Why was the ARC canned?

[fulvio sammut]

And let's not hear the furphy that their overheads were "club rugby" expenses, please.

[waratahjesus]

i dont understand why you all posted figures, discussed them, stated you got a grant from the aru i only looked at the figures you posted, then discussed your point!

then NTT comes in says there wrong, these are the real figures from "someone who knows" then proceeds to delete said figures from the thread and just say he knows!

i saw a piece of paper that said the tahs are awesome, i agree with it totally and thought i would share it with you all cos i know you like to be reminded of the number one super rugby side in australia!

[travelling_gerry]

[NTT]

If WA club rugby got $2M out of RugbyWA this year then sure as hell Nedlands and Associates got $1,900,000 between them, because all the other clubs got was the over inflated premia paid on the virtually worthless insurance policy the ARU negotiated for each of them.

hahaha wouldnt surprise me, but like i said they put in $2mil of their cash and i cant tell you where it went or what it was used on as i havent read the report since november last year and the rugbywa site doesnt have it up for whatever reason.

[waratahjesus]

when you say there cash, was it cash they had raised themselves or part of an aru grant? just trying to catch up here?

[NTT]

i dont understand why you all posted figures, discussed them, stated you got a grant from the aru i only looked at the figures you posted, then discussed your point!

then NTT comes in says there wrong, these are the real figures from "someone who knows" then proceeds to delete said figures from the thread and just say he knows!

i saw a piece of paper that said the tahs are awesome, i agree with it totally and thought i would share it with you all cos i know you like to be reminded of the number one super rugby side in australia!

i deleted the figures because they were misleading to the argument. they were bailout loans not total funding.
the point you claim to be discussing is so far off the topic your lucky i respond at all.
but just for you.

the question was raised, what happened to the arc. i stated it was because of a loss the aru made. another post had a sly dig at the nswru. this all developed into figures being posted to support one argument then used to discredit another.
where im saying your logic is wrong is that you assume that the spirit had an operating turnover of $7mil. this occured because in a separate thread moses asked me to review this thread. so i did. TOCC posted figures stating that each of nsw and wa received $5mil and qld received $4.5mil to help run their super14 teams (player payments more specifically). also posted was that nswru and qld received $1.5mil to help fund the ARC. the money allocated to rugbywa has not been revealed so i cant speculate what the amount was. i then stated that rugbywa posted a small profit on the ARC even though exact figures hadnt been posted yet. i then stated that rugbywa put abouit $2mil of its own money into club rugby development in wa. as you may have noticed by now still no spirit operating figures have been posted.
you then rushed into the argument arse over tit and started to assume what you needed to hear to convince yourself you had an argument. go look at the post moses wrote that logically disputed my limited knowledge on the subject and i will stop disputing your verbal diorrhea. you may also be starting to realise why some twf members have negative feelings towards you. you post totally retarded arguments that constantly miss the topic.

but then again whatever gets you through the day i suppose ....

[NTT]

when you say there cash, was it cash they had raised themselves or part of an aru grant? just trying to catch up here?

you should be able to figure that out by now ...

[slomo]

when did TWF.com become a soap opera?......

[jono]

"like sands through the hourglass, this is the whole force"

"we now return to The Whole Force"

[waratahjesus]

i deleted the figures because they were misleading to the argument. they were bailout loans not total funding.
the point you claim to be discussing is so far off the topic your lucky i respond at all.
but just for you.

the question was raised, what happened to the arc. i stated it was because of a loss the aru made. another post had a sly dig at the nswru. this all developed into figures being posted to support one argument then used to discredit another.
where im saying your logic is wrong is that you assume that the spirit had an operating turnover of $7mil. this occured because in a separate thread moses asked me to review this thread. so i did. TOCC posted figures stating that each of nsw and wa received $5mil and qld received $4.5mil to help run their super14 teams (player payments more specifically). also posted was that nswru and qld received $1.5mil to help fund the ARC. the money allocated to rugbywa has not been revealed so i cant speculate what the amount was. i then stated that rugbywa posted a small profit on the ARC even though exact figures hadnt been posted yet. i then stated that rugbywa put abouit $2mil of its own money into club rugby development in wa. as you may have noticed by now still no spirit operating figures have been posted.
you then rushed into the argument arse over tit and started to assume what you needed to hear to convince yourself you had an argument. go look at the post moses wrote that logically disputed my limited knowledge on the subject and i will stop disputing your verbal diorrhea. you may also be starting to realise why some twf members have negative feelings towards you. you post totally retarded arguments that constantly miss the topic.

but then again whatever gets you through the day i suppose ....

i ousted the seven million in response to people saying nsw operated on 12 million, its the same back, the random figures and associated argument in this thread has been non existing in about five pages of drivel that was started by force fans!

to say the aru didnt give the spirit any money, then argue that greedy nsw clubs contributed to the comps downfall, as was the initial argument if im not mistaken is complete crap, as is stating that the spirit made a profit! its misleading, it wasa an aru competition, if rugby wa made a profit out of the spirit it doesnt represent the team as a whole and the money outlayed by the aru to get the comp going to begin with! (these arnt your arguments NTT, im not attacking anyone in perticular, its just what i read from this thread!, you have made arguments i agree with and ones i havnt, im not bashing!)

[NTT]

allright, good game. thankyou ballboys, thankyou referees.

Tahs suck ...

[shasta]

if you ever see or attend a Tigers game at Leichardt oval (I'm not a tigers fan, and I know most union fans hate NRL ... just get over it for a second), they have packed out crowds in a tiny stadium. They're the loudest fans around, so when you're there, the atmosphere is AWESOME, and on TV, it looks amazing.

But the bottom line is that those matches at Leichardt are to appease the die hard Balmain fans. Wests Tigers actually lose financially because of a lack of corporate interest when they play there according to CEO Steve Noyce. But, for the moment at least, they are willing to invest in this nostalgic trip back to the old trible days of the "Sydney comp" to keep the punters happy. If nothing else it allows Phil Gould to crap on about how much he loves Sunday afternoon at the footy.

I don't think venues made that much difference to the ARC. It would have lost wherever they played. Just maybe not quite so spectacularly. It didn't have that element of tribalism to get the fans along nor did it generate a lot of corporate dollars. Given the finances at the ARU they probably made the right call, much as I'd like it to be different. The cold facts are that the ARU are, along with the NRL, fighting to keep afloat in the competitive Australian sports market and fighting a second front to keep our best players here. Let's just move on, support and enjoy the Rugby and hope that those running the professional side of the game get it right and that our Super Rugby franchises, at least, can prosper.

[waratahjesus]

how was a semi professional competition featuring displaced players from the eastern seaboard and a few from perth going to make money?

it would make more sense for the comp to start on the east and then expand when it was financially viable? i know thats going to get written off as perth bashing, but including players from perth in a comp on the eastern seaboard would save a ton of money and tie down a support base on which to build, once you have the foundation in place then you expand to perth!

if your going to argue about whats best for rugby, then surely starting the comp out as something viable rather than something that had "anticipated loses" would have been a much better idea! i know most comps have upfront loses, but surely looking at the fact the national rugby league in a fully professional comp has failed to have a sustainable team in melbourne & perth illustrates the fact (as ive pointed out before) that these areas require a much stronger hold in traditional areas before expanding!

[RuckNMaul]

care to back it up with an opinion, or just clutching at straws?

sorry about missing two pages of regergitated crap last night but they stoped paying me at 5 so i went home.

also please forgive me if the idea of replacing the Australian Rugby Championship with a couple of token aussie teams going over to the ANZ cup sounds retarded to me but droping Perth from the equation will only give you more to whinge about in the future.

[waratahjesus]

what?
having teams in a competition with corperate and television backing is absolutely retarded, you are completely right there! how?

building the foundation for a league be it through an interstate club championship or by starting with teams on the east to cut costs and then building from there to include perth and other areas when (if) the competition becomes viable is good sense! starting up a comp that includes teams from all sides of the country when two of those teams are actually unable to provide strong development backing and increase costs for traveling etc by alot doesn't really compute!

its a pity they stop paying you at 5, maybe you can stay behind today and actually read my point of view before dismissing it as perth bashing!

if perth profits so much and is such a viable option why arnt the NRL there?

(im not trying to kick perth out, im just saying that maybe perths inclusion could wait a couple of ears for the benifit of australian rugby in the long run!)