What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RU in Australia on “life support”

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
It’s just too convoluted and there are too many time zones. Sydney today, Auckland next week, Buenos Ares the week after? It was bad enough when you just lost track for the South African road trip.

There’s obviously the depth in NZ, and I still think Australia could support 5 teams. I think the competition would work much better if it was just Australia and NZ. If it was a 12 team competition, you could have the ten Super teams plus two more from NZ (North Harbour and Southland maybe? They seem to be the underrepresented areas).

Most importantly, get a couple of games on FTA TV - even if you have to pay production costs and sell it to SBS.

I still don’t know if it’d work. I’ve really enjoyed getting along to the Tahs quite a bit, but I much prefer a Saturday arvo at Coogee Oval cheering on Randwick.

The problem has less to do with time zones and it being to "convoluted" and more to do with your teams sucking. That is all.. they suck.

When the Aussie teams were winning ratings and attendances were fine. When the Wannabies haven't won the Bledisloe in over a dozen years interest fades, when the Super rugby teams keep getting beaten, interest fades. when your teams cant beat NZ teams for 40 games in a row, interest fades.

The reason NZR doesn't want a trans-tasman comp is your teams suck. They don't want or need another Franchise and they don't want to kill the game in NZ by playing crappy teams only.

Get your house in order before that ever happens.
 

Timbo

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,270
We don’t want a trans-Tasman comp either, so there’s a bonus. That was just an idle thought.
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,894
The problem has less to do with time zones and it being to "convoluted" and more to do with your teams sucking. That is all.. they suck.

When the Aussie teams were winning ratings and attendances were fine. When the Wannabies haven't won the Bledisloe in over a dozen years interest fades, when the Super rugby teams keep getting beaten, interest fades. when your teams cant beat NZ teams for 40 games in a row, interest fades.

The reason NZR doesn't want a trans-tasman comp is your teams suck. They don't want or need another Franchise and they don't want to kill the game in NZ by playing crappy teams only.

Get your house in order before that ever happens.



Winning helps. Helps a lot.

Without Super rugby the standard in Australia would drop further.

A trans Tasman comp would be great for us - bring it on.

Even using your reckoning, are the AB's getting stronger or the Wallabies just getting weaker?
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
Winning helps. Helps a lot.

Without Super rugby the standard in Australia would drop further.

A trans Tasman comp would be great for us - bring it on.

Even using your reckoning, are the AB's getting stronger or the Wallabies just getting weaker?

Probably more the latter... the ABs have lost some once in a generation players yet are still winning. The ABs aren't as strong as they were, but Aussie has fallen a lot further.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
150,744
Winning helps. Helps a lot.

Without Super rugby the standard in Australia would drop further.

A trans Tasman comp would be great for us - bring it on.

Even using your reckoning, are the AB's getting stronger or the Wallabies just getting weaker?

I agree we need Super Rugby as its a big jump from Shute Shield to Wobblies,
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
The problem has less to do with time zones and it being to "convoluted" and more to do with your teams sucking. That is all.. they suck.

When the Aussie teams were winning ratings and attendances were fine. When the Wannabies haven't won the Bledisloe in over a dozen years interest fades, when the Super rugby teams keep getting beaten, interest fades. when your teams cant beat NZ teams for 40 games in a row, interest fades.

No mate, they weren't.

I know kiwis like to think it's all about us not winning, but the facts are if you really look at the figures from the mid 00s compared to the middle of this decade, it really doesn't matter if we are winning or not - the decline is still huge.

Case in point would be 2014 when the Tahs won - we got a solid boost in attendances and decent figures for the Semi final and GF, but they were all still well below the figures from the mid 00s.

In 2014, the year the Tahs broke a 20 year premiership drought, but our average crowd was 19k and that includes the 40k for our semi with the Brumbies and the 60k we got for our home GF in Sydney (which was 20k short of capacity), a figure only 9k higher than the Souths v Roosters prelim final that would happen later that year. The average TV audiences were around 90k through the season and the GF only got 600k - less than your average Friday night footy game of NRL.

By comparison, if you go back to 2006, the Waratahs averaged 30k and they didn't host any home finals and our average TV numbers for day time slots were over 200k. That's a pretty big difference for a team that didn't do that well on 06 to be beating the ratings of their championship winning side only 8 years later
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
No mate, they weren't.

I know kiwis like to think it's all about us not winning, but the facts are if you really look at the figures from the mid 00s compared to the middle of this decade, it really doesn't matter if we are winning or not - the decline is still huge.

Case in point would be 2014 when the Tahs won - we got a solid boost in attendances and decent figures for the Semi final and GF, but they were all still well below the figures from the mid 00s.

In 2014, the year the Tahs broke a 20 year premiership drought, but our average crowd was 19k and that includes the 40k for our semi with the Brumbies and the 60k we got for our home GF in Sydney (which was 20k short of capacity), a figure only 9k higher than the Souths v Roosters prelim final that would happen later that year. The average TV audiences were around 90k through the season and the GF only got 600k - less than your average Friday night footy game of NRL.

By comparison, if you go back to 2006, the Waratahs averaged 30k and they didn't host any home finals and our average TV numbers for day time slots were over 200k. That's a pretty big difference for a team that didn't do that well on 06 to be beating the ratings of their championship winning side only 8 years later

And what where the attendances and figures when the Wannabies held the Bledisloe and actually managed to beat the ABs regularly? When your National team is doing well your attendances go up. when they haven't won anything of note in the better part of 2 decades they go down.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
And what where the attendances and figures when the Wannabies held the Bledisloe and actually managed to beat the ABs regularly? When your National team is doing well your attendances go up. when they haven't won anything of note in the better part of 2 decades they go down.

Internationals/rep don’t affect club if the fundamentals are strong. If they did the TV ratings and attendances for Sydney NRL clubs would have suffered measurable declines since the prior period of NSW dominance in the mid 00s.

The numbers don’t show that. Rugby’s decline is deep and structural. The wallabies failures aren’t a cause of that - they’re a symptom.
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
Internationals/rep don’t affect club if the fundamentals are strong. If they did the TV ratings and attendances for Sydney NRL clubs would have suffered measurable declines since the prior period of NSW dominance in the mid 00s.

The numbers don’t show that. Rugby’s decline is deep and structural. The wallabies failures aren’t a cause of that - they’re a symptom.

You can't compare Rugby to League in this instance. The League comp has tribalism dating over a hundred years. Internationals wont effect it one bit. Rugby has always been about the international competition. When the Wannabies are strong, then rugby is strong in Australia. There has never been a domestic comp in Australia of any great note. Rugby in Australia has always been top down, that's why you either scrap the lot and start again, or fix the top.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
You can't compare Rugby to League in this instance. The League comp has tribalism dating over a hundred years. Internationals wont effect it one bit. Rugby has always been about the international competition. When the Wannabies are strong, then rugby is strong in Australia. There has never been a domestic comp in Australia of any great note. Rugby in Australia has always been top down, that's why you either scrap the lot and start again, or fix the top.
2014 the Tahs won and 2015 the wallabies made the RWC Final, knocking England out in the process, yet the TV numbers were still nowhere near their mid 00s levels...

Again, the data just doesn’t support your hypothesis. The game’s challenges are far far deeper than the wallabies win loss column
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
2014 the Tahs won and 2015 the wallabies made the RWC Final, knocking England out in the process, yet the TV numbers were still nowhere near their mid 00s levels...

Again, the data just doesn’t support your hypothesis. The game’s challenges are far far deeper than the wallabies win loss column

1998 - 2002 The Bledisloe was held by Australia, 2000, 2001 Tri Nations - Winners
1999 Winner world cup
2003 - World Cup held in Aussie and they were runners up.
Ratings high. attendances high.

2004-2017 ZERO Bledisloe Cups, Zero World Cups
2011, 2015 Rugby Championships Winners where, NZ didn't care as the World Cup was more important.

The data certainly supports what I am saying. The Australian National team has had a terrible run for the last dozen years. The correlation is undeniable.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
1998 - 2002 The Bledisloe was held by Australia, 2000, 2001 Tri Nations - Winners
1999 Winner world cup
2003 - World Cup held in Aussie and they were runners up.
Ratings high. attendances high.

2004-2017 ZERO Bledisloe Cups, Zero World Cups
2011, 2015 Rugby Championships Winners where, NZ didn't care as the World Cup was more important.

The data certainly supports what I am saying. The Australian National team has had a terrible run for the last dozen years. The correlation is undeniable.

Mate, you’re on a rugby league site... surely you can’t be this ignorant to not understand the other factors here...

Yes winning helps, but if you don’t understand that’s more a symptom than a cause then you don’t know dick about the Aussie sporting landscape and what has happened in the old Union heartlands in particular.

For instance, are you aware of this thing called the super league war that just so happened to coincide with the Wallabies golden era? Are you aware of the slow moving coup that is the Sydney Swans who have busily been eliminating rugby nurseries or undermining them in Sydney’s posh schools?

If you’re not, then frankly you’re just a superficial thinker who has no clue
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
Mate, you’re on a rugby league site... surely you can’t be this ignorant to not understand the other factors here...
Of course there are, but clearly the biggest is your teams aren't winning. winning garners support, from fans, sponsors, and kids wanting to play.

Yes winning helps, but if you don’t understand that’s more a symptom than a cause then you don’t know dick about the Aussie sporting landscape and what has happened in the old Union heartlands in particular.
Winning is quickest and easiest fix. Your National team is the only team that can garner support across all areas of the country. Your parochial "state vs state" bullshit hamstrings you and limits the support of those teams.

For instance, are you aware of this thing called the super league war that just so happened to coincide with the Wallabies golden era?
yes because a "war" in 97-98 certainly will effect crowds in the mid 00's. It would have increased crowds and viewers immediately, but unless you can keep them they will go. Your teams losing makes that so very much easier. a dozen years of sucking made it a certainty.

Are you aware of the slow moving coup that is the Sydney Swans who have busily been eliminating rugby nurseries or undermining them in Sydney’s posh schools?
Because there is no incentive for kids to play. Why would any kid want to play for teams that keep losing. Why would schools have teams that no one wants to play in? And its not like Australia is a your nursery anyway.. the amount of NZers and Islanders that are being signed up is staggering.

If you’re not, then frankly you’re just a superficial thinker who has no clue
Or you are grasping at straws. Your coaching is terrible, you have a erratic idiot for a national coach, two Kiwis and a South African, each coaching differently with no common goal in mind. Its no wonder your teams can't win. Who in their right mind would want to play a game where their rep teams aren't any good?
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
Of course there are, but clearly the biggest is your teams aren't winning. winning garners support, from fans, sponsors, and kids wanting to play.

Winning is quickest and easiest fix. Your National team is the only team that can garner support across all areas of the country. Your parochial "state vs state" bullshit hamstrings you and limits the support of those teams.

yes because a "war" in 97-98 certainly will effect crowds in the mid 00's. It would have increased crowds and viewers immediately, but unless you can keep them they will go. Your teams losing makes that so very much easier. a dozen years of sucking made it a certainty.

Because there is no incentive for kids to play. Why would any kid want to play for teams that keep losing. Why would schools have teams that no one wants to play in? And its not like Australia is a your nursery anyway.. the amount of NZers and Islanders that are being signed up is staggering.

Or you are grasping at straws. Your coaching is terrible, you have a erratic idiot for a national coach, two Kiwis and a South African, each coaching differently with no common goal in mind. Its no wonder your teams can't win. Who in their right mind would want to play a game where their rep teams aren't any good?

You just have no data mate. Heck, you didn't even know that the Tahs had 10k lower average crowds in 2014 than when they won the comp compared to a year in the mid 00s when they didn't even get a home semi.

The only data that isn't affected by significant extraneous factors just massively contradicts your claims - citing the late 90s when the AFL wasn't organised in Sydney and Super League war had decimated League support just isn't as pure as the mid 00s era v the periods of success in this decade.

And yes, the Super League war undermined Rugby League for a solid decade... it took about that long for the game to truly rebuild itself and get to where it is now. Again, you're on League Unlimited, so you ought to get that.

You can bang on with your very thoughtful argument that "your coach is shit and you suck and that's why the game is crap" but doing that ignores vastly greater structural problems (hint, money is a big deal and the NRL and AFL have a f**k tonne more of it).

Put it to you this way, Super Rugby is a critical plank of RA's funding, but it's been anaemic for years. That's why we had to cut a side...

Now, having a competition like Super Rugby fuelled solely by Pay TV cash in the late 90s probably made a tonne of sense. The NRL was a mess, AFL had limited investments via their expansion sides in the Northern States and soccer wasn't a thing.

But then what happened? Well first up a few years into Super Rugby:
- soccer launched the A-League and the socceroos brand started to eat into the Wallabies space as the big international brand Australians care about;
- The NRL slowly got its shit together, eventually becoming the billion dollar business it is now, reinvesting a lot of that into lower tiers and juniors programs;
- the AFL got its shit together with a similarly large billion dollar deal and even stronger balance sheets, investing over $200 million in both the Swans and now GWS Giants EACH that is heavily focused on providing cheaper pathways and alternatives largely in Union heartlands

Both these major rivals have 16 and 18 team very well funded competitions that each present 4 days a week of prime time and free to air content.

Where has that left RA? With a product that provides 4 full time pro teams as professional pathways, has 2 days of prime time content a week for the most part and a thoroughly confusing conference structure, all wedded to pay TV, which has 30% penetration in Australia and is falling thanks to online streaming services.

At the end of the day, THAT is what has killed Australian rugby. The Wallabies not having any sort of rivalry with the All Blacks isn't awesome, but frankly it's Super Rugby's failure to adapt to the fast changing and vastly more aggressively competitive Australian football landscape that has killed it most.

The levels of funding at RA have been so poor and the ratings so bad, that they were charging their feeder clubs in the Sydney and Brisbane comps extra to keep afloat. That impacts on what the grass roots can do to grow the game.

The Wallabies winning 20 tests in a row that included the last world cup and 2 bledisloes wouldn't have altered any of those underlying factors. Sure, it would have given us a bump in the ratings and crowds, but like the Tahs they'd still be lower than the early 00s days of lower market competition and safer grass-roots environments.
 
Last edited:

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
You just have no data mate. Heck, you didn't even know that the Tahs had 10k lower average crowds in 2014 than when they won the comp compared to a year in the mid 00s when they didn't even get a home semi.

The only data that isn't affected by significant extraneous factors just massively contradicts your claims - citing the late 90s when the AFL wasn't organised in Sydney and Super League war had decimated League support just isn't as pure as the mid 00s era v the periods of success in this decade.

And yes, the Super League war undermined Rugby League for a solid decade... it took about that long for the game to truly rebuild itself and get to where it is now. Again, you're on League Unlimited, so you ought to get that.

You can bang on with your very thoughtful argument that "your coach is shit and you suck and that's why the game is crap" but doing that ignores vastly greater structural problems (hint, money is a big deal and the NRL and AFL have a f**k tonne more of it).

Put it to you this way, Super Rugby is a critical plank of RA's funding, but it's been anaemic for years. That's why we had to cut a side...

Now, having a competition like Super Rugby fuelled solely by Pay TV cash in the late 90s probably made a tonne of sense. The NRL was a mess, AFL had limited investments via their expansion sides in the Northern States and soccer wasn't a thing.

But then what happened? Well first up a few years into Super Rugby:
- soccer launched the A-League and the socceroos brand started to eat into the Wallabies space as the big international brand Australians care about;
- The NRL slowly got its shit together, eventually becoming the billion dollar business it is now, reinvesting a lot of that into lower tiers and juniors programs;
- the AFL got its shit together with a similarly large billion dollar deal and even stronger balance sheets, investing over $200 million in both the Swans and now GWS Giants EACH that is heavily focused on providing cheaper pathways and alternatives largely in Union heartlands

Both these major rivals have 16 and 18 team very well funded competitions that each present 4 days a week of prime time and free to air content.

Where has that left RA? With a product that provides 4 full time pro teams as professional pathways, has 2 days of prime time content a week for the most part and a thoroughly confusing conference structure, all wedded to pay TV, which has 30% penetration in Australia and is falling thanks to online streaming services.

At the end of the day, THAT is what has killed Australian rugby. The Wallabies not having any sort of rivalry with the All Blacks isn't awesome, but frankly it's Super Rugby's failure to adapt to the fast changing and vastly more aggressively competitive Australian football landscape that has killed it most.

The levels of funding at RA have been so poor and the ratings so bad, that they were charging their feeder clubs in the Sydney and Brisbane comps extra to keep afloat. That impacts on what the grass roots can do to grow the game.

The Wallabies winning 20 tests in a row that included the last world cup and 2 bledisloes wouldn't have altered any of those underlying factors. Sure, it would have given us a bump in the ratings and crowds, but like the Tahs they'd still be lower than the early 00s days of lower market competition and safer grass-roots environments.

That's all excuses. If the SL war increased crowds, why did thy leave? If AFL wasn't a factor, why are kids now going there? Because they lost interest in watching and supporting their teams. Why did they lose interest? Because they weren't very good and kept losing. it really is quite simple.

The crap about money is a smokescreen. England Rugby and French Rugby individually have more money than RA and RNZ combined. They have massive coffers to draw on. Has it helped them? not at all. The simple fact is you need winning teams playing attractive footy to win the "hearts and minds" of the average punter. That flows on to kids wanting to play, more players to play leads to better exposure. leads to better results.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
That's all excuses. If the SL war increased crowds, why did thy leave? If AFL wasn't a factor, why are kids now going there? Because they lost interest in watching and supporting their teams. Why did they lose interest? Because they weren't very good and kept losing. it really is quite simple.
But they didn't keep losing... The Waratahs won a title in Super Rugby in 2014, the Reds in 2011, the Wallabies have solid rivalries with all international countries bar the ABs (50-50 with the boks), and the Wallabies made the WC Final in 2015.

Sure, they weren't world beaters, but that's hardly a record of nothing but losses, and yet the decline has been consistent.

I don't know, maybe in NZ people don't use money or something, but that shit matters here.

The crap about money is a smokescreen. England Rugby and French Rugby individually have more money than RA and RNZ combined. They have massive coffers to draw on. Has it helped them? not at all. The simple fact is you need winning teams playing attractive footy to win the "hearts and minds" of the average punter. That flows on to kids wanting to play, more players to play leads to better exposure. leads to better results.

f**k me dead mate.. did you really just argue that money hasn't helped England? They're the richest union in the world and whilst they've tended to have issues with wrangling their clubs to fall in line with the RFU, they've been building their grassroots footprint and expanding their territories for the past 15 years, AND they've leveraged that into some fairly significant international success. Sure, Eddie has seen the wheels wobble this year (thankfully), but they also won 18 tests in a row...

France is a different beast just due to the amount of money is tied up with eccentric French billionaires, but the game is still in rude health there regardless of the failures of the French national side, and that health is driven largely by the strength of their club model and the money it makes.

Perhaps its the kiwi mindset.. all you guys see is the All Blacks and the entire country seems to revolve around it, so to you that one team is the centre of the universe and therefore can't comprehend more complex markets and systems for which there are other sources of inspiration, funding and support.
 
Last edited:

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
But they didn't keep losing... The Waratahs won a title in Super Rugby in 2014, the Reds in 2011, the Wallabies have solid rivalries with all international countries bar the ABs (50-50 with the boks), and the Wallabies made the WC Final in 2015.

Sure, they weren't world beaters, but that's hardly a record of nothing but losses, and yet the decline has been consistent.

I don't know, maybe in NZ people don't use money or something, but that shit matters here.

Have you never heard the saying, "One swallow, doe's not a summer make"? One offs do jack shit. in between those rare wins has been a lot of crap. THAT is what people remember. People like to watch their team beat the best. Australia couldn't. Hell how many times did Scotland beat you recently? People like watching their teams play and beat the best. That's why no one here wants a trans Tasman comp. It would be hopelessly one sided and boring.

f**k me dead mate.. did you really just argue that money hasn't helped England? They're the richest union in the world and whilst they've tended to have issues with wrangling their clubs to fall in line with the RFU, they've been building their grassroots footprint and expanding their territories for the past 15 years, AND they've leveraged that into some fairly significant international success. Sure, Eddie has seen the wheels wobble this year (thankfully), but they also won 18 tests in a row...
You are counting the 1 in a or as a measure of success??? They won 18 in a row against crap sides. Uruguay, Australia x 4, Argies x 2, Italy x 2.
They have been the biggest Union in a hundred years, the richest as well. How many World ups have they one? one, how many times have they been no1 in the world in the last 20 years? Once.

France is a different beast just due to the amount of money is tied up with eccentric French billionaires, but the game is still in rude health there regardless of the failures of the French national side, and that health is driven largely by the strength of their club model and the money it makes.
Their clubs are what is destroying the National team. Not helping it. Where have you been for the past dozen years???

Perhaps its the kiwi mindset.. all you guys see is the All Blacks and the entire country seems to revolve around it, so to you that one team is the centre of the universe and therefore can't comprehend more complex markets and systems for which there are other sources of inspiration, funding and support.
Excuses again. The simple truth once again, is your support is falling because you guys suck. No one wants to watch you, no one wants to play for you.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
Have you never heard the saying, "One swallow, doe's not a summer make"? One offs do jack shit. in between those rare wins has been a lot of crap. THAT is what people remember. People like to watch their team beat the best. Australia couldn't. Hell how many times did Scotland beat you recently? People like watching their teams play and beat the best. That's why no one here wants a trans Tasman comp. It would be hopelessly one sided and boring.

You are counting the 1 in a or as a measure of success??? They won 18 in a row against crap sides. Uruguay, Australia x 4, Argies x 2, Italy x 2.

They have been the biggest Union in a hundred years, the richest as well. How many World ups have they one? one, how many times have they been no1 in the world in the last 20 years? Once.

Their clubs are what is destroying the National team. Not helping it. Where have you been for the past dozen years???

I don't know if you're just geniused, or if it's just that you were never educated past the 5th grade, but even after 4 pages of content you haven't seemed to capable of understanding the central point here: the health of a code isn't limited to how well its national side does.

England tend to suck at international soccer, rarely winning shit, yet the EPL is the biggest soccer comp in the world. Likewise, England Rugby has experienced limited and fractious success, but has one of the biggest and richest competitions in the world. Yes, their club structure actually hurts them in a lot of ways, but the money it provides ensure THE GAME AS A WHOLE is in very VERY good health over there.

Do you get it yet? The discussion here is about the overall health of Australian rugby and NOT the overall health of the Wallabies. That's why the title of the thread was "RU in Australia on Life Support" and not "Wallabies on life support".

Is it sinking in yet?

Getting back to England and France, both are examples that offer yet more data of just how shallow and limited your understanding here is. Both are countries that have underperforming national teams and yet both have seen the funding to Rugby INCREASE and their market share EXPAND in the past 15 years.

Why? Because they're STRUCTURALLY set up in a way that isn't killing their game like it is in Australia and they were directly competing with two other big contact football codes.

Seriously, just try pull your head out of your arse for a moment and try to grasp what is actually being discussed here.
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
I don't know if you're just geniused, or if it's just that you were never educated past the 5th grade, but even after 4 pages of content you haven't seemed to capable of understanding the central point here: the health of a code isn't limited to how well its national side does.
Ahhh insults.. the last resort of those who have lost a debate. Its not just the national team.. ALL of your rep teams are crap. Except the Womans sevens team. They are up... guess which team is the only one constantly winning?

England tend to suck at international soccer, rarely winning shit, yet the EPL is the biggest soccer comp in the world. Likewise, England Rugby has experienced limited and fractious success, but has one of the biggest and richest competitions in the world. Yes, their club structure actually hurts them in a lot of ways, but the money it provides ensure THE GAME AS A WHOLE is in very VERY good health over there.
Except you are wrong. Crowds have been static for the club game and TV ratings have been down. As have player numbers. So what's your next made up argument?

Do you get it yet? The discussion here is about the overall health of Australian rugby and NOT the overall health of the Wallabies. That's why the title of the thread was "RU in Australia on Life Support" and not "Wallabies on life support".

Is it sinking in yet?
No its the fact that all of your teams have sucked for over a decade and its killing the game there.

Getting back to England and France, both are examples that offer yet more data of just how shallow and limited your understanding here is. Both are countries that have underperforming national teams and yet both have seen the funding to Rugby INCREASE and their market share EXPAND in the past 15 years.
No they haven't. A TV rights "war" is the reason for money increases. nothing more.

Why? Because they're STRUCTURALLY set up in a way that isn't killing their game like it is in Australia and they were directly competing with two other big contact football codes.

Seriously, just try pull your head out of your arse for a moment and try to grasp what is actually being discussed here.
Do some research and come back with some facts first.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
Do some research and come back with some facts first.

Mate, you haven't presented a single fact or stat here, whilst I have offered plenty.

When you start offering the slightest bit of evidence to back up your claims, you'll have some credibility, but until you do I will continue to feel rightly entitled to dismiss your mind-numbingly shallow "arguments".
 
Top