which Australian Superside will/should get dropped?

[mania]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...cull-heads-to-arbitration-as-process-drags-on

so its not the team that deserves to go but the team that ARU think they can bully out of the comp.
does anyone else feel that aus should get kicked out if they cant sort their sht out?
i mean SA with all its political minefields still managed to be smart and creative with their cull. id even say brilliant.
where as the ARU are just sitting on their hands doing nothing.
if they come back to sanzaar saying they cant do it then its not that big a loss that they get kicked out? i mean quality of rugby from aus is so low.

it would mean a super 13 and you could easily go back to full round robins

 

[smartcooky]

Sounds like they are still gunning for the Force.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/aru-and-western-force-start-arbitration/

I think you'll find its the Force gunning for the ARU. They seem to be the ones that have dragged the ARU to arbitration.

I hope the Force doesn't get cut. They are definitely a better prospect for marketing their game in WA than the Rebels are in Victoria.

In Pro football codes in WA, there are only two AFL clubs (the Freemantle Dockers and the West Coast Eagles), and one Football club (Perth Glory). RL is only played at amateur level. This makes Rugby Union the third biggest football code in WA.

Compare that with Victoria, where they have to compete for the punter's entertainment dollar with one NRL club (Melbourne Storm), two A-League Football Clubs (Melbourne Victory and Melbourne City) and ten AFL Clubs (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs and Geelong. And that doesn't take into account the VFL (the second tier competition) which has teams such as Footscray, Port Melbourne and Sandringham, all of which have big followings. In Victoria, Super Rugby is a distant fifth behind AFl, VFL, A-League and NRL. Just to give you and idea of what Union is up against with AFL, the opening round of nine games in the AFL this season drew a total attendance of over 400,000 (average about 44,500 per game) Rebels would be lucky to draw that number over their first five games of the season.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

In fairness to fhe ARU they didn't have an opfion like SARU had with the Pro12. It's quite fortunate timing for the SARU as it is on in the last 12 months the Pro12 has aggressively been chasing expansion.

 

[mania]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/08/02/cant-wallabies-play-super-rugby-kiwi-teams/

another article where aus expects NZ to fix up their poor rugby for them.
cant aus take ownership of their issues and fix them?
in all this nothing is ever mentioned of how bad their grassroots is.
the secret to NZ rugby is our grassroots and the fact that we embrace all of society to play it. thats how we're able to compete with other countries that have far more numbers. not only do we have all of our society involved also we've developed a philosophy that encourages "fun" rugby. we as a small country cant afford for rugby not to be enjoyable.

 

[Brigantine]

There is still the option of splitting SR vertically, if Aussie can't fill their end of the "Super 15" bargain.

Elite Division: Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders, Jaguares, Stormers, Lions, Bulls, Sharks
First Division: Sunwolves, Blues, Highlanders, Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies, Rebels, Force

Simple 14-game H&A round robins, with maybe 3 inter-division friendlies thrown in. First division has their own semis and finals.

Aussie gets their pacific comp, Saffas get their "best of the best" comp and less travelling, fans get games that are more competitive...

But this is practically the same thing I proposed before.

 

[mania]

There is still the option of splitting SR vertically, if Aussie can't fill their end of the "Super 15" bargain..

how bout losing the aus teams all together?
then we have a super13. and can have complete round robins vs everyone.
are we really losing anything without aus involved?
imo aus need to be cut off because theyre doing nothing to improve their rugby. this continuing demise is just gonna get get worse and it'll bring down the perceived value of super rugby.
Super is a product sort by rugby pundits across the world. aus are ruining our product .
also its not good for NZ to be playing aus. it gives us a misplaced sense of achievement . no one benefits. aus get a hiding and all the stress associated with getting a hiding, NZ dont get to improve because theyre playing a sub par team.
i honestly feel that threatening ARU with exclusion is the way to go, otherwise this demise will just continue for the next 10-20 years. kicking them out all together is a last resort but one that sanzar should seriously consider.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Black and yellow hoops correct. Up until a couple of years ago they represented the Hurricanes, but they now represent the Chiefs. Most of the Taranaki boys still play for the Canes though.

It's about an even split now, isn't it?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

The latest Wallabies squad contains debuts for:

3x Reds
2x Rebels
2x Force

No new Waratahs or Brumbies.

Totals in squad are:

5x Rebels
6x Brumbies
6x Force

So not only do the Brumbies get the smallest crowds of the three sides despite having the most "success", they don't contribute any more talent to the national side than the other two and are starting to become less productive than the other two in cultivating top talent for the Wallabies. They are also based in a far, far smaller city (as said previously).

I appreciate they are the most historied of the three sides but there is no room for sentiment in this decision. The fact that their name has been omitted from the decision making process screams to me of vested interest and favouritism. Are there a few Brumbies old boys in senior positions in the union? Or do the Brumbies have the support of the biggest financial sponsor?

 

[unrated]

Last in first out. That's how I feel. Saru did it with the Cheetahs and Kings. And most professional business practices do this when they retrench people.
The rebels should be out. Brumbies need to stay. It's always a heck of a game trying to beat them in Australia. I have no doubt that long term the Brumbies will be more successful than the Rebels.

 

[Car]

The Rebels are now owned by the VRU:
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/08/04/10/54/rebels-vru-sale

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Crivens, you need a law degree to follow what is going on with either the Rebels or the Force. Glad to see the word "merger" in that link Car. Keeping the dream of Melbourne Brumbies alive (albeit on life support, and no offence to rugby fans in Canberra).

Last in first out. That's how I feel. Saru did it with the Cheetahs and Kings. And most professional business practices do this when they retrench people.
The rebels should be out. Brumbies need to stay. It's always a heck of a game trying to beat them in Australia. I have no doubt that long term the Brumbies will be more successful than the Rebels.

If it was last in first out for the SARU then it would have been the Lions and Kings wouldn't it? I think they took the decision in terms of which two teams had the least financial clout.

And yeah, the Rebels were dire this year, but last year they got 7 wins (the Brumbies only mustered 6 this year). So I'd argue there isn't an in-built gulf in quality; particularly if the Rebels continue to create new Wallabies and the Brumbies don't.

 

[unrated]

Crivens, you need a law degree to follow what is going on with either the Rebels or the Force. Glad to see the word "merger" in that link Car. Keeping the dream of Melbourne Brumbies alive (albeit on life support, and no offence to rugby fans in Canberra).



If it was last in first out for the SARU then it would have been the Lions and Kings wouldn't it? I think they took the decision in terms of which two teams had the least financial clout.

And yeah, the Rebels were dire this year, but last year they got 7 wins (the Brumbies only mustered 6 this year). So I'd argue there isn't an in-built gulf in quality; particularly if the Rebels continue to create new Wallabies and the Brumbies don't.

No the lions was part of Super rugby many years before the Cheetahs joined. The Cheetahs only became a franchise in 2006.
The Lions merely left Super rugby for two years because of their bad performance and government calling for the inclusion of the Kings. Kings and Cheetahs are the youngest SA super rugby teams and thus not as established.

 

[BPM]

Crivens, you need a law degree to follow what is going on with either the Rebels or the Force. Glad to see the word "merger" in that link Car. Keeping the dream of Melbourne Brumbies alive (albeit on life support, and no offence to rugby fans in Canberra).



If it was last in first out for the SARU then it would have been the Lions and Kings wouldn't it? I think they took the decision in terms of which two teams had the least financial clout.

And yeah, the Rebels were dire this year, but last year they got 7 wins (the Brumbies only mustered 6 this year). So I'd argue there isn't an in-built gulf in quality; particularly if the Rebels continue to create new Wallabies and the Brumbies don't.

The problem with 'Melbourne Brumbies' would be a comparative lack of interest in Rugby Union in Victoria.