Unshackled
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 241,
Visits: 0
|
crimsoncrusoe wrote:Some people just like losing money it seems.
|
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:karta wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
I wouldn't read too much into it. They're based in Melbourne and want to own a sports team. The AFL teams, Victory, City and Storm owners are all solid. Who else is there besides the Rebels? They already did own 'a Sports Team', they didn't have to Sell it but they did, why ? And to think they just Sold up at Heart on a whim ? Then sometime later changed their minds and found the Rebels for Sale. Then managed to purchase the Rebels. All in less than 12 months ? pleassse Clearly, the a-league is going too strong and they couldn't handle the magic, so downgraded to a weaker competition. Of Course Mind you, looks like they could've picked up NJ, BR and CCM and still have change from the CFG cash
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:karta wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
I wouldn't read too much into it. They're based in Melbourne and want to own a sports team. The AFL teams, Victory, City and Storm owners are all solid. Who else is there besides the Rebels? They already did own 'a Sports Team', they didn't have to Sell it but they did, why ? And to think they just Sold up at Heart on a whim ? Then sometime later changed their minds and found the Rebels for Sale. Then managed to purchase the Rebels. All in less than 12 months ? pleassse You may be right, but I also tend to think they got the whole "Heart" thing wrong from the start. It has been talked about endlessly that their main marketing point was "we're not Victory". They were not willing to geographically differentiate themselves, and it was too early to try sit right on top of victory's turf and try to claim it. Even the City group will find this an uphill battle, especially after victorys double winning season. I think after Sydney FC told the City group to walk on, these guys jumped at the opportunity because it was there.
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:karta wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
I wouldn't read too much into it. They're based in Melbourne and want to own a sports team. The AFL teams, Victory, City and Storm owners are all solid. Who else is there besides the Rebels? They already did own 'a Sports Team', they didn't have to Sell it but they did, why ? And to think they just Sold up at Heart on a whim ? Then sometime later changed their minds and found the Rebels for Sale. Then managed to purchase the Rebels. All in less than 12 months ? pleassse Clearly, the a-league is going too strong and they couldn't handle the magic, so downgraded to a weaker competition.
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
karta wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
I wouldn't read too much into it. They're based in Melbourne and want to own a sports team. The AFL teams, Victory, City and Storm owners are all solid. Who else is there besides the Rebels? They already did own 'a Sports Team', they didn't have to Sell it but they did, why ? And to think they just Sold up at Heart on a whim ? Then sometime later changed their minds and found the Rebels for Sale. Then managed to purchase the Rebels. All in less than 12 months ? pleassse
|
|
|
karta
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 567,
Visits: 0
|
Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
Edited by Buggalugs - you should have listened...: 23/6/2015 01:29:15 PM I wouldn't read too much into it. They're based in Melbourne and want to own a sports team. The AFL teams, Victory, City and Storm owners are all solid. Who else is there besides the Rebels?
|
|
|
The Maco
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
Edited by Buggalugs - you should have listened...: 23/6/2015 01:29:15 PM well sidwell and co proved they were not great operators in the a-league, and quite frankly the league, and heart/city are much better off without them Who can blame them for trying their luck in a different sport, and good luck to them, but if their track record is anything to go by the rebels will continue their mediocrity, on and off the field It doesn't reflect the overall ownership model of the a-league
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Bulllllshittttttt
Bulllllllllllllllshittttttt
2 people sell out of Football and less than 12 months later pop up in the same stadium in a different code and you think this has nothing to do with the State of the A-league, the FFA governance or its Business model.
Edited by Buggalugs - you should have listened...: 23/6/2015 01:29:15 PM
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
crimsoncrusoe wrote:each year at least 3 out of the 5 Australian teams will always be losers. That's not good for TV ratings or bank balances of owners.
What they need is a competition where 60% of the teams reach the finals and can feel like Winners
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
melbourne_terrace wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Nah If Football is so 'on-the-up' and Union in trouble, what's happened here ? Guarantee you this will end in tears like last time the ARU tried to get Private equity involved in their farcical setup. Everyone gets sick of losing money for no reason. The Rebels are already up completely up shit creek despite being less than 5 years old. This isn't like France where rich owners truly love their club and as a result plough millions of Euros into them. No one here is anywhere near as passionate about Super Rugby or their Franchises (which are the most plastic of plastic) because they aren't set up to be clubs in their own right but rather as extended development squads in an glorified trial for Wallabies selection. It is truly a miracle that the ARU have even found a group to offload their liabilities onto this bunch because there is zero chance of the Rebels turning a profit. It's amazing that Super Rugby has two teams ,Rebels and Force that exist by sucking the life out of the the only two states that develop Rugby players,namely NSW and Qld. But like The Big Bash plastic is the flavour the masses love. The bigger problem for Australian Rugby however is there are a hell of a lot of richer overseas teams ,so inevitably with Australian talent spread thinly between five clubs, each year at least 3 out of the 5 Australian teams will always be losers.That's not good for TV ratings or bank balances of owners.
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
deluka wrote:International union is interesting, I wouldn't waste a moment of my time on club union though.
European Club Rugby >>>>>>>>>>>>> Super Rugby.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Nah If Football is so 'on-the-up' and Union in trouble, what's happened here ? Guarantee you this will end in tears like last time the ARU tried to get Private equity involved in their farcical setup. Everyone gets sick of losing money for no reason. The Rebels are already up completely up shit creek despite being less than 5 years old. This isn't like France where rich owners truly love their club and as a result plough millions of Euros into them. No one here is anywhere near as passionate about Super Rugby or their Franchises (which are the most plastic of plastic) because they aren't set up to be clubs in their own right but rather as extended development squads in an glorified trial for Wallabies selection. It is truly a miracle that the ARU have even found a group to offload their liabilities onto this bunch because there is zero chance of the Rebels turning a profit.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
lol union.
|
|
|
nickk
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Rugby was looking grim here but has got extra money from England's pay TV battle. Grants to Super Rugby clubs are going fom 4 million to 6 million. The irony is however South Africa tailored their TV deals so they were paid more for local rugby than Super so as not to share the money abroad. NZ rugby is supreme there but they have Sky Tv which is a monopoly, it quite strange they pay as much for rugby as they do for rugby league. The situation in NZ with the TV money being miniscule for the A-league would not be tolerated in Super Rugby. Each super rugby nation has to contribute to the TV money.
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Some people just like losing money it seems.
|
|
|
deluka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 651,
Visits: 0
|
International union is interesting, I wouldn't waste a moment of my time on club union though.
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
lukerobinho wrote:Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Nah If Football is so 'on-the-up' and Union in trouble, what's happened here ? Sidwell won't spend a dime. aren't super rugby clubs subsided by the aru ? Some of the Wallabies are but if you read the article, seems they're taking a burden off the ARU Wonder what they can see in Union that they couldn't in Football ? Edited by Buggalugs - you should have listened...: 22/6/2015 06:15:02 PM
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Buggalugs - you should have listened... wrote:Nah If Football is so 'on-the-up' and Union in trouble, what's happened here ? Sidwell won't spend a dime. aren't super rugby clubs subsided by the aru ?
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Nah If Football is so 'on-the-up' and Union in trouble, what's happened here ?
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
Buggalugs - you should...
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Melbourne Rebels sold by ARU to private investment group
The cash-strapped Australian Rugby Union (ARU) has received a financial boost with the sale of the Melbourne Rebels Super Rugby franchise to a private investment group.
The ARU, which in April announced losses of $6.3 million for 2014, is expected to save more than $3 million a year with the sale.
All of the shares in Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Limited (MRRU) held by the ARU and Victorian Rugby Union would transfer to Imperium Sports Management Pty Ltd (ISM) on July 1, the ARU said in a statement.
ISM is controlled by Melbourne-based businessmen Andrew Cox and Peter Sidwell, the former chairman of A-League side Melbourne Heart, which is now owned by English Premier League side Manchester City and renamed Melbourne City.
"There are over 125 years of rugby history in this state and the support for the Rebels in just five seasons is extremely encouraging," Cox said in a statement.
"With the expanded Super Rugby competition in 2016, we are looking forward to showcasing Melbourne across the world through new markets including Asia and South America."
Super Rugby will expand to 18 teams next year with sides based in South Africa, Japan and Argentina all joining the competition.
The ARU took over the Rebels from 2013 when a consortium of private investors walked away from the club after burning through $8 million in three seasons.
The ARU said it spent more than $5 million in 2013 on the side, which became the fifth Australian Super Rugby franchise in 2011.
The Rebels had their most successful season this year, winning seven games and were the third-best Australian team in the competition, finishing 10th overall.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/melbourne-rebels-sold-to-private-investment-group/6559016?section=sport
|
|
|