0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
no mate, if im not getting paid im not listening to the same old rants
this thread is about the ARC no?
The AUSTRALIAN RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP, why wolud you want to become a hangeron to NZRU?
the simple fact is more teams = More debt ther fore as NSWRU had the most teams they in all fairness will have a larger chunk of losses
why would we think you were Peth Bashing?
how about you take your own advice and and if you dont want to see the Force/Spirit/RWA moving forward take you opinions back to canada as this is the Western Force SUPPORTERS Site
Last edited by RuckNMaul; 13-08-08 at 10:42. Reason: waratah jesus said to
<>
ah Phil Gould ... bee sting face. can't stand the bastard.
I hear what you're saying, and maybe I've just been brainwashed by his incessant rantings, but this:
will always look way better and create more of a sense of 'I want to go next time' than an empty stadium. I'm starting to think the more seats available to a crowd, the more they spread out, and the less atmosphere there is. Conversely, the more you pack people in and limit the seating, coupled with a highly entertaining game (and I believe the ARC games were very entertaining), the more atmosphere you have. While the ARC were wise to keep all the fans on one side of the stadium (thus packing them together), they were on the wrong side, so the cameras were looking at the empty side.
(I also realise that this would either mean having the cameras pointing into the sun which gives terrible exposures, or having the crowd sit on the sunny side and spend the arvo shielding their eyes and getting sunburnt. Hence why I'm in agreement with the smaller stadium theory.)
It's really all about creating repeat sales. Give people one really great day at the rugby and they'll look forward to going to the next game.
Bee sting face, love that one...
What about Lauries snoz, it looks smaller than it used to...
Proudly bought to you by a brewery somewhere....
haha, Laurie growing his fringe long to hide his receeding hairline is pretty funny too.
hangeron? i think i was supporting the idea of merging it with the nzru to become a more viable competition! less teams in nz + teams from australia = biggers supporter base =more money, its not freakin rocket science!
i do wanna see rugby in the country move forward, thats why im saying maybe we should get the comp going strong and then include perth (&melbourne) when the comp becomes more viable, just like the afl did, just like the nrl are doing (& tried to do in perth), it makes sense to have a structure to build on rather than just throw something out there!
just because perth exists doesnt mean its the greatest thing for rugby in australia, its the greatest thing for rugby in perth (and perth deserves to have a team) but to say not including perth in third string comp is anti australian rugby is a very stringy argument, they need to be included but not including perth (& melbourne) will greatly reduce start up costs and allow for a competition to get off the ground! thats my opinion!
i will head back to canada were people with there own agenda dont have inflated egos of there own time! (congrats on having a job mate, im sure the whole family is proud of you!)
(and please edit or delete your swearing, kids read these boards! its offensive!!!)
I'm not convinced that it should make money. The Sheffield Shield runs at a huge loss, they have a few hundred people show up over 5 days of cricket yet Cricket Australia realise that there's more to feeder competitions than profit. By continuing to run a strong domestic comp, they have kept the National team strong who have in turn generated revenue to fund the lower levels.
I don't see why rugby should be different. Take a hit at ARC and club level and pay for it with revenue from the Super14/International money spinners.
Shield games are 4 days not 5, only the final is 5 days. The domestic comp has been further subsidised by Foxsports purchasing the tv rights to it. I'm not saying that the price they paid for them is comparable to the AFL or NRL, but it brings more money to Cricket and apparently rates fairly well.
Unfortunately the ARU by cancelling the ARC indicated it wasn't willing to cop it on the chin financially. They should have expected bigger loses in the "start up" phase of the comp?
That or the idea never ocurred to them.
Was foxsports not intested in the ARC or did they deliberately sell them to the ABC??
Posted via Mobile Device
Or at least that's what they told us, the sheer mishandling of the whole comp points more towards an attitude of jealousy by O'Neill that it wasn't his brilliant idea to start up a provincial comp, because we all know how he likes to be seen as the brilliant messiah behind the ARU.
You want facts and figures Moses & Waratahjesus: Well this was of great difficulty to find, it took me a whole 2 minutes!
Analysis:
Australian Rugby - Annual Report 2007
It states the ARC had a budgeted deficit of $2.6million and a reported deficit of $8.4million
Report:
http://www.rugby.com.au/AnnualReport...ial-Report.pdf
The ARC had an operating expenditure of $5,484,000
There was a provision of $2,649,000 for the ARC as a doubtful debt on page 19 which (if I'm reding it correctly) states that there are loans to be repayed by QRU***, South Australia RU, ACT Rugby Union, New South Wales Rugby Union***, Northern Territory Rugby Union, Tasmanian Rugby Union & Victorian Rugby Union***
***During 2007 the Company established the Australian Rugby Championships. The Company provided interest free loans of $2,649,000 to participating Unions where required and has provided against these loans.
You're right on the 4 day for normal games, still if a rugby game needs a ground for 3 hours and the cricket needs it for 36 there's going to be greater costs.
Foxsports only show the Shield Final and the One Day/T20 comps. The only coverage of the Sheffield Shield is an update every few overs on cricket.com.au
The twf posters are the ones bringing up figures as some sort of proof of NSW ineptitude, the burden of proof is on them, not WJ and myself who have been trying to discuss a 3rd tier of rugby in this country.
Seems strange they'd give money to Tasmania, NT and SA who didn't have teams and omit WA who did have a team!
This is true, but it is you and Moses who keep bringing it all up over and over again and keep this arguement going for days, yet dont bother to find any actual figures to give your arguement credit. The people who say "believe me" in this thread should be believed.
As there is no RugbyWA financial report for 2007 available yet, all figures have to be based on the 2007 ARU report.
the whole fingerpointing /who spent the most argument would be better off forgotten and as i posted yesterday how about we look at positives from the ARC and how we would imagine a national comp taking form in Australia
eg;
2009:
1) Merge NSW and QLD comps as these are obviously the strongest club comps in the nation
2) More games between the existing franchises and acadamies as curtin raisers post S14/pre 3N
2010
1) Introduction of RWA and ACTRU Academy sides to comp derived from NSWRU/QRU Merger
any suggestions?
<>
I'm well aware of what cricket they show, or by heading down to the ground for those Shield updates.
I'm not familiar with the costs of the grounds, i know that the WACA is actually owned by the WA Cricket Association. Obviously any ground costs are met with the money handed out from Cricket Australia though
The ARU were too quick to can the ARC, and i reckon the whole John O'Neil vs Gary Flowers thing didn't help. I agree with your earlier point that the national body should have made their money on the Super/International rights to fund a national comp like the ARC. If Cricket can do it, why can't Rugby??
Posted via Mobile Device