Probables Vs Possibles would build depth

you would have to start the "definites". We have "definite' starters in the Wallabies that perhaps shouldn't be definites. This sort of match may sort them out

OK. My point was simply that it would have been touch and go as to whether they would even be able to cover the 110,000 with a paying crowd, let alone further costs. At that point it becomes an obvious decision not to play the game. As for savings, well, you'll never really know how much the various cost cutting exercises saved. Sure ARU will post a number, but you'll never know what the number would have been otherwise. As for "where the money went instead", you imply that the money was spent on things other than development - not necessarily so, it could have just been not spent at all to make up for a shortfall in revenue. A test match in Canberra, poor attendances generally, the GFC and shortfall in sponsor and corporate activity must have hit hard on the revenue side. I think the ARU might still post a modest profit or a small loss - and that they're there would be because of various savings through the year.

Just an idle thought - if you took the view that a Possibles v Probables match excluded the Definites (on the basis that, if they were definite starters, why risk them), would much of these issues go away? Even if not, it would be funny to see what would happen when some of those players were not asked to play....("Does that mean I'm a definite, or am I not even a possible?) :)

That it is not just ground rent would be true - I am sure there would be a bunch of additional costs such as insurance, staff, etc. But I would kind of lump them all together - assuming they would be using a ground they have used before, they'd know all those costs. But the equation isn't misleading - if revenues minus player payments were still greater than all the other costs, that would represent a profit over and above the $110k that they had already received. The choice they were making was lose the money by giving it back, or hopefully lose something less than that amount by paying the players but getting the nett revenues after game day costs. But the starting point for comparison was a loss of $110k. Still, you may well be right about the various motivations of the ARU, NSWRU and players and it was quite possibly all good faith at the time. But you do raise an interesting point regarding cost cutting. In 2007 the ARU posted a loss of about $8.5M, largely down to the ARC. So they cancelled that and turned the situation around so that they re-established the cash reserves and posted a profit of $700k in 2008. But then subsequent to that, and presumably in the expectation of a bad year (financial crisis etc), they then additionally cancelled the Aus A program and ARS. It will be interesting to see how much that actually saved, especially the Aus A cancellation. It better be a lot, given what was lost by way of player development opportunities and the current bitchfest over a replacement match. Certainly I'll be curious to see whether things turned out as badly as expected and, if not, where the money went instead.

More Randwick and Sydney Uni players should be in the wallaby side. Especially in the front row. I know there is representation now but it appears the current lot aren't working Possible v probables would be a positive step, However i suspect the selectors, who all should be charged for treason, would still go for the old school tie. Sorry to harp about the old school tie, but a lot of this comes back to that, in my opinion

It's all how you put it. I'm sure the costs associated with holding a match at the SFS are significant - and not just "ground rent". Your equation is misleading - it's revenues minus the 110,000 would have to be greater than all the other costs associated with having the game. You make it seem like it's hardly a fair substitute game if they couldn't cover that, but to pay the players would already be 5,500 paying customers at $20 a head. I doubt that would be a slam dunk for an off-season trial match, let alone a sure thing to make money to pay other costs. Even if it's possible, is it worth the risk? Far from how you're characterising it, my take is that rugby was in strife and had to cut costs to survive. A difficult decision to cut Aus A had unintended consequences for another Union. Deans wanted to have a trial and this was a good way of making the shortfall up to NSWRU. The players made what may have seemed like a reasonable request to them at the time, but one that was going to mean that the finances of the game were unworkable given the likely crowd they would attract. So the idea dies. I think the only part of this story we can agree on is that it was leaked with timing to do maximum damage to RUPA. I think that's mostly deserved, you clearly don't.

If the ARU cancelled the Aus A program and didn't take into account all the relevant savings and costs, it is incompetent decision making. If they did take those things into account and then tried to use the players to dodge one of the costs, then they are basically taking the piss. It has to be one or the other. With the decision taken some time ago, so was the players stance on payments. If that is the case, last weekend has no relevance and makes the timing of the story more than a little dubious. As for the $110k, it is a simple equation: do nothing, return the $110k for a nett -$110k. Play the game, you pay the players, presumably rent a ground and keep the revenues. Nett return = -$110k to the players - ground rent + revenues. So the NSWRU would be better off if revenues > ground rent, worse off otherwise. If they didn't think they could cover ground rent alone with the revenues, how could they justify already having received $110k from the sponsors to watch it? What it sounds like to me is the ARU cocked up, forgot that the NSWRU had already taken money for the Aus A match that they had cancelled, and took an opportune moment to shift the blame for a decision already made onto the players following a poor match.

Yep send them down to coogee for the trial, no costs to anyone. But if you want a game at the SFS so NSW can recoup there 100k then pay the players. The players shouldnt be bailing out NSW its between the ARU and NSW.

It's a trial, you do not get paid for a trial. The ARU should still hold this trial. Tell the Wallabies if they want to go to Europe they must show up and trial. If they don't well stuff them. This will show us exactly who is there for the jersey and who are there for the pay packet. RUPA can go fornicate themselves with a big stick.

Absolutely the players should play for free so that NSWRU could keep the money! In whose interests is it to have NSWRU pay back $120,000 to punters? How is that good for the players, or anyone in rugby? Who employs the players? When Deans wanted a trial anyway, it was a perfect fit. And where is the incompetent decision making from the ARU? You're making stuff up. And the decision not to play the game was taken some time ago. There was no way this press leak would have resulted in the game going ahead. You've swallowed Dempsey's story hook line and sinker. The costs of holding the game with $110,000 of player payments to pay before anything else gets started would never have been made back.

Send the invitation to the players, make it clear thet the touring squad will be selected at the trial and that anyone who does not attend will not be considered. If any refuse offer their place to one of the stars of club rugby. A "state of origin" competition would get minimal support outside NSW and Queensland. The current situation where in the absence of a national comp the majority of the Force Players piss off to Sydney as soon as the Super 14 season is over is already causing considerable ill feeling in WA. The Western Australian team in the ARC was essentially the Force minus the Wallabies who were replaced by the pick of the Force Academy and Perth Premier Grade players. If the other franchises were to do the same thing a national competition could keep going right through to the spring. BTW I complained on my Facebook page that the Rugby season was over. Friends from both South Africa and New Zealand pointed out that the season is not over in the other two tri nations countries, just in Australia.

Things weren’t “on the players to make things right”. It was simply expected that because of a poor showing in their last match and a nicely timed press leak they should roll over and play for free so that the NSWRU could keep money they had already taken from the punters and so the ARU wouldn't have to face up to the consequences of ill-informed or incompetent decision making. Tomayto Tomahto... I was actually thinking that the NSWRU would cough up the money. Either way it would have cost them $100k, and they would have had a shot at making at least some of the money back. If they didn't think they could at least make back the ground rent, where the hell did they get off trying to sell it as a replacement game for the Aus A match?

Disagree. Surely the players can see that the ARU is not in a position to pay 44 players for a trial game? Things weren't "on the players to make things right". It was simply expected that they not stuff things up with greed.

In which case it is on the ARU to make things good with the NSWRU, as it should have been a known consequence of their decision to scupper the Aus A program. It shouldn't be on the players to make things right, especially when a great many of the players in the Possibles teams could be justifiably pissed about the Aus A cancellation.

In the future a bunch may well be given the amount of South African and New Zealand expats living there.

You're right - but I'm just saying the quasi-state teams already exist - the rivalry may not be there yet, but is building - so why not use the infrastructure and clubs that already exist - it seems to me that if you create something else again, you are effectively diluting interest in the main professional product - which is super rugby. I'm observing from afar here, I don't have a strong attachment one way or the other. But let's say I'm a Victorian, showing some interest in the new Vic rugby team - but it plays a shortish season, and then the best players go do something else for the remainder of the footy season - is there much incentive for me to get fully behind my new rugby team?

But where do almost ALL the players come from? They sure as heck don't come from WA, and the new Melbourne team won't have much local talent either... I dunno, I'm just trying to think of a way to narrow it to 2 teams but still have some rivalry behind it rather than simply being a selection trial.

There are four provincial teams, soon to become five, playing super rugby, I can't see what the point of state of origin would be. Better off look to extend the super 15 season, and/or have the five provincial teams continue playing post the super season in a special cup comp (perhaps in parallel with the tri-nations, i.e. all those on the fringes of wallaby selection continute playing a high standard of rugby).

Has anyone thought about the possibility of holding a Rugby State of Origin Series during this time? The reality is that almost all the players come from either NSW or Qld, and the few who grew up playing in the ACT could just play for NSW (I mean in reality it's a state within NSW..). That would certainly be a commercial success, while also getting the player's blood boiling and would be a brilliant means of test selection. What do you think?

It's very simple Justin - because ARU sank the Australia A program which the NSWRU sold as part of its membership. So it's the ARU's fault this shortfall exists, not NSWRU. The aim was to kill two birds with one stone, not "make cash" as you put it. ARU holds the trial, and ARU helps NSWRU meeting its obligation to members which the ARU scuppered in the first place by canceling Australia A. 44 players (twice what Australia A would have costed) x $2,500 is $110,000. That's a crowd of 5,500 at $20 a head which they'd be lucky to get for a trial. And that's without venue hire, security, etc. It's not even close to being worth it at that cost. RUPA killed this, and they are the ones in the wrong here.