0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
All those papers have said publicly that the Force were the ones on the chopping block. But I have not seen any of them claiming that it was because News Ltd demanded it be the Force. That is what you are saying. You may be right but if you are almost all their employees except for Payton and Pandarum are not toeing the company line.
Go back and have a look at what the News ltd papers were saying BEFORE the SANZAAR meet. They were reporting one franchise would be cut when ARU was saying no decision had been made, and reporting that team was to be the Force, and the broadcaster favoured an all east coast comp.
It's the reason the ARU are saying they "now" have the option to cut a team aside from vetoing the expansion in 2015.
It's the reason Cox was told he was safe.
It's the reason the ARU reps came to WA to tell RWA Force were going - uncovering the "assessment" as being bogus
It's the reason News/Fox have been breaking everything
It'd the reason the ARU can't make the easiest decision in the history of Oz rugby - to bone the team that bleeds $, can't sell tix or memberships, can't sell sponsorships and has cost $30 mil in 6ys vs a side that comes from a state with the third highest participation in the country, that has only had money issues ONCE in 11 years (Force has best finance record of ALL the franchises)
And it's the reason the ARU are now stuck like a dear in headlights unable to do anything - can't axe a team if the broadcaster doesn't agree to pay the same fees (remember changes to the agreement, including dropping a side, must FIRST be approved by the broadcaster)
No one at at HQ has been leaking, it's just News ltd talking to themselves.
There has to be some reason why the ARU are so inflexible on the future of the force. To this point I've not heard many sensible optionals.
1 fox want an all Es comp to save costs
2 NSW powerbrokers are scared about the possibility that WA rugby will overtake NSW as the country's powerhouse
3 they're sick of throwing good money after bad in supporting an isolated franchise with little chances of growth
4 rugby WA hasn't been performing to expectations on the field
I think that rounds up all the reasons I've heard touted around the issue.
Of those 4, which makes the most actual sense?
C'mon the![]()
![]()
Ps #bringiton
C'mon the![]()
![]()
http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_...ugby-franchise
This article suggests Fox were pressured into the amended broadcast deal after telling the ARU they wanted to keep five.
Pandarams source is the now famous ARU "secret document". Again nothing about Foxsports are out to bone the Force.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...0f21ec0682f371
And as I said earlier, the accounts appear to me to show that the only financial "propping up" (to use Clyne's terminology) of the Force that the ARU has ever done is to BUY our IP and licence in 2016. Every other payment to us has been on exactly the same basis as every other franchise, except the Rebels......
The transfer of the Melbourne Rugby Union Ltd company to Cox for "no consideration", the writing off of $13million in loans just before the transfer and the "special agreement" to give the Melbourne Rugby Union Ltd company an extra $2.6million as part of the transfer agreement 'just because' is the real story here, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE APPALLING RETURN THE ARU IS GETTING FOR ALL THAT MONEY IN TERMS OF HOW THE REBELS ARE PERFORMING.
All we need is someone with some influence to blow that story right open. Unfortunately though, the story doesn't suit the agenda of most rugby pundits so it's an uphill battle.
Last edited by Alison; 30-04-17 at 17:39.
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
As I said elsewhere Alison....where in those 2016 accounts does it detail the INCOME that the ARU had as part of the ownership of the Force eg Memberships we all paid prior to 31/12/16 and sponsorships?
Dear Alison
You are very much correct with your analysis. In short $28m broken down as $20m to the Rebels, $3m to the Force and $5m to Reds Waratahs and Brums....
Even if the Force were ditched there is no obvious plan for the ongoing losses in Melbourne to turn around. Compare that with the Force's hard work to generate a $6m sponsorship deal to 2020 and the Own the Force campaign.
Importantly and without any detailed analysis many pundits say the Force have failed because they have never made the finals. This is where the $30m in wallaby top ups have frustrated any chance of the Force being able to compete on a level playing field. The Reds, Brums and Waratahs have consistently had between $1m and $2m a year in player salary more than the Force.
Nevertheless the Force has gone out to find local/young players and develop them into elite rugby players. Every time these fine young players have gone out on the paddock for the Force they have been playing with the deck stacked against them. I think they have done extraordinary when considering the financial imbalance in which the Force are a $4m team consistently playing against $5-6m teams in the Australian Conference.
$30m in Wallaby top ups plus $20m to the Rebels and another $5m to the Reds Waratahs and Brums. $55m divide by 4 = $13.75m on average additional support which compares with $3m to the Force.
Does the Force even get any concession at all to go out and sign young WA RL prospects with the intention of bringing them into Future Force or the EPS? I thought there was once a concession in place from the ARU in order to "convert" leaguies who had potential to adapt to union, or "reconvert" leaguies who had been union players before?
Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!
Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?
A "cross coders" salary (or part thereof) does not go into the cap, "The Izzy Rule", bought in the same time as the "Giteau 60 Match Rule".
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
How the hell does Cox want to keep funding a club going nowhere? Wouldn't it be more prudent for the long term business case to pay him out now.
I suspect that's his game plan: use the current situation to maximise his exit value.