New CBA and re-brand means everything is actually okay after all

Jack Quigley Columnist

By Jack Quigley, Jack Quigley is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , ,

118 Have your say

Popular article! 4,017 reads

    In the first major rugby news of the year, Rugby Australia have splashed the cash in a new Collective Bargaining Agreement which will see pay increases for Super Rugby, Rugby Sevens and female players.

    The deal sees an increase in the squad sizes of Super Rugby teams, and an increase in the salary cap to accommodate, more than likely to offset, the demise of the Western Force and the 30 players who were left without contracts by rehousing the better ones across the four remaining franchises. Although it still sort of feels like most of the Force squad just ended up going to the Rebels.

    Female players will now earn the same as their male counterparts on the sevens circuit, and will be paid for Test appearances for the first time. However, at this stage, there are still no plans to pay players competing in the soon to be launched Super W competition which seems, well, amateur.

    Rugby is a contact sport and players – at the elite levels especially – put their bodies on the line. If the Super W competition generates so much as a dollar of revenue from advertising or broadcasts – and I plan to watch it if I can – then that dollar must be divided up between the stakeholders, with the players getting a cut of it.

    The new CBA cuts players (the ones who are getting paid) in on 29 percent of revenue – about the same as Australia’s cricketers get under their new deal.

    While it’s great for the players involved and for those Force players who had the rug pulled from under them, like anything with Rugby Australia caution should be exercised whenever money is spent.

    Bear in mind that the justification for cutting the Force was supposedly because running the fifth franchise was sending the game broke, and the money saved would, in turn, be funnelled into grassroots development so maybe one day we wouldn’t lose to the New Zealand-based teams every single time.

    Matt Hodgson Western Force Rugby Union Super 2017

    (Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)

    Since the axing of the Force, the only noteworthy news items out of HQ, with the exception of Raelene Castle replacing Bill Pulver and anything related to Karmichael Hunt, have been this pay deal and the completely unnecessary (and incredibly expensive) re-brand from the Australian Rugby Union to Rugby Australia. Neither of which really align with the promises and reasoning behind the Force decision.

    The re-brand reeks of the corporate equivalent of entering the witness protection program. Change the name and the logo and hopefully leave all of your troubles behind.

    “Aren’t you that organisation that haemorrhages money and couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery?”

    “Oh my, no, you’re thinking of the Australian Rugby Union. We’re Rugby Australia – see, it says so right there on the sign.”

    2017 was the darkest of times for the game in this country since rugby went professional – possibly ever. 2018 needs to bloody good.

    The new CBA is a good one for all parties, though in time I’d like to see the maximum Super Rugby squad sizes come back down again – the whole point of cutting the fifth team was because the talent was spread too thin and we were paying too many guys who weren’t really good enough. Wasn’t it? No, wait. It was for development. Or because they were sending us broke. Or was it that we needed that cash for other stuff like the re-brand?

    Anyway, with the ARU – *ahem* – sorry, Rugby Australia, always question everything.

    On to 2018, where the game of rugby rises like a phoenix! Or burns like a phoenix.

    Jack Quigley
    Jack Quigley

    A long time sports writer and podcaster, Jack has spent the majority of his media career covering football and rugby. He recently joined The Roar on the back of penning a viral Facebook rant aimed at the Wallabies which attracted 60,000 likes and more than 6,000 shares. You can follow him on Twitter @Jack_Quigley.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (118)

    • Roar Rookie

      January 11th 2018 @ 6:00am
      Chancho said | January 11th 2018 @ 6:00am | ! Report

      Baby steps… well done acknowledging the girls which is good… but the thing I find is that it seems the people responsible for the administering of the game on the whole have never seen it, save for a couple of Wallibies games on a jolly or two. I’m sure I’m being unfair to the wonderfull men and women running the game but it seems such a mess, and unjustly Wallaby focused. On Super Rugby, Who is to say in a year or two the ARB says ‘actually, we can only support 3 teams, back to the status quo’? The Rebels don’t (or didn’t last year at least) have a primary sponsor like the Force, so who is going to be looking at them thinking ‘lets plough in a load of dosh and have our name splashed across the front of the jersey only to have their licence pulled out from under them whenever’?

      But… these rebrands drive me up the wall… the World Rugby one is the worst, where we used to have the IRB Rugby World Cup, we now have the World Rugby Rugby World Cup… The Cricket Australia one is even worse; the shield they came up with doesn’t match the one on the Test gear except the training stuff which makes it all sooooo disjointed, and when you consider they want to give the impression Test cricket matters, it doesn’t show… deep breaths Chancho… anyway, Goole search Rugby Australia… there is nothing there that indicated this is the plce to go for anything rugby in Australia… no logo, no slogans or signs to say who they are… it looks like a pi$$weak Pintrest page.

      Just on websites… this has annoyed me for a while, can someone tell me, which is the official Super Rugby website?

      – is it this one http://www.superxv.com/ which is the top in a Google search and on the Super Rugby Wikipedia page but doesn’t share the right Super Rugby logo (if this is the official one, why don’t the logos match), or
      – this one http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/ which is through the Official SANZAAR page which has the right logo but a couple of spots down on a Google search (why isn’t it first in Google if it’s official).

      Also, when we get about a month out from the SR season, can Sydney folks let me know how much coverage the Waratahs and SR get… because I’ll wager it’ll be next to nothing.

      I feel better now, thanks

      • Roar Rookie

        January 11th 2018 @ 7:16am
        Chancho said | January 11th 2018 @ 7:16am | ! Report

        Also, just went to the Rebels’ website… clicked on the shop link and got to here http://melbournerebelsstore.com.au/

        Maybe the error is because I’m accessing from the UK, but if not, can someone explain to me why in the bottom right it says ‘2016 membership’?

        • January 11th 2018 @ 8:51am
          jack said | January 11th 2018 @ 8:51am | ! Report

          no, it says 2016 membership

          • Roar Rookie

            January 11th 2018 @ 9:47am
            Chancho said | January 11th 2018 @ 9:47am | ! Report

            And it’s not like that membership link works either, just takes you back to the main page and you have to click on memberships there.

            It also annoys me on the main page it has the option called ‘shop’ but in the address on that link it’s called ‘store’… I know it’s incredibly trivial but it feels as if no one gave the webpage much thought aside from some good pics

      • Roar Guru

        January 11th 2018 @ 8:58am
        Machpants said | January 11th 2018 @ 8:58am | ! Report

        Google search is ordered by algorithms which have nothing to do with which website is official. There’s nothing much you can do about it unless you want to spend time and money playing the algorithms or paying Google to get a higher ranking – something worthwhile for a money making business, not SANZAAR. The list will be in a different order if you use Bing or another search engine. Blame Google not SANZAAR:-)

        • Roar Rookie

          January 11th 2018 @ 9:40am
          Chancho said | January 11th 2018 @ 9:40am | ! Report

          I do get how it works, but surely it’s worth it to get on top… any online marketing course or information says that this is where you want to be.

          If the Aviva Premiership and Pro14 can do it, so should Super Rugby?

          • January 11th 2018 @ 10:55am
            Bakkies said | January 11th 2018 @ 10:55am | ! Report

            Look at how long it took them to set up a website

          • Roar Rookie

            January 11th 2018 @ 11:48am
            piru said | January 11th 2018 @ 11:48am | ! Report

            Chancho you misunderstand

            There is no money for websites!

            The ARU is on the bones of it’s bum and can only afford rebrands and pay rises to all and sundry, not money to actually benefit the game!

            • January 11th 2018 @ 12:02pm
              Boris said | January 11th 2018 @ 12:02pm | ! Report

              Piru I wish you were wrong

            • January 11th 2018 @ 1:33pm
              bluffboy said | January 11th 2018 @ 1:33pm | ! Report

              Piru for CEO……….finance is your forte.

              • Roar Rookie

                January 11th 2018 @ 3:45pm
                piru said | January 11th 2018 @ 3:45pm | ! Report

                For the good of rugby, I reluctantly accept.

                First step is moving HQ to Perth

            • January 11th 2018 @ 6:23pm
              Mmmmm..k said | January 11th 2018 @ 6:23pm | ! Report

              I’m noticing a pattern.

              ARU does something and you claim it’s bad and not in the interest of the game in Australia.

              If you ignore the circumstance Australian rugby faces it is easy to do that.

              Imo its clear Aus rugby needed to cut a team for the health of the game in Aus and for the health of Super Rugby. It was so obvious I find it incredible that so many opposed the idea. The teams were pathetic in context and fans were losing interest.
              Imo its also clear that Super Rugby is the only thing standing in the way of complete domination by European clubs and so the health of Super Rugby has to be the priority of those in the ARU if they wish to survive.
              The top down way of doing things in Aus rugby is not ideal but is the only way for the game to survive in Aus. No money up top, no top players in Aus. This means a weak Wallabies and weak Aus Super Rugby sides. This means loss of fans and revenue. This means game has no money and no fans. This is bad.

              Aus rugby simply can’t compete with Europe alone. It has no chance.

              • January 11th 2018 @ 9:20pm
                PC said | January 11th 2018 @ 9:20pm | ! Report

                Mmmm..k, Do you work for RA???

              • January 11th 2018 @ 10:04pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 11th 2018 @ 10:04pm | ! Report

                Or you could discuss, not dismiss.

                Were Aus teams strong financially or in capability?
                Were fans numbers growing?
                Is there a realistic alternative to Super Rugby for SANZAR’s top players?

                The answer to all those questions is no.
                That’s the facts.

                Now what do you do about it, nothing?
                No, you do what’s required to insure the best possible predicted outcomes are reached by using the best possible information at hand.
                People say they didn’t do that, I think it’s clear that’s what they did but it doesn’t mean it will work. Its going to be difficult in Australia where union is 4th of the football codes, especially with big money in Europe and Japan on offer.

                The decision was made that a strong team in Melbourne is more valuable to the game in Aus than the same in WA.
                A reasonable person can understand why, surely. Melbourne is a huge market and WA has proven very difficult to crack for both rugby codes, Melbourne has not.

                People want to complain but I’m yet to read a reasonable comment about the subject.
                It seems to be all outrage and suggestions of self-sabotage by the ARU.

                I hear how keeping 5 teams was looking towards the future but nobody addresses the fact that keeping 5 teams was putting the entire comps future at risk. Nobody accepts that Super Rugby needs to fight to stay alive, that it needs to be stronger to ensure it has a future at all.

                The comp needed to be strengthened and the best way to do that was make the comps quality and appeal was greater to the most people.

                They’ve made the right call imo.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 7:35am
                Bakkies said | January 12th 2018 @ 7:35am | ! Report

                Did you see how much non budgeted money was going down the privately owned Rebels hole? It has cost the game tens of millions and the RA have stuck with wasting more money on that.

                Stop believing the nonsense that comes out of de Clyne’s mouth.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 1:41pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 1:41pm | ! Report

                Sigh.

                Melbourne may not be working yet but if they have a strong team the potential for growth outweighs the rewards from a WA team that threatens to deliver very little.
                Acknowledge this and we can talk, act as if this isn’t a consideration and there is no point.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 4:20pm
                Bakkies said | January 14th 2018 @ 4:20pm | ! Report

                Acknowledge this… Your beloved Rebels have got the game under an ASIC

                https://thewest.com.au/sport/western-force/australian-securities-and-investment-commission-to-examine-melbourne-rebels-dealings-ng-b88714040z

                The Rabble the gift keeps on giving

              • January 14th 2018 @ 6:33pm
                concerned supporter said | January 14th 2018 @ 6:33pm | ! Report

                Hi Bakkies,
                Sorry, I repeated your blog on ASIC.
                Let us Rugby plebs”” sincerely hope that ASIC will come on strong against the misleading & deceptive way that the ARU Board went about in culling the Western Force. The engineering seems to have been the work of Mr C. Clyne with help from Bill Pulver.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 4:52pm
                Ex force fan said | January 12th 2018 @ 4:52pm | ! Report

                I thought it was obvious that after 3 attempts that the ARU has not been able to develop a commercially viable model for Melbourne despite giving the Rebels concessions and even paying private ownership to take it of their hands. I also think it is obvious that with Twiggy’s backing, the Own the Force campaign, the privately funded Future Force program and improved onfield performances that the Force was moving into the right direction for the 2018-20 seasons.
                The ARU will still be pumping money into the Rebels in another attempt to get them up and the Rebels still doesn’t have a sustainable funding model. They have been secretive about it but they are prepared to accept on average only about 1.75 million per test for 6 tests that includes lucrative Lions and Bleddisloe tests over a period of 8-10 years when a single Bledisloe test could earn then $5 million. Just another bad ARU deal to keep the Rebels alive.. and the ARU has form when it comes to bad deals for the Rebels!
                I see you have at least stopped arguing that the ARU were financially broke and forced to cut a team. This CBA and wasted money on rebranding has proven that this was never the case.
                The ARU are poorly lead and Clyne and his clowns need to make room for competent leaders that is not behold to NSW state interest.
                Why did they cut the Force? To pay the underperforming Tahs more, rebrand rugby and prop up the Rebels… and this was done by destroying rugby in a state where rugby is 2nd ater AFL.
                If is an obvious mistake, however the Force were the only side the ARU could cut and when they agreed to cut a team it was always the Force. The disastrous PR exercise to pick the team to cut and then the lies to back this decision are why I cannot support Australian rugby in any capacity anymore.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 7:59pm
                Bakkies said | January 12th 2018 @ 7:59pm | ! Report

                Ex Force Fan couldn’t have said better myself.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 1:43pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 1:43pm | ! Report

                Yeah, a rugby code could never succeed in Melbourne.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 10:01am
                sheek said | January 12th 2018 @ 10:01am | ! Report

                Mmmmm..k,

                Or is that TWAS rebranded?

                Anyway, if it was purely a financial decision, as the ARU/RA keeps telling us, then the four super rugby franchises would have been located in the four largest cities – Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane & Perth.

                Which means the Brumbies would have been the ones punted, or relocated.

                Of course, such courageous financial fiduciary responsibility escaped the ARU when it came to the Brumbies.

                They talked big about financial fiduciary responsibility but blinked when the Brumbies were mentioned.

                Of course, it’s all nonsense. No team needed to be culled, no state needed to be disenfranchised.

                There were other options. but this was all about ARU & SANZAAR saving their own bacons for engaging in the stupid expansion to 18 teams in the first place.

                Nothing brave, nor courageous about these people at all.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 11:17am
                Bakkies said | January 12th 2018 @ 11:17am | ! Report

                Sheek if it was about finances the two teams that cost the RA the least the Brumbies and the Force wouldn’t have been up for the cull.

                Melbourne should be out the gap. No point in having a team there if it is run by cowboys and sending the game broke.

                Instead the Force were sacrificed for a bunch of cowboys. Bring on ASIC.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 1:51pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 1:51pm | ! Report

                Sheek.

                My brief experience with your replies is that you attack the man first.

                I have no time for this.

                If you wish to ever discuss anything with me then please stop starting your reply with an attack on me.

                I hope the moderators allow this comment.

                But yes, the decision was made to best benifit Aus rugby and Super Rugby.
                I have no idea why people suggest otherwise.

                Again, I would ask you not to discover my opinions as “nonsense” just because you disagree.

                You may think a team didn’t need to go. But those who know better than you in SA and Aus looked at Super Rugby and made a decision based on what’s best for the survival of the comp.

                Acknowledge this.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 2:00pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 2:00pm | ! Report

                Who said they were courageous?

                Straw man easier is it?

              • January 12th 2018 @ 10:03am
                sheek said | January 12th 2018 @ 10:03am | ! Report

                Notice to moderators:

                Context, dear fellows, context.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 11:25am
                Julie said | January 12th 2018 @ 11:25am | ! Report

                If that’s the case do it fairly then!! Give all teams a chance to get their house in order before 2020. Poorest performer goes at that time.. don’t disenfranchise a whole State from not only Super Rugby but from the all important wallabies as well! The cost of what the administrative body of this sport have done is unbelievable. I am not even going to bang on about a 50 million windfall that was offered or the financial security offered for the Force. Also the fact someone wants to start another international competition at no cost to said governing body and is being stalled at every turn!!

              • January 14th 2018 @ 1:53pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 1:53pm | ! Report

                The comp could not afford to wait 3 years to make a decision.

                And if it had you still wouldn’t be happy about it.

              • Roar Rookie

                January 12th 2018 @ 11:48am
                piru said | January 12th 2018 @ 11:48am | ! Report

                mmmm k

                please explain to us how cutting a team helps grow the talent pool

                then explain how cutting the team which had the least amount of financial support was good economically

                finally if you could explain how disenfranchising an entire state, a state in which previous ARU boards had spent 10+ years building an additional player breeding ground was a smart move.

                I await your response

              • January 14th 2018 @ 1:59pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 1:59pm | ! Report

                Who said anything about growing a talent pool?

                Oh, you think Super Rugby is Australia’s nursery for talent.
                It’s not.

                It’s a vulnerable comp that’s trying to ensure survival.
                It has pressures from within and from outside that make it’s chances of remaining slim.

                As far as Melbourne being a better choice for the future…well, it’s 4 million people and I think the people in the ARU have calculated the risks and rewards. Being that it’s part of their job.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 6:59pm
                concerned supporter said | January 14th 2018 @ 6:59pm | ! Report

                Super Rugby is glorified Trial Matches for the Wallabies.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 2:18pm
                Mmmmm..k said | January 14th 2018 @ 2:18pm | ! Report

                And Piru, I am getting a bit sick of repeating myself.

                It’s not about Aus, it’s about Super Rugby.
                Aus is a part of something bigger.
                Aus was not pulling its weight and needed to condense and consolidate its position for the good of the comp.

                Aus had poor viewing numbers, poor playing displays, a poor financial predicament and poor prospects for the future.

                Nothing about Australia’s premature expansion plan was working for the benifit of Aus rugby.
                Their resources were spread too thin and almost every important aspect of Aus rugby was suffering as a result.

                This was bad for a vulnerable comp wanting to ensure its future.

                The answer they came up with was to drop a team, increase the quality of its established teams and try to tap into the massive market of Victoria ahead of the very slow growing WA.

                It’s a gamble either way but a gamble they felt they needed to make for valid reasons in Victoria’s favour.

              • January 13th 2018 @ 8:42am
                Realist said | January 13th 2018 @ 8:42am | ! Report

                Ex-Force Fans keep harping on about the fact that Melbourne required more financial assistance, despite the fact it had to enter the side in a RWC year (as the 5th team which is a lot harder than 4th) and it has had HALF THE TENURE that the Force have enjoyed getting kicked around at the bottom of the table.

                Wake up Ex-Force fans – your team was a poor investment and national embarrassment.

                Stop wasting your breathe on it now, as the failed franchise will be almost completely forgotten within a couple of years. I challenge you to use your time constructively by getting behind the Melbourne franchise (that generously gave alot of ex Force players a job) and embracing them as your team.

              • January 13th 2018 @ 11:49am
                Bakkies said | January 13th 2018 @ 11:49am | ! Report

                Why would they get behind a side that shouldn’t be there, cost the game tens of millions despite the idea of private ownership not to do that and signed their players because they couldn’t build a team themselves.

              • January 14th 2018 @ 12:53pm
                Marlin said | January 14th 2018 @ 12:53pm | ! Report

                it may have been logical to cut the Force (or another team) but it was the way they went about it that still has me shaking my head in disbelief and despair. Now they waste money re-branding’ (anyone know how much that cost?). There was nothing wrong with the ARU brand – just a sensible name – the idiots working there were/are stinking it up and if they just resigned they could have saved even more money…

              • January 15th 2018 @ 12:27pm
                Bakkies said | January 15th 2018 @ 12:27pm | ! Report

                Not a bother CS it’s when it appears on here.

                Super Rugby is definitely a trial for the ABs and the Wallabies.

    • January 11th 2018 @ 6:06am
      P2R2 said | January 11th 2018 @ 6:06am | ! Report

      ….like the phoenix…it will BURN…sorry!

    • January 11th 2018 @ 6:46am
      jack said | January 11th 2018 @ 6:46am | ! Report

      yep good piece

    • January 11th 2018 @ 8:31am
      bluffboy said | January 11th 2018 @ 8:31am | ! Report

      Thanks Jack
      Yes, it sort of reeks of the same old, doesn’t it.
      Msssss Castle is looking like she may not be what we all hoped (given still too early to tell).
      Allowing the first act of 2018 to be spending money where there will be zero investment payback for the future of Australian Rugby.
      There were only 2 things for me that the sacking of a team might have been justifiable.
      1- To improve the financial situation of Rugby to allow the development of and up and comers (investing in the future).
      2- To strengthen the remaining sides to actually be competitive.

      Here is something for free for the board to consider.
      1- Forget “Rebranding”, if you call a cat a lion, it still a cat. The general Rugby populous is not stupid.
      2- Development/recruiting. ($$$$$)
      3- Grassroots’ Coaching and Referee’s ($$$$$)
      4- Unify the National Unions into a standardised skills-attach-defence program. (Good luck with that one, but necessary going forward).
      None of the above has happened to a significant enough degree to have any recognisable improvement. (That I know of)
      Lastly where do we go if there is no major improvement for competitiveness………
      Increasing roosters, really, great for injuries, but how does that help the development, team momentum and match fitness of individual of players.

      • Roar Rookie

        January 11th 2018 @ 10:51am
        ChrisG said | January 11th 2018 @ 10:51am | ! Report

        Msssss Castle is looking like she may not be what we all hoped (given still too early to tell).
        … and what are you basing that on? Has she even started yet?

        Dumb comment.

        • January 11th 2018 @ 11:23am
          Jimbo81 said | January 11th 2018 @ 11:23am | ! Report

          That’s much worse – that’s the board spending any funds Castle may have had to work with ahead of her start – what does this say about the board’s faith in the incoming CEO? If she’s not employed by the Bulldogs anymore and about to start, surely this decision would have had to have been made in conjunction with Castle?

        • Roar Rookie

          January 11th 2018 @ 11:53am
          piru said | January 11th 2018 @ 11:53am | ! Report

          You think she had no input in the CBA?

          • Roar Rookie

            January 11th 2018 @ 12:20pm
            ChrisG said | January 11th 2018 @ 12:20pm | ! Report

            I’m sure she had a look before it went out, however it’s on Pulver’s CV

            • January 11th 2018 @ 1:05pm
              bluffboy said | January 11th 2018 @ 1:05pm | ! Report

              And my dumb comment is based on that Mr G.
              I’m pretty sure even though she may not have started “officially”, she would be across what the board is implementing, wouldn’t you. IMO even though Pulver is there still it would foolish to suggest that she had no input.
              Bye the bye “I did say it is a bit early to tell”.
              I was merely suggesting she may not be able to control the board as we hoped.

              • January 12th 2018 @ 10:01am
                Uncle Eric said | January 12th 2018 @ 10:01am | ! Report

                All well and good Bluffboy, but the CEO is there to do the Board’s bidding, provide advice and then implement the Board’s decision. In and of itself, it suggests that Ms Castle’s influence will not be great. The CEO is not the problem it’s the personnel on the Board.

        • January 16th 2018 @ 5:58am
          Ex force fan said | January 16th 2018 @ 5:58am | ! Report

          Chris, her comment that she will visit Perth for two days to “really engage” with the community and then in the same breath state that “she was not part of the Force decision and expect WA to draw a line and move on”. She is not interested to really engage, she is coming to Perth not to listen to the community but to tell WA to suck it up! That is Pulver and Cly e in a dress. No change and another tumultuous 2018 is on the way with ARU/RA clearly on a path to split up.

    • January 11th 2018 @ 9:09am
      Red Block said | January 11th 2018 @ 9:09am | ! Report

      So lets say that each squad has been able to increase their size by 5 players. A total of 5 x 4 = 20 new players. But RA (sorry ARU) have just cut close to 30 players from a club to cut costs of apparently about $5 million a year.

      Now I’m definitely no Einstein but all that has effectively been done is equivalent to 2 players from the original squads of 5 being cut. So effectively, in a cost saving measure a pool of say 150 professional players has been to cut to…wait for it, a 140.

      Huh?

      So lets assume that the average wage for a SR player is $100K, well $100K x 10 = $1 million. But there is still a shortfall of about $4 million a year.

      No Twiggy! We definitely don’t need a $50 million injection.

      • January 11th 2018 @ 12:07pm
        Boris said | January 11th 2018 @ 12:07pm | ! Report

        Nah mate AR say it’s much more complex than that. The plebs wouldn’t understand so AR just keep them in the dark and press forward.

      • January 11th 2018 @ 3:18pm
        Ian said | January 11th 2018 @ 3:18pm | ! Report

        AND….5 more players per team being paid NOT to play Super Rugby!

        I would vote for Homer Simpson to be on the ARU…sorry, RA Board but it looks like he’s already there.

      • January 11th 2018 @ 7:33pm
        Mmmmm..k said | January 11th 2018 @ 7:33pm | ! Report

        Are player wages the only cost in a Super Rugby team?

    • January 11th 2018 @ 9:11am
      Jimbo81 said | January 11th 2018 @ 9:11am | ! Report

      So Raelene’s first act as CEO is to play the gender card silence the critics about her appointment given her non-rugby background, lack of performance at the bulldogs (1st to 13th) and overt Allblacks fan #1. Her very next move is to spend all the money saved from the force on increasing player payments.

      Wasn’t that cash supposed to go to grassroots?

      The two ideas I have that would save Rugby in Australia:

      1. Re-write the charter (may as well with the re-brand) so that Rugby can develop alternative revenue streams – invest in assets that generate income rather than just a TV deal – that way you may one day compete with France, UK, Japanese money for players. They make $120M in revenue and have $5M in assets. That seems to me to be like the middle manager earning $120k a year but spending every cent on booze, food and rent. Given the financial advantages that Australia has over NZ – I can’t understand why our rugby scene is so poor – given time and the right investments, we should have the cash to buy the Allblacks first and second XV, rendering them ineligible and then we can thrash them every year in the Bledisloe.

      2. Build a schoolboy competition from under 9’s to under 19’s where clubs, TAS, GPS and State schools are included and play together, and make the schoolboy season 15+ games long rather than 8 games so that the kiwi schoolboy rugby player doesn’t emerge at 18 with already double the rugby experience as his Aussie counterpart. GPS can keep their precious GPS championship if they want but that competition exists within a wider national competition – no more kids getting dropped from the A/B squad is they refuse to quit playing for their club.

      • Roar Rookie

        January 11th 2018 @ 11:00am
        ChrisG said | January 11th 2018 @ 11:00am | ! Report

        So Raelene’s first act as CEO is to play the gender card Maybe you should watch the video at the top instead of launching into “lets blame Castle”. To save you the time it was Bill Pulver (who is still CEO) making the announcement. Looks like you can’t add that one to her resume yet.

        Another dumb comment

      • January 11th 2018 @ 1:20pm
        bluffboy said | January 11th 2018 @ 1:20pm | ! Report

        I think Jim is raising the question that it may be possible, that Raelene could be of the same mind set as this current board and willing to fall into line. I think we could all agree that the money would have been better spent. Regardless it will be interesting on her reacting and to see what her next step is with the grassroots development, that is if there is anything left.
        Let me beat you to it…..Another Dumb Comment.

      • Roar Guru

        January 12th 2018 @ 9:56am
        Wal said | January 12th 2018 @ 9:56am | ! Report

        They make $120M in revenue and have $5M in assets. That seems to me to be like the middle manager earning $120k a year but spending every cent on booze, food and rent. Given the financial advantages that Australia has over NZ

        Its all about brand value, NZRU makes $160mill a year, most of the difference is sponsorship of $55mill vs RA $27mill.

        As for assest Current Assets @ NZRU is $147mill ($85 cash) v RA $34mill ($13 Cash)

    Explore:
    , ,