evans said.
Another VicSuper15 spokesman Travis Atkins said investors could be lured back if the ARU came to the table.
“Starting up a new team obviously makes it important that there’s enough funding to do it in terms of support from the governing body as well as private equity, it’s a commercial venture not philanthropy,” he said.
“We want to move forward but under reasonable and rational terms.”
Joining the competition in 2011, the window of opportunity to recruit a top-level coach and first-class players is quickly closing.
“We had a coach lined up, we had Michael Cheika lined up to come from Leinster and probably Rocky Elsom, I don’t know what’s going to happen now,” Evans said.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (7)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (29)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (3)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (14)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (22)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- ARU, Melbourne, Rugby Union, VicSuper15
Ora said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:47am | Report comment
Not really surprising now is it?
Australia and Melbourne getting the team was a joke to begin with and this farce only confirms it!
Pete said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
yes Port Elizabeth was such a sensible choice….
“Not really surprising now is it?”
Not surprising that those involved are trying to do their negotiations through the media. If Evans hadn’t tried the ‘blackmail’ line “…we had Michael Cheika lined up to come from Leinster and probably Rocky Elsom, I don’t know what’s going to happen now” In other words, I know Michael Cheika (who is friends with Elsom) if you don’t give into our demands they won’t be coming to Melbourne. I would have hoped that both Cheika and Elsom were professional enough not to let the political bickering of others influence their decision. I don’t blame Evans, in business you use all your negotiating options.
To be honest I would have thought the opportunity to start a new franchise from scratch as captain and coach would have been too irresistible to refuse. If they actually were coming, I think they’ll be there in 2011.
Must admit I do at times feel a bit disillusioned by the hard line taken by the ARU, but then again they did come part of the way in the negotiations and they don’t have the funds the AFL have to throw at a new franchise. That’s why they called in private equity in the first place.
My gut feel is that once the protracted negotiations are sorted out and regardless of who the investors are, Melbourne will have a financially solid Super Rugby team.
The upside is that a bit of ‘soap opera’ drama may force Rugby into the Victorian newspapers and give it some much need publicity.
Dean said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
I agree with ora, it’s not surprising one bit. I’m a born and bred Melbournian and i honestly don’t know one person who cares in the slightest that we “won” a franchise down here or if we lost it. Sure there might be a little interest out there but certainly nowhere near enough to warrant having a Super Rugby team. There’s a heap more interest for the Storm down here than what there is or ever will be for yet another football code.
If it goes ahead i’m sure they’ll stay afloat and sustainable for a season or two on the novelty factor alone but won’t last much longer after that. The investors would save themselves much heartache and every bit as importantly millions and millions of dollars by pulling the pin now. I know News Limited pay to prop up Storm but lest face it, they make that money back and then some each year by other means (tv, print media etc) just by having them in the comp so they’re not really losing money at all. Besides, from all reports the Storm aren’t that far away from turning a profit or at least breaking even after working hard over a decade to gain a foothold in Melbourne and thay’ve done a damn fine job of it and are obviously here to stay for the long term.
The Super Rugby franchise just doesn’t have the same advantages as mentioned and will be doomed to fail withing 5 years. You can’t expect independant businessmen and the like to keep poughing in millions after millions of their own hard earned and think they’ll be happy to do so by getting nothing in return for it. Ask Clive Palmer of the Gold Coast soccer franchise how he feels about that. As mentioned the new franchise doesn’t have the backing of a company who was still making money off the Storm while “losing” it at the same time, the truth is they weren’t and haven’t lost at all. In my humble opinion the backers of this franchise would be very wise to pull out now and stay out while giving the license to a place who actually wants a team. I actually don’t mind the game and if we do get a team i’ll even go to a few games but would i be upset if we don’t get one? Not for onje second.
Siva Samoa said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Dean. This is between the ARU and the investers and its got nothing to do with anything else. You are full of BS like most one eye league fan on here. There are more rugby union fans and rugby union players in Victoria than there are rugby league fans and supporters.
Luckly for the Storms they have been in the finals for the last few years but if they ever fail to make the top eight year after year they would be back where they were with crowds of 5000 and losing ten millions this time.
The Link said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
when have the Storm averaged 5,000?
Siva Samoa said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
who said anything about averages ? i said crowds of 5000. are you saying the storm never played in front of 5000, 6000 or 7000 crowds before when they were losing ?
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Yeah, but they are offset by the times they do get good crowds in the same season. It’s been quite a while since the Storm averaged under 10K in a stadium which is very poor to start with, and hardly takes many more than 15K comfortably.
Personally I think the Storm in the new stadium will really grow the fan base, who will now be much closer to the action. Won’t take long for them to be financially secure with the increase in attendances due to having a suitable modern venue. A bit of free to air exposure couldn’t hurt either.
Siva Samoa said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
The Storms are one of those teams like the Sharks, Rabbitors, Force, Dockers, Warriors, Reds and Roars . Their crowd averages every year depends on where they are on the table and how they performed.
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
And what Stadium they play in. You don’t believe a suitable stadium will make any difference to the team? The 1950′s stadium they did play out of was the worst stadium I have ever been in and I am surprised they were getting the crowds that the did given the poor conditions.
Though you suggesting that Union crowds aren’t affected by results? It’s just a Rugby League things that crowds increase when a team is going well?
The Link said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Siva – I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but for most normal people when you use a plural when referring to crowd figures “crowds” that typically means an average. Nice attempt to backtrack by putting in 6k and 7k, typical trolling tactics.
You sprout 5k crowds like it was some kind of systemic trend, how many 5k crowds have the Storm had? I’d be surprised if it was more than 5-10 games out of 140 odd home games to date.
Of course there are more Rugby players in Melbourne and by all means that should translate into a pretty popular team down there, but the proof will be in the pudding. So far all we have seen is plenty of hot air and hubris from Rugby fans and chaotic administration.
The Storm are doing OK considering there was little RL on offer in Melbourne pre 1998.
bever fever said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
The Dockers have around 40k of members and they have only made the finals once.
Their membership like the eagles is pretty well sold out.
Should they win a couple of finals or god forbid a premiership you could expect a waiting list as per the eagles.
So please dont compare their crowds/averages to the sharks, rabbitohs, warriors, reds and the orar.
AC said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Regarding your comment on Force, Dockers crowds, etc.
If you think Perth people are fair-weather Rugby supporters, what makes you think Melbourne fans won’t be? And Perth has more players — per capita and actual — than Melbourne.
Being over there at Christmas though, it was great to see kids proudly getting around in Force t-shirts and jerseys…
Siva Samoa said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
The Storm are doing ok on the field but you forgot they loss almost 7 million dollars this year. What will happen when they are the bottom of the table ? The Force has done well in Perth and I suppose Dean’s saying there’s no room there for a NRL as well .
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
They lost 3mil this year. Given a new stadium, with more options for corporate support and supporter numebrs, I think they should close that gap in no time.
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
That’s the hole in the ARU’s plan. Their thinking how much $$$ they can extract from a new market, when really they should be planning how they are going to grow their game. Entering Melbourne or a new market is a long term investment and Rugby is shooting itself in the foot.
Losing 3m or 7m is not worth crying over. It’s nothing on the 200m or so AFL is prepared to invest in growing their game but the fact Rugby aren’t even prepared to match League…it’s sad.
Their 10 years old and Rugby league has gone from near zero to where they are today in Melbourne. And it’s a pretty respectable return, something football’s trying to do to with the new QLD teams and it’s hard work and you have to be patient.
Their is far less hostility to RU then their is to RL from Victorians but the ARU and VRU need to shape up or they will be the best thing to ever happen to the Storm.
DanielB said | January 2nd 2010 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Siva – the storms losses were around the 3/4m mark, which is comparable to the lions, who lost 2m last year despite higher crowds and more members (the lions/bears were founded in 1987, having an 11 year headstart on the storm). And as said above, the losses weren’t real ‘losses’ considering the value they bring to the game in tv rights and advertising.
Besides, the aru should be putting their money towards the reds, who are in serious trouble in what should be a heartland area.
Dean said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Soory to dissapoint you champion but i’m an AFL fan through and through. I only used the Storm as an example because in many ways they’re like the new super rugby franchise coming into an hostile AFL mad city that treats the game as a religion. If you can’t see the simiarities between the 2 then it’s not my problem you have trouble comprehending that.
I’m far far from being a “one eyed league fan” LOL but in saying that i’ve gained much respect for the Storm after what they’ve achieved down here and i take a hell of a lot more interest in them now than i ever did when they first came in the comp. As for the 5000 crowds, the Storm have never played in front of one in Melbourne. Their lowest crowd number is 6,063 in 2005, the next lowest was 6875 in 04 and the only other sub 7k crowd in 12 years 6984. They were against Canberra, Nth Qld and the Rabbitohs so it’s hardly surprising they didn’t draw huge but having said that only 3 sub 7k crowds in that time is excellent no matter how you want to look at it.
Now go back to the drawing board and come up with a new argument because so far you’ve given us nothing of substance. Oh and if you want to know whare i sourced the Storm crowds from please let me know and i’ll be happy to post a link. Something tells me you need it with your way off guesstimates of 5,000. I think you’ll see with the new stadium and not playing out of that decrepit relic that is Olympic park the averages will be over 15,000 no problem at all.
jake said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Hey Dean you sound like a bit of a closet Leaguie to me. Can you put up the link to those crowd figures please?
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/melbourne.html#best
All the best and worst crowds are listed on that site.
Siva Samoa said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Are you saying the new Melbourne super 15 team will fail then Dean ? What do you based your arguemnet on on since they haven’t even started playing yet ?
There will be other AFL fans who would jump on the Rebels along with many expats Kiwi’s, Pacific Islanders and Saffas living in Victoria. I use to play and coach in melbourne and I know there’s a huge support and history of rugby union in Melbourne. Just except there’s going to be another professional football code in Melbourne .
Mad Mex said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Dean, I too am an AFL fan, a staunch Melburnian (though admittedly residing in Sin City at present) however your supposition that Melbourne is more League than Union smacks of ignorance. Union has been played in Melbourne for years and is well established in the private school sporting association. Yes, the Storm have had considerable success however one only needs to look back to the 80s and the swans to see how fickle a sporting public can be. That the storn have had considerable success and are still only averaging 10-11k is of concern. Problem is Victorians perceive league to be a sydney game(and us Mexicans have a deep rooted hatred of Sydney sports
Union is recognised as an international game Yes, the new stadium is world class but aside from a novelty factor will that encourage more fans to support league? Particularly when in 2011 there will be a Super 15 side also playing at the stadium? I think not. Melburnians love thei sport however league has had 11 years there now and is still being propped up by News Ltd. I think the fact that the Rebels will play in a competition that will provide not only international competition but a strong state v state tribal asect will appeal to the psyche of Victorians and their quest for being recognised as the best. The Victory is a good analogy which I think will be reflected by the Rebels. Parochialism, coupled with a strong union history will see the Rebels more significantly supported than the Storm. Mind you, rugby needs to get its front office in order first!
jake said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Siva. The Storm are slowly making there way into the consciousness of Victorians. Every one knows who they are. Everyone knows who Billy Slater is. There is a tram that goes down Swanson Street with the Storm logo and colours on the side. The players are also on adds on T.V. They have managed to get this far through 10 years years of hard work with little coverage from the media and no FTA coverage. If the Storm season games are broadcasted live, the public will be exposed to them and they will become an important part of the States sporting culture. I don’t think there will be room for another rugby code witch is arguably a more boring game. Especially when the Victorians are used to the fast pace of the AFL. They have signed up one of the games best coaches on a five year deal so they wont be dropping out of the top 8 any time soon!! Even if they did i have spoken to many of the faithful down at Olympic park and they support the team no matter where they are on the table! You keep mentioning that here is more rugby players in Melbourne. Don’t worry about that. RL has grass-roots program’s in place and he VRL has 13 teams.
P.S its “one eyed” league fans not one eye were not cyclops’s and if your not he most one eyed sports fan on the roar i don’t know who is!
Dean said | December 30th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Lol like i mentioned Jake, i’ve got a lot more respect for the Storm and the game of league than what i did when they first came in when in all honesty i couldn’t stand the game like many others. Though as the years have gone on and i’ve watched more of them play you can’t help but admire what they’ve achieved in what is by and large a rugby league outpost. They’ve worked hard to fight for a position in the market here and you have to give credit where it’s due.
Here’s that link of their best and worst crowds not including finals.
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/melbourne.html#best
Ryan said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Hey Dean do you work for the Storm, what a load of rubbish.
Dean said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Hey Ryan, read what i typed above and you’ll see that i hardly work for the Storm. I’m just posting facts. It’s pretty easy to come on saying it’s a load of rubbish (which is fair enough and your right to disagree) but if you’re going to do it then at the very least enlighten us to the reasons why you think it’s rubbish. If not you’re adding about as much credibility to the debate as Siva which is very little or closer to nothing at all.
I await your reply.
Siva Samoa said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Dean I don’t know what the Stroms crowds were back then and Im not intending to find out but when I said 5000 I was really saying that they didn’t sellout a little stadium like olympic park. Just as I would say the Warriors on their bad years were playing in front of 5000 but it really mean alot of empty seats which look like 5000.
You need to cheer up buddy. The Warriors went well in NZ and the TV ratings and crowds went up as well when they made the final. Come the following couple of years the crowds fail to turn up and their tv ratings were nowhere near as high as NPC, super 14 and the All Blacks.
mahony said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
I agree. As a Sydney sider originally, I love a good game of League or Union, but after 8 years in Melbourne I can’t say I see much of a long-term future for either code here. As I alluded to in another thread, the low overheads and strong grass-roots of football give it some long-term opportunity in Melbourne (indeed most places in Australia) – but it will be a slow, slow burn for football. Neither Rugby code can afford a slow burn approach as the Storm prove with every unappreciated trophy and the inverse relationship between trophies and the sort of debt News Limited are likely to disown in the near future.
If I am wrong about this that is fine also – because unlike many Melbourne people, I can see the skill and beauty in rugby(s). It may not be my code of choice, but a reasonable examination of the game(s) leads one to this conclusion. The dominance of the AFL here is what keeps this city small – and any code which can broaden the horizons of the Melbourne community is good news IMO.
Dogs Of War said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
The only chance other codes have is to get on free to air at a decent hour.
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
I don’t really care for Super Rugby any more but I still want them to do well in Melbourne. I think it’s important for my favorite codes (League and Football) that someone breaks the stranglehold on sports media over Melbourne that the AFL has, it has important repercussions for the rest of the country.
The NRL has to get the Storm on TV at a decent time when kids can watch. If it’s 10am on a Sunday Morning so be it just get something sooner rather than later.
I can’t see the ARU getting the Rebels on free to air TV in Melbourne but at least a credible franchise that grows grass roots participation in Victoria would be a nice result.
The Link said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Bizzare. Raises more questions than it answers. Why aren’t the ARU providing parity in funding? A negotiating tactic? Will VicSuper15 have other benefits that the other Aussie teams don’t have access to (marketing, brand, copyright…?)
Surely the rationale in having a Melbourne S15 side is that the increase in TV revenue finances this team in line with what the other Aussie S15 sides are getting. Anything over and above that goes to the ARU coffers which is fair enough, but why start at a lower funding base than other teams in the first place?
Assuming VicSuper15 are getting not much in return why would anyone want to invest in a team that has an immediate disadvantage in revenue base?
Ken said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
I think the parity issue is around the structure of the club. This was supposed to be a private club with the ARU providing some top up rather than the other Aussie clubs which are all run by the state unions.
I imagine that the Victorian union authorities wouldn’t have the funds or structure to maintain a super team which is why they have chosen this path. It does make you wonder though how they thought that it would be attractive to private investors to start a new team in an area with little current interest in the code while getting less handouts from the national body than the established clubs. This club is not going to turn a profit in the foreseeable future and, while there is potential, there’s no guarantee that it ever will.
League’s Melbourne and AFL’s Sydney are good examples that in areas where you are not known, extreme patience can eventually yield acceptable (although hardly amazing) results – this is fine if it’s for the long time good of the game as a whole but if looked at as an individual business it’s pretty ugly. This saga makes you wonder how well thought out the bid was (of course the Southern Kings was a pretty poor alternative too).
Sam Taulelei said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
The ARU’s strategy with introducing an expansion team for the 2011 competition in AFL heartland is in stark contrast to what the AFL are doing for the Gold Coast team for their 2011 competition.
There is a world of difference in the operating budgets of both organisations but that aside the AFL learnt their lessons when they expanded into Sydney with South Melbourne and Brisbane with Footscray and provide greater concessions and assistance with player recruitment etc than beforehand.
The AFL also have the benefit of their TAC competition for expansion teams to get their feet into the water before their entry into the 2011 AFL and gauge local players, gain experience, build local awareness and branding.
The absence of even a national age grade competition or any competition for provincial rugby in Australia will make it harder for expansion teams in the future. The desire for private equity in the new team is admirable and sensible by the ARU but not providing an equal level of assistance and funding compare to established teams because of private equity is short sighted and cutting the legs off a team that needs to hit the ground running.
pothale said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
This should have been sorted out long before now.
It makes you wonder how much investigative questioning was done by the so-called independent panel that assessed the two bids from Melbourne and the Southern Kings.
What price that the SARU now come back in and say the assessment process was evidently flawed, and the franchise should be awarded to them?
mcxd said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
ahhh.. Poth Ale..i get it now, i always thought it was some pun on inhaling pot. ie . Pot Hale..well done
pothale said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:12am | Report comment
Indeed. Poth Beer didn’t have the same ring to it.
Norm said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
It looks like Peter Fitzsimons will have to put his money where his mouth is.
John Ryan said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
I very much doubt you will hear a peep from Fitzsimons,he never mentions anything that is sightly derogatory to RU.on the other hand he bashes RL all the time
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
He has converted to AFL lately, given the rough trot that Union has had lately in the press due to the state of the game on the field.
rugbyfuture said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/disorder-rules-as-rebels-attempt-to-get-super-franchise-off-ground-20091229-lit5.html
Disorder rules as Rebels attempt to get Super franchise off ground
DAN SILKSTONE
December 31, 2009
MELBOURNE’S new Super 15 rugby franchise is continuing as it began, with acrimony, confusion and threats to walk away as the potential owners bicker with each other and the sport’s governing body.
Two backers of the consortium negotiating with the Australian Rugby Union to run the nation’s first privately owned rugby club have baled out in recent days after the ARU refused to meet their financial demands.
Minority stakeholder Ray Evans claimed yesterday that the ARU had taken over the task of setting up the new team, ending negotiations with the would-be owners and appointing an administrator who would choose a coach and begin recruiting players.
But those claims were strongly denied by ARU deputy chief executive Matt Carroll last night. ”We are working through the things we need to and I remain very optimistic,” Carroll said. ”The ARU has no desire to be running this club and I’m sure that is not going to happen.”
Evans also claimed the consortium’s major backer, mining magnate Kevin Maloney, had walked away in disgust – effectively ensuring the ARU would have to take over the franchise.
But that claim was disputed by Maloney yesterday. The Sydney-based businessman said he remained keen on investing approximately $2 million and taking a stake of about 20 per cent in the new franchise – likely to be called The Rebels. He described Evans as a ”minor player” in the consortium.
”I’m not sure where he’s coming from,” Maloney said. ”As far as I know the ARU are still considering their options, negotiations are ongoing. My interest is there and my money is waiting.”
The other major backer – media buyer Harold Mitchell – also remains involved and both men are continuing to negotiate with the ARU.
A third significant backer, Craig Dunn, is close to Evans and is also believed to have walked away. The sticking point for the two disillusioned investors is the $3 million the ARU will distribute annually to the new franchise. Because The Rebels are privately capitalised that allocation will be smaller than the $4.2 million handed out to the four ARU-run Australian franchises.
”All we are saying is that we need parity with the other states,” Evans said. ”We can’t fund it unless it’s commercially viable. No businessman would agree to that. How can we have a situation where are competitors are funded so much better than ourselves?”
Carroll said it was not correct that the terms and conditions for the new side would make it commercially unviable.
”We don’t believe that at all,” he said. ”Our financial modelling shows that this can be run at a profit and that returns should be healthy.”
Carroll said a ”project officer” would be appointed early next year as an interim measure to begin building the franchise if agreement could not be reached with the investors, adding that he hoped such a measure would not be necessary.
Evans’s withdrawal could have serious consequences. He is a close confidant of Australian coach Michael Cheika, who piloted Irish club Leinster to the Heineken Cup and had been earmarked as The Rebels’ inaugural coach.
”He was very keen to come and was just waiting for the details of how much we were offering,” Evans said. ”He was going to bring a significant number of top players down here with him but that is all in doubt now … he has already been offered a job by at least one European club.”
Evans also said that Wallabies captain Rocky Elsom had been close to joining the new franchise but that his move was now in doubt.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Conflicting comments much?
Brett McKay said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Dear oh dear oh dear…
Is this the Melbourne Rebels, or Home and A-bloody-way?!?
rugbyfuture said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
hopefully this is only the cliched cliffhanger at the end of the season which is resolved to a happier end next year
jacko said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
like sands through an hourglass……
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I think the biggest worry is that the ARU want to do melbourne on the cheap, unless their is separate money for the VRU then they should be spending more because they hae to grow the game and need more funds for marketing and grass roots than established states.