Page 51 of 55 FirstFirst ... 41 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 814

Thread: Force set to be axed

  1. #751
    (formerly known as Coach) Your Humble Servant Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    14,040
    vCash
    5046000
    TWF Competition Winner! Dry July! MO-vember Donator TWF Contributor!
    Hahaha. Looking at Marlow's profile in LinkedIn - her previous post was .. "looking for amazing people to join our new Strategic Innovation team at Suncorp"

    Judging by the innovative way Marlow (CEO Strategic Innovation, Suncorp) has sought to fix the ARUs woes, I doubt she would know strategic innovation if it hit her in the face ..

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Dear Lord, if you give us back Johnny Cash, we'll give you Justin Bieber.

  2. #752
    Veteran sittingbison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Freo
    Posts
    2,790
    vCash
    5004000
    ...acknowledging my deep respect of you as an incredible leader and human...
    That's in the same vein as:
    ... The coach has the full backing of the board...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor

  3. #753
    Legend Contributor Alison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    6,923
    vCash
    5108000
    TWF Contributor!
    She and her ARU colleagues may well have spent millions bailing out super rugby teams, but their argument fell flat on its face and lost all credibility the moment they set down the path of culling the one team that has cost them the least and bending over backwards to keep the one team that has cost them the most, and by a country mile too.

    Sorry Pip, love, but your tongue is as forked as that of your illustrious leader and your illustrious colleagues on the current ARU Board.

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby

  4. #754
    Legend Court Reporter
    Contributor
    James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bridgetown, WA
    Posts
    5,860
    vCash
    5030000
    TWF Contributor! TWF Competition Runner Up!
    Rugby is a sport for all Australians, except Western ones.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

  5. #755
    Red Carded
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    gosnells
    Posts
    390
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by chibi View Post
    Garbage. The Kiwis wanted Australia AND South Africa to go back to four because they want less pathways for players in those countries to make it the top level; plus, losing Perth makes their travel schedule easier, but in turn, more difficult for the remaining four South African teams to tour. It's the same reasons they vetoed it in 2001; now they have their preferred scenario once again: less teams in South Africa with no convenient stop-over for them in Perth, and all Australian opposition within short flying distances to them on the eastern seaboard.
    Would you consider the kiwis to be bullies
    Should they have envoked the mercy rule and put the score in the books at 25-0
    I don't think the kiwis give a toss they are looking for a product that sells
    Aussie needs to allow at least 5 overseas players in per team to create a more competitive environment until there stocks are replenished
    Hope you don't feel bullied

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #756
    Veteran chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    2,731
    vCash
    5038000
    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    I don't think the kiwis give a toss they are looking for a product that sells
    That's incorrect, if so, they wouldn't have allowed for such a convoluted competition model. And remember, if they truly believed in the value of playing South African teams, then they wouldn't have signed off on a competition where they play them less.

    Unfortunately for them, the Kiwis know they are always in a precarious position. They have neither the financial clout nor money-generating populations of their two original SANZAR buddies, so they know very well that the only bargaining power they have is on the field. I would say that rather than looking for a product that sells, they are looking for a provincial and test competition where they can ensure they remain on top, which would give them leverage with the broadcasters looking to include the best teams and players. If South Africa and Australia dominated Super and test rugby, New Zealand know they would become the third cousin also-ran very quickly, eventually maybe bringing less to the table than Japan or Argentina. They have to ensure their prominent position on the playing side, it's an imperative. This resets back to what they wanted in 2001, while including the Asian and South American markets, without the burden of having those teams in their conference for home-and-away fixtures, unlike the Australian and South African conferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    Should they have envoked the mercy rule and put the score in the books at 25-0
    No way, NZ's basis for national self-esteem hinges on being able to stick it to their "big brother" in the one thing they do better than Australia. Just like the Canadians love beating the Yanks in ice hockey, even though the majority of Americans are uninterested. Can you remember the malaise that country went though during the Wallabies dominance period? Or when John Hart was in charge? It was palpable, they need this for now; especially with the uncertainty of the world at the current time, and political correctness, this is one of the few things they can unashamedly get behind. To take it away from them, like the Wallabies were doing in the 80s and 90s would be abject cruelty. It's not like they have cricket, basketball, netball or rugby league to fall back on at the moment either, Australia has advanced away from them at the moment. Australia are also on their way to becoming the best women's soccer team in the world, so that's another boon for Australia on the world stage that New Zealand could only watch with envy.

    Besides, we need a thumping like this to remind us of the shitty position Australian rugby is in; after all, we wouldn't want be complacent and get ambushed by a team we really hate, like England.

    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    Would you consider the kiwis to be bullies
    Ha ha haaa, not really bullies, more like crybullies. Similar thing, but involves sooking and whining to get your way, it started many years ago when Kevin Roberts was involved with NZ Rugby; after his bungling resulted in losing the 2003 RWC sub-hosting rights and then vetoing WA's entry into Super Rugby as retaliation; damaging irrevocably the relations between the ARU and NZRU. But as I just mentioned, you can't really blame New Zealand for this- they are in a precarious bargaining position, and rugby (especially as a way to one-up Australia) is intrinsic to their national self-image.

    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    Hope you don't feel bullied
    Ha ha haaa, I think that SARU and the ARU might be feeling that way and it's their own damn fault! But that's because the NZRFU are the most clever of the the three SANZAR originals. I think the ARU is the most inept, and it's playing into NZ's hands. It won't take much to turn Aussie rugby around, all it requires is an exciting product. We've seen that when the Reds won the title. The crowds will come. Now the Shute Shield has shown that you don't need the highest level of rugby to draw a crowd, just excitement and passion. This is something the ARU should take note of, just like the A-League or the NBL, decent rivalries and free-to-air coverage can trump not having the best players in the world if done right. Australia may not need to win at Super Rugby level for our domestic teams to have a following, we could go for a domestic competition instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    Aussie needs to allow at least 5 overseas players in per team to create a more competitive environment until there stocks are replenished
    That could be true, though you could also achieve something similar by opening up the salary cap and actively bringing in guys like Twiggy or whoever else to bring the European guys home, letting the investors pay the professionals. Still don't understand why the Rebels weren't allowed to hire whomever they wanted, that would have freed up players to other provinces and brought big-name guys down-under. This would increase our top quality player-pool and allow the ARU to divert it's funds to development instead. That would help the Wallabies in turn. Reducing the franchises just keeps the same player-pool split into four rather than five, it doesn't do anything to improve the Wallabies. Again, I put this down to the ineptitude of the ARU, who have the biggest potential markets in the original SANZAR, yet have done bugger-all with it.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by chibi; 22-08-17 at 01:57.


    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?

  7. #757
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    19,947
    vCash
    36000
    141 Club Award The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Rugby is a sport for all Australians, except Western ones.
    To be fair the ARU probably thinks the same about people in Western Sydney...

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #758
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    21,575
    vCash
    5000000
    MO-vember Donator Member of the Order of TWF TWF Contributor!
    Quote Originally Posted by chibi View Post
    ...though you could also achieve something similar by opening up the salary cap and actively bringing in guys like Twiggy or whoever else to bring the European guys home, letting the investors pay the professionals. ...
    I often wonder why this isn't discussed and proposed more often.
    We whinge about players going overseas to make more money but do nothing to find ways to pay them more here.
    Seems to come with a blanket concession of not enough money in Australia/Southern Hemisphere.
    There is no shortage of money out there, as the ARU will discover tomorrow, it just needs to be handled (sources) and structured (squads) the right way.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Bloody oath we did!"

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

  9. #759
    Veteran chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    2,731
    vCash
    5038000
    Well, if someone can pay Chabal to play subbies rugby union for Balmain, of all teams...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!


    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?

  10. #760
    Veteran sittingbison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Freo
    Posts
    2,790
    vCash
    5004000
    ....Still don't understand why the Rebels weren't allowed to hire whomever they wanted....
    They had TEN marquee spots available, could pay them whatever they asked for and only $100k each went against the cap. Strangely they only went $6m into debt, covered by the FUBARU of course. How they went another $8m or whatever ($13m??) in 2015 is beyond me. We were getting royally fucked over yet again with brain-dead dick and his crap signings, they graciously belatedly granted us a second marquee and a couple of "development" slots after losing Inman, Judas, and Pocock. Brache is the last of them I think.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor

  11. #761
    Red Carded
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    gosnells
    Posts
    390
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by chibi View Post
    That's incorrect, if so, they wouldn't have allowed for such a convoluted competition model. And remember, if they truly believed in the value of playing South African teams, then they wouldn't have signed off on a competition where they play them less.

    Unfortunately for them, the Kiwis know they are always in a precarious position. They have neither the financial clout nor money-generating populations of their two original SANZAR buddies, so they know very well that the only bargaining power they have is on the field. I would say that rather than looking for a product that sells, they are looking for a provincial and test competition where they can ensure they remain on top, which would give them leverage with the broadcasters looking to include the best teams and players. If South Africa and Australia dominated Super and test rugby, New Zealand know they would become the third cousin also-ran very quickly, eventually maybe bringing less to the table than Japan or Argentina. They have to ensure their prominent position on the playing side, it's an imperative. This resets back to what they wanted in 2001, while including the Asian and South American markets, without the burden of having those teams in their conference for home-and-away fixtures, unlike the Australian and South African conferences.

    No way, NZ's basis for national self-esteem hinges on being able to stick it to their "big brother" in the one thing they do better than Australia. Just like the Canadians love beating the Yanks in ice hockey, even though the majority of Americans are uninterested. Can you remember the malaise that country went though during the Wallabies dominance period? Or when John Hart was in charge? It was palpable, they need this for now; especially with the uncertainty of the world at the current time, and political correctness, this is one of the few things they can unashamedly get behind. To take it away from them, like the Wallabies were doing in the 80s and 90s would be abject cruelty. It's not like they have cricket, basketball, netball or rugby league to fall back on at the moment either, Australia has advanced away from them at the moment. Australia are also on their way to becoming the best women's soccer team in the world, so that's another boon for Australia on the world stage.

    Besides, we need a thumping like this to remind us of the shitty position Australian rugby is in; after all, we wouldn't want be complacent and get ambushed by a team we really hate, like England.

    Ha ha haaa, not really bullies, more like crybullies. Similar thing, but involves sooking and whining to get your way, it started many years ago when Kevin Roberts was involved with NZ Rugby; after his bungling resulted in losing the 2003 RWC sub-hosting rights and then vetoing WA's entry into Super Rugby as retaliation; damaging irrevocably the relations between the ARU and NZRU. But as I just mentioned, you can't really blame New Zealand for this- they are in a precarious bargaining position, and rugby (especially as a way to one-up Australia) is intrinsic to their national self-image.

    Ha ha haaa, I think that SARU and the ARU might be feeling that way and it's their own damn fault! But that's because the NZRFU are the most clever of the the three SANZAR originals. I think the ARU is the most inept, and it's playing into NZ's hands. It won't take much to turn Aussie rugby around, all it requires is an exciting product. We've seen that when the Reds won the title. The crowds will come. Now the Shute Shield has shown that you don't need the highest level of rugby to draw a crowd, just excitement and passion. This is something the ARU should take note of, just like the A-League or the NBL, decent rivalries and free-to-air coverage can trump not having the best players in the world if done right. Australia may not need to win at Super Rugby level for our domestic teams to have a following, we could go for a domestic competition instead.

    That could be true, though you could also achieve something similar by opening up the salary cap and actively bringing in guys like Twiggy or whoever else to bring the European guys home, letting the investors pay the professionals. Still don't understand why the Rebels weren't allowed to hire whomever they wanted, that would have freed up players to other provinces and brought big-name guys down-under. This would increase our top quality player-pool and allow the ARU to divert it's funds to development instead. That would help the Wallabies in turn. Reducing the franchises just keeps the same player-pool split into four rather than five, it doesn't do anything to improve the Wallabies. Again, I put this down to the ineptitude of the ARU, who have the biggest potential markets in the original SANZAR, yet have done bugger-all with it.
    Was it the kiwis that sat at the table and said we can support 5 teams
    The ARU and the SARFU presented there case figures and all to want the growth and the ability to support it
    The vote to stop something has to be unanimous to implement or stop something
    So the kiwis decided to undermine the competition by getting better and beating the pants off everyone
    The fault lies at the home unions and the saffas have worked out if we can't beat them we will leave thinking outside the square but nether the less a good plan and outcome for SA rugby
    The ARU have knifed there own have had no plan but to undermine there own and you blame the SA and kiwis
    The rubbish is right here don't look anywhere else as the saga rolls on with an outcome that will keep the ARU in the dark ages which ever way the decision goes

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #762
    Legend Contributor Alison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    6,923
    vCash
    5108000
    TWF Contributor!
    It's "their", not "there".

    And "nevertheless" not "nether the less".

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby

  13. #763
    Veteran sittingbison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Freo
    Posts
    2,790
    vCash
    5004000
    They're

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor

  14. #764
    Veteran chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    2,731
    vCash
    5038000
    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    The ARU have knifed there own have had no plan but to undermine there own and you blame the SA and kiwis
    Actually sevenmile, if you read what I wrote, I blame the ineptitude of the ARU. Ineptitude in that they have buggered up the game here, ineptitude in that they have allowed the interests of SARU and the NZRU to get in the way of what was good for Australian rugby and SANZAR as a whole. They have been inept at home and inept with their SANZAR partners.

    New Zealand are not inept, they are clever. They have redistributed talent in their franchises to ensure that all five have now won a title, so none can ever be cut. Remember, it was only in the early 2000s, without a RWC win since 1987, that people were calling for the Chiefs and/or Highlanders to be cut. New Zealand have rectified this. Australia and South Africa should have done the same, they should have brought in more third-party payments to fund their teams or used a draft or centralised model, but they didn't, they were inept, New Zealand wasn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    So the kiwis decided to undermine the competition...
    I don't think the answer to that is a yes, but it's not a definite no either. The real answer, is that the three SANZAR originals have been busy undermining each other. The intent of SANZAR originally was to head off the threat of Super League and then later, to maintain Southern Hemisphere interests once Europe's clubs began to rise. United as one, the three most powerful rugby nations would be formidable; but has since degenerated into infighting and ruinous self-interest.
    -When Australia asked that the geographical monikers be retained on Super Rugby teams as it was essential to their marketing of the game in this country, New Zealand and South Africa abandoned them.
    -Subsequently, when Kevin Robert's and New Zealand's bungling lost the 2003 RWC sub-hosting rights, the NZ rugby fraternity, press and public rabidly blamed Australia and John O'Neill, instead of pointing the finger at themselves.
    -In retaliation, when New Zealand could have allowed WA into Super Rugby when the game was riding high here in Australia, they didn't, they vetoed it. Instead, they continually baited the stupid inept ARU into trying to create a costly national competition, which was unnecessary at the time; so Australia planned the Super 8's, but New Zealand vetoed the Pacific Island participation, as it "was not in the IRB's interest to fund an Australian domestic competition."
    -In return, Australia have voted against New Zealand hosting the 2011 RWC, in favour of Japan; and don't think that there aren't elements in New Zealand who are still holding a grudge against Australia for that and 2003.
    -When the South African government started to undermine the game in their country, by insisting on quotas and racial selection policies, Australia and New Zealand could have shown some solidarity with SARU in helping stand up to them, but neither did. Instead, the NZ press and rugby fraternity doubled-down on the rhetoric, inferring that South Africa still had problems picking black players, with commentator Keith Quinn even going so far as writing in NZ Rugby News Magazine that white players didn't want to pass them the ball on the field, as if South Africa was stuck in the apartheid 1950s. Meanwhile Australia (along with the cashed up Six Nations teams) scavenged the South African carcass for future test players like Dan Vickermann, Clyde Rathbone and a host of disaffected South African youth players. Thus, weakening South African rugby for good and removing South Africa from their perennial position as New Zealand's constant and greatest rival.
    -Then South Africa selfishly continued to play the race card to get the Southern Kings included. When the three new teams were admitted last season, all logic pointed to a format of 3 groups of 6 teams. New Zealand refused the extra team in their group, knowing that Japan would have been placed in the Australian group, and that home-and-away fixtures with Argentina would have been less-than-convenient for Kiwi teams; all the while with South Africa also selfishly wanting automatic home finals spots. So in the end, we ended up with the clusterfuck competition as it has been for two years.
    Quote Originally Posted by sevenmile View Post
    ...by getting better and beating the pants off everyone
    In the end, I really don't know if they have gotten better, I mean, New Zealand have recently been beaten by Ireland of all teams, an Irish team that was subsequently beaten by Scotland and a relatively ordinary Welsh team in this year's Six Nations; and then New Zealand had to defend like their lives depended on it to merely draw the Lions Series. I argue that Australia and South Africa have gotten far worse instead. What with Australia losing to an understrength Scotland and South Africa losing to Italy, I think it's crisis time for all three original SANZAR members, including New Zealand, as we look to the future, especially if the alliance falls apart, South Africa heads north and Australia goes its own way with a small-scale domestic competition.

    New Zealand has the luxury of having no other sports actively eating away at their heartlands, as Australia does. Funding that could be going to the top-level teams, has to be sent to the grassroots which are under constant expansionist attack from the financial and cultural powerhouses of AFL, rugby league, soccer and basketball. Grassroots rugby in New Zealand is self-sustaining and under no existential threat, nor do they have a government trying to undermine the game, as South Africa does. These two considerations need to be taken into account, in order to keep Southern Hemisphere rugby healthy. In fact, one could argue that Australia in particular needs a bigger piece of the TV deal pie in order to keep parity with the Southern Hemisphere's two historical juggernauts, considering this extra expenditure on defending the game. But there is no altruism from the three SANZAR originals anymore. All three are looking out for themselves, rather than co-operating, as they did when the Super 12 and Tri-Nations were first dreamt up. In that selfish climate, the inept ARU should have had more administrative nous in the face of their SANZAAR partners, to make sure their concerns were addressed.

    As it is, the model proposed for next season works very well for New Zealand, with no sacrifice or little accommodation on their part, while shrinking the game in Australia. The ARU are inept for allowing this to happen, and bloody pathetic and stupid to allow themselves to be "bullied," as you called it, into this situation. The sooner new blood and new ideas come into Australian rugby, the better. If SANZAAR's constituents remain self-interested, there's no point in being in it. Which is such a shame, because with reach throughout the satellite nations in Southern Africa; through Southern Asia via WA's old links with Sri Lanka; through Eastern Asia with Japan, Korea and Hong Kong; through Oceania via New Zealand; the Americas via Argentina; and a potential South African alliance with the Pro 12; SANZAAR's potential as a rival to the IRB is staggering, and it could be a bulwark against the self-interest of the powerful European clubs.

    4 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by chibi; 22-08-17 at 10:15.


    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?

  15. #765
    Champion Ralto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,282
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Alison View Post
    It's "their", not "there".

    And "nevertheless" not "nether the less".
    knock knock

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 51 of 55 FirstFirst ... 41 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Axed Force hooker Whittaker heads to France
    By The InnFORCEr in forum Ben Whittaker
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-10-13, 17:27
  2. Rocky axed from Wallabies
    By The InnFORCEr in forum NSW Waratahs
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25-05-12, 14:57
  3. Sharpe axed from Wallabies
    By GAFFA in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-08-11, 19:08
  4. Springboks logo set to be axed
    By Flamethrower in forum South Africa
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 15-10-08, 17:12
  5. Sailor axed over cocaine use
    By NewsBot in forum News Feeds
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-07-06, 11:31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •