Where’s Andy Marinos in this ….. Is there YET another egotistical cockup brewing in RA ……. And the losers are ……. YEP !!
Printable View
Where’s Andy Marinos in this ….. Is there YET another egotistical cockup brewing in RA ……. And the losers are ……. YEP !!
Let's not get carried away too soon here. This is obviously a play to earn a better dividend from broadcast rights. Probably not an equal share. Just a better one. I'd expect nothing less. The most inflammatory comments in that video were from (no surprise) John Kirwan who said (paraphrasing) look at the NRL & the AFL; they are thriving, the NRL is fantastic.....they (RA) are struggling now - to get back where they need to be.....so, what they want some of OUR money (Sky TV)? Don't they need to do their own TV deal?
Basically he and his mates are outraged that RA has the gall to challenge the NZRU; obviously blind to the years of arrogance from their side of the ditch. They were quite happy for a form of "dividend equalisation" to operate right through the period when the bulk of telecast money was chipped in from ZA. But not now; despite (sort of) acknowledging the difficulties in the Oz sports market. And despite their pleas of "needing to grow together". I think a lot of them just don't really grasp that the NZ sporting landscape is the exception rather than the rule. Or they are still shitty about JON (and probably Wayne Barnes :)).
Honestly, I hope the Japanese are watching closely, taking notes, and similarly insist on separate broadcast deals in any future involvement. Would have made a massive difference to the Sunwolves, so if the rules have changed, hope they insist on a 'sauce for the goose' approach from here on...
The obvious and immediate rebuttal to Sir John would be,
yes but the AFL and the NRL both run domestic only competitions, that's why RA are looking to match that model.
and to not acknowledge that NZRU were quite happy to take their fair share of the Rand on offer indicates just how fair an even handed the comment is.
Not sure if this is the correct thread.
Money is needed to run any sports enterprise in todays cut throat world with tons of content out there.
We are blessed to have Philanthropists like Nicola and Andrew Forrest to help us start again.
If ARU thinks that getting private investment and "gaslighting" people into believing just how good they are and that investments will just be rolling in they are kidding themselves.
Private investment is frought with danger, just look at the Perth Wildcats current situation.
Run as a philanthropists (The Late Jack Bendat) project, they had a great culture, an incredible finals history and were the pride of Perth. Now within a year of getting a private investment (non Perth based), they miss their first finals, lose their CEO and today the coach of one year resigns.
Careful what you wish for........
Out of Curiosity.
Who believes that we would have a better comp without the Kiwi Teams?
Can we set up this thread with a Poll?
TG or Darren- or the Thread Author Todd4?
Maybe need a definition of 'better'...
If RA have their way, we may also need a confirmed definition of 'competition'
As I see the problem: We don't want less than 5 teams. It is not in our interests to have less. New Zealand doesn't want more than 5. It might not be commercially viable (who knows). Australia with 5 teams in the current climate is always likely to struggle against NZ with 5 teams. There aren't the structures in place (e.g. NRC) to change that any time soon. So, Super Rugby with NZ is a competition but it isn't a COMPETITION. That's not sustainable and would do more to harm us than going it alone. Maybe threatening to do that will net concessions from NZ to make things work- even if just one more NZ team to spread their talent a bit.
Whatever happened to all the revenue sharing that NZ wanted from the European unions from All Black test matches played over there? Did that ever come to fruition?
It seems like the ugg boot is on the other foot
Fuxed.
Attachment 5896
get in behind!
https://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/...-mclennan-says
He makes some good points about NZ blowing up when they only wanted a two year deal with us anyway. Is RA supposed to wait for NZ to say whether they want to renew or change it before they are allowed to look at options?