1
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Ladies and Gents its not about team strength, roster depth or viewer numbers or any other furphy, they are all the kansas city shuffle
Its all about how to carve up the pie, dishing up some of said pie to the Tahrds and some in the trough for snout of shite shield clubs
Lets hope the pie is a dish best served cold
The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor
Until 2020 when the new broadcast deal offers the ARU a far smaller pie
C'mon the![]()
![]()
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/04/30...omment-5650931
Feel free to add your two bobs worth if you feel so inclined![]()
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
I think I was answering a post about the oft quoted "free market system" "let the market decide" b/s that regularly gets spouted.
... if there was a free market operating...(happy to repeat), there are around 6 "financial" teams in AFL, and around the same number in ARL.
I didn't say the ARL or AFL will shrink - at any time, place or paragraph. Didn't say any players will go anywhere.
ARL and AFL pay "huge" subsidies, as long as you have a willing manangement and loads of $$$ coming from those "financial" teams
to the less able, then everything is tickety boo. SANZAR has decreed it is not, so has the ARU.
If a free market decided, most rugby would be metro comps, and if things continue we're edging our way there.
Well that explains your thinking a little better. But I would say a statement that AFL down from 18 to 6 and NRL from 16 to 6 is the definition of shrinking even if you didn't actually use the word.
Pay TV is one component of the free market in any event and I think the NRL runs in an almost free market now. They have a salary cap but market factors like location and availability of sponsor dollars still determine the haves and have nots. Not the governing body. Players are free to play wherever they like too. But that is also influenced by the market - who's the coach , what facilities can he offer the players.
I'd be surprised if both the Tahs and Reds hadn't added their name to the list of franchises chasing Dave Wessels should the ARU be successful in killing the Force.
Rebels too for that matter, they probably aren't thinking that way right now because they have to survive the slaughter first.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
We had this conversation around the board game table last night.
Here's the thing. The bucket of money that drives the competition is still there. Yes i know most of it is in South Africa, but enough of them like to see other people play their teams (demand). But a bundle of rules and interference choke it's flow. Not to mention the skimming that happens in transit. A free market allows demand to drive who gets what. Something which is actually pretty much unheard of in this day and age where billion dollar coal mines can't operate without hundreds of millions of govt' dollars gifted to them. But I digress.
People will always want to watch sport. So the money is there. But the conduit is choked with vested interests and politics. The comments above about how many AFL and NRL teams are financially viable are spot on. Once again, something caused by vested interests meddling in a system that should be allowed to find it's own level.
History has shown us that meddling/moderation is actually needed in some essential areas of the community to stop costs/profiteering spiralling upwards out of control. Health and education come to mind. But the consumer discretionary space should be left for demand to decide.. Totally.. Sport is consumer discretionary.
If this were the case, demand would dictate whether we have a team, not pollitics. I think we would.
cheers auss...
fabricarti diem punc
The most successful sporting organisations in the world are those in which the participant clubs drive the competition and set the agenda of the parent body eg the English soccer system where a revolt by the top clubs turned the system on its head and the Football League was disempowered and the Premier League appeared and went from strength to strength.
In Australian rugby the Super Franchises have virtually no say in the running of Super rugby and are tightly controlled by the ARU. The consequence is that Super rugby will continue to founder until there is a significant restructure. The ARU has a relatively weak and unpowerful "ownership" base. Compare to the American sports system in which the team owners group are all powerfull and control the game and its development. English and French rugby are now very much down that path of the clubs having control and a powerful group of owners. Look how the ARU is running scared of the privately owned Rebels.
It just blows me away that the ARU can go off to a meeting in London and decide the fate of a club without feeling any need or obligation to consult with the Five Super teams before doing that and are virtually completely unaccountable.
Agree with you 100% Political BS.
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby