Where to for Super Rugby?

[Inside Shoulder]

Those running the RFU own Twickenham. And have done since the early 1900's. It is not only a rugby venue, of course, it also hosts other events.


It is a goldmine. That makes a bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?


By the way, rugby union is the only major contact winter sport in England, and France. Compare and contrast with our situation. Or maybe that doesn't really matter?


Get real, QH.

Ballymore.
Concord oval.
The latter of course uniquely, yet somehow characteristically, squandered by insider fraud: the site of the opening game of the 1987 RWC.
Even your own T G Millner.
The opportunities for building a self supporting ground were there.

 

[Joe King]

Been thinking about the restructure required in Aus Rugby (yes a little sad as im at work).

NZ schedule would look like

Jan - Rest
Feb - Rest
Mar - NPC
Apr - NPC + ANZAC Bledisloe
May - Rugby Championship (New 5 Nations) (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jun - SH internationals (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jul - Super Rugby
Aug - Super Rugby
Sep - Super Rugby
Oct - Super Rugby
Nov - NH internationals
Dec - Rest

SAF (If they continue in Super Rugby)

Jan - Rest
Feb - Rest
Mar - Currie Cup
Apr - Currie Cup
May - Rugby Championship (New 5 Nations) (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jun - SH internationals (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jul - Super Rugby
Aug - Super Rugby
Sep - Super Rugby
Oct - Super Rugby
Nov - NH internationals
Dec - Rest

I'm sure there is plenty of holes in this, but worth a thought anyway

Good effort, mate! The only point I'd make is that I'm sure NZ and SA would play their NPC/Currie Cup from Mar-Jun, through the test season, instead of sending non-test players back to club. This way they could have their national domestics during test rugby, and their club comps during Super Rugby, as they do currently.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Maybe the latter part of it (80s-'95), but the game was very much in the doldrums in Australia in many ways for quite some time, except for club-land, which had little to do with "big" admin. And the admin was as entrenched and connected then - they just didn't have too much over which to preside, and bugger all money to spend either!
But the difference in the pro-era is stark, as your numbers show. That is clear.
I think you're being a little cavalier to dismiss the factor of the money the RFU has at its disposal. Undoubtedly they have established many great programs at multiple levels over there, but that just does not happen without the moolah. So they look good, but it is easier to look good with a bigger stash. Doesn't excuse the ineptitude here.
Yes, John O'Neill in particular pissed away a relative war chest, which is unforgivable. One can only imagine the position we'd be in if money gained in 2003 was invested in coaching structures at all levels, and less in JO'N's drinks cabinet and in buying and keeping superstars (although some of the earlier acquisitions probably did put some more bums on seats for a while - although longer term it was flawed).

The 1979 game which brought the Bledisloe to popular conscience in this country was put on to provide the ARU With some money courtesy of the NZRU. My understanding is that the NZRU did a deal with adidas to,provide our kit, having supplied us with kit before.
So, to my understanding the administration of the game in oz has never been crash not.

 

[Gnostic]

Put words into my mouth, if you like, if it makes you feel better. My defense of our management has been primarily to point out that, in management terms (something that I suspect neither of you has the slightest experience or expertise in) the majority of the factors that influence the success or otherwise of the game here are out of their hands.





Believe what you like, but that is the simple truth.





I prefer to deal in facts. The simple fact is that rugby has always been far bigger in England, and France, by any measure, than it has in our country, relative to competitors, and of course in absolute terms.





There are a number of reasons that their professional competitions attract so many players from other countries, but they do.





Our pro competitions have never attracted more than the occasional one of their players, in the whole period since we went professionalism. We are poor, they are rich.



This is the reality, fark all to do with management, it is the way it is, and the way it has always been. Have we been managed by idiots for the whole history of the game here? Even when the English game was in the hands of the blazer wearers?





You two can continue to piss in each other's pockets, I have better things to do.

Suspect away - lower management in the public service but I did manage to spend a few million a day for a week or so, and about 12M on another occasion so I occasionally got my hands on some dosh to "manage" in that role.

Wamberal your facts like your suppositions are rubbery - we are poor now - we were the richest at the start with the first and only Pro comp at the time and 7 years in banked 23M and MANAGEMENT decisions pissed it up the wall (to quote Bill Pulver) for nothing.

Your Management defence is delusional I quoted you and your intent, not putting words in your mouth. If you are a manager of anything no doubt you would be in a "finance like industry" getting plenty for doing nothing and taking no responsibility except your pay packet. If I piss in somebodies pocket at least they get a warm wholesome feeling from it, which is more than interaction with you.

 

[Quick Hands]

Maybe the latter part of it (80s-'95), but the game was very much in the doldrums in Australia in many ways for quite some time, except for club-land, which had little to do with "big" admin. And the admin was as entrenched and connected then - they just didn't have too much over which to preside, and bugger all money to spend either!
But the difference in the pro-era is stark, as your numbers show. That is clear.
I think you're being a little cavalier to dismiss the factor of the money the RFU has at its disposal. Undoubtedly they have established many great programs at multiple levels over there, but that just does not happen without the moolah. So they look good, but it is easier to look good with a bigger stash. Doesn't excuse the ineptitude here.
Yes, John O'Neill in particular pissed away a relative war chest, which is unforgivable. One can only imagine the position we'd be in if money gained in 2003 was invested in coaching structures at all levels, and less in JO'N's drinks cabinet and in buying and keeping superstars (although some of the earlier acquisitions probably did put some more bums on seats for a while - although longer term it was flawed).

I don't dismiss the money that the RFU has at its disposal, but I make the point that following similar strategies and governance we could do a lot better with the money we have.

Both RA and RFU have had access to significant profits from a RWC and each followed different priorities. Unquestionably the RFU have a greater quanatum of funds at their disposal, but they also have more clubs, more players, more professional players and more competitions on which they have to spend their money on.

I note from the document I posted above that RFU board appointments need to ratified by the Council and the Members (the members are the 2,000 member clubs which effectively own the RFU). A sharp contract to the process of RA board appointments.

The Rugby Football Union is the national governing body for grassroots and elite rugby in England, with 2,000 autonomous rugby clubs in its membership.
The clubs are grouped within 35 Constituent Bodies (CBs), comprised of counties – some individual, some combined – the three armed forces, Oxford and Cambridge Universities, England Rugby Football Schools' Union and England Students.
All of this is supported by the RFU's 50 Rugby Development Officers, six Area Managers and 120 Community Rugby Coaches across the country, who provide some 30,000 coaching sessions a year for young people.
http://www.englandrugby.com/about-the-rfu/

 

[Quick Hands]

The 1979 game which brought the Bledisloe to popular conscience in this country was put on to provide the ARU With some money courtesy of the NZRU. My understanding is that the NZRU did a deal with adidas to,provide our kit, having supplied us with kit before.
So, to my understanding the administration of the game in oz has never been crash not.

But amateur administrators are usually only adequate, as they have a real job during the day. From my observations, rugby administrations around the world weren't much better or worse than Australia.

It's paying people 6 figure sums which requires premium performance and it's here where the rest of the world has left us behind.

 

[Quick Hands]

Ballymore.
Concord oval.
The latter of course uniquely, yet somehow characteristically, squandered by insider fraud: the site of the opening game of the 1987 RWC.
Even your own T G Millner.
The opportunities for building a self supporting ground were there.

Indeed, I recall full page ads with NFJ spruiking Concord Oval as the Twickenham of the south.

Well it certainly went south didn't it.

Still one of the best grounds in Sydney, but shamefully underused. A better venue for the shambolic Waratahs than decaying Brookvale Oval.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^Although, having the Waratahs playing at a ground which is falling apart is probably quite apt.

 

[Joe King]

What if the amount of weeks it takes to play Super Rugby (21-22 weeks), was divided into two shorter competitions.

The first competition would be mainly domestic, involving each country’s Super Rugby teams.

So in Australia the teams would be our 4 Super Rugby teams + the Force + the Sunwolves (or Fiji) = 6 teams

In NZ it would be their 5 Super Rugby teams + Fiji (or the Sunwolves) = 6 teams

In SA it would their 4 Super Rugby teams + the Jaguares + one other (US?) = 6 teams

Home and away = 10 weeks + semi-final (2nd v 3rd; 1st has bye) + final = 12 weeks



The second competition would be 16 teams divided into 4 pools of 4 teams each. The pools would be deliberately mixed:

Pool 1: SA 1, NZ 1, Oz 1, Jaguares
Pool 2: SA 2, NZ 2, Oz 2, Fiji
Pool 3: SA 3, NZ 3, Oz 3, other team from SA conference (US?)
Pool 4: SA 4, NZ 4, NZ 5, Sunwolves

For this second competition, Australia would only enter 3 teams so that there are only 16 teams.

Australia’s 3 teams would be state of origin style teams: NSW, Qld, Combined States.

Play everyone in your own pool home and away = 6 weeks. Top two from each pool move through for (cross pool) quarter finals, then semi-finals, then final = 9 weeks.

The competition structure is a lot easier to follow and should involve minimal complains.



In the first competition, the amount of local derbies is only slightly more than what they currently have in Super Rugby, except they becomes their own competition, which suits Australia because they can have their 5 teams and don’t need to worry about lack of depth. It even becomes a pseudo national domestic comp.

In the second competition, there may be a couple of local derbies, or there may be none! But importantly, each team gets at least 4-6 international fixtures, which suits NZ. NZ also have the chance to get all 5 of their teams through to quarters (incentive).


And with Australia only entering 3 teams, we become more competitive. And because they are state of origin style teams, it breathes new interest and passion into the international component of Super Rugby for Australian fans.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What if the amount of weeks it takes to play Super Rugby (21-22 weeks), was divided into two shorter competitions.

The first competition would be mainly domestic, involving each country’s Super Rugby teams.

So in Australia the teams would be our 4 Super Rugby teams + the Force + the Sunwolves (or Fiji) = 6 teams

In NZ it would be their 5 Super Rugby teams + Fiji (or the Sunwolves) = 6 teams

In SA it would their 4 Super Rugby teams + the Jaguares + one other (US?) = 6 teams

Home and away = 10 weeks + semi-final (2nd v 3rd; 1st has bye) + final = 12 weeks



The second competition would be 16 teams divided into 4 pools of 4 teams each. The pools would be deliberately mixed:

Pool 1: SA 1, NZ 1, Oz 1, Jaguares
Pool 2: SA 2, NZ 2, Oz 2, Fiji
Pool 3: SA 3, NZ 3, Oz 3, other team from SA conference (US?)
Pool 4: SA 4, NZ 4, NZ 5, Sunwolves

For this second competition, Australia would only enter 3 teams so that there are only 16 teams.

Australia’s 3 teams would be state of origin style teams: NSW, Qld, Combined States.

Play everyone in your own pool home and away = 6 weeks. Top two from each pool move through for (cross pool) quarter finals, then semi-finals, then final = 9 weeks.

The competition structure is a lot easier to follow and should involve minimal complains.



In the first competition, the amount of local derbies is only slightly more than what they currently have in Super Rugby, except they becomes their own competition, which suits Australia because they can have their 5 teams and don’t need to worry about lack of depth. It even becomes a pseudo national domestic comp.

In the second competition, there may be a couple of local derbies, or there may be none! But importantly, each team gets at least 4-6 international fixtures, which suits NZ. NZ also have the chance to get all 5 of their teams through to quarters (incentive).


And with Australia only entering 3 teams, we become more competitive. And because they are state of origin style teams, it breathes new interest and passion into the international component of Super Rugby for Australian fans.

If you're going to go to a domestic competition to start with, which I support, then perhaps go with our established 5 plus the two country's as well as the Drua. Home and away for 14 games plus a Top 4 finals series for a total of 16 weeks then move into the Super Rugby side of it in the same format as you suggest.

Same for NZ and SA (Forget the US. That ship has sailed). Allow for Japan to enter a team in the Super Rugby segment based from players selected via the Top League.

 

[Dan54]

Been thinking about the restructure required in Aus Rugby (yes a little sad as im at work).

One of the biggest issues to the franchises is lack of success. Problem with having a 15 team competition where you only had/have 33/26% of participants is that you can also have those clubs been in the bottom 50% of the competition. Luxury the NRL and AFL have is that for every terrible team and negative news story (Parramatta, Carlton, Brisbane Lions, Bulldogs, etc) there is some on the opposite end of the table, so a positive story (Richmond, West Tigers, St George, West Coast, etc.). If Super Rugby is to go forward, i legitimately believe there needs to be a championship or separate competition which involves just the participating Australian teams. Perhaps a 5 team (Force, Reds, Tahs, Rebels, Brums, perhaps a PI team), 8-10 round competition played pre Super Rugby.

Our season is the wrong way around. So play the competition from March-April culminating in a final on Australian soil. Play the first Bledisloe on ANZAC Day or the corresponding weekend, finishing with a restructure of the Rugby Championship to a 5 Nations (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and Japan(only 4 fixtures = everyone once aka 6 nations)). Which will coincide with the dropping of the Sunwolves from Super Rugby allowing the Japanese Domestic league to be what ever it needs to be. June will still be internationals against NH teams. During this month span, the non int players go back to club rugby supporting grassroots. Only downside to this would be no NRC , however the domestic competition and non selection of wallabies players during the Bledisloe clash would allow for opportunities to young players.

Then play Super Rugby uninterrupted from July to October and finish the season with the NH internationals.

Aus Schedule

Jan - Rest
Feb - Rest
Mar - Domestic Championship
Apr - Domestic Championship + ANZAC Bledisloe
May - Rugby Championship (New 5 Nations) (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jun - SH internationals (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jul - Super Rugby/Indo Pacific (Force)
Aug - Super Rugby/Indo Pacific (Force)
Sep - Super Rugby/Indo Pacific (Force)
Oct - Super Rugby
Nov - NH internationals
Dec - Rest

NZ schedule would look like

Jan - Rest
Feb - Rest
Mar - NPC
Apr - NPC + ANZAC Bledisloe
May - Rugby Championship (New 5 Nations) (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jun - SH internationals (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jul - Super Rugby
Aug - Super Rugby
Sep - Super Rugby
Oct - Super Rugby
Nov - NH internationals
Dec - Rest

SAF (If they continue in Super Rugby)

Jan - Rest
Feb - Rest
Mar - Currie Cup
Apr - Currie Cup
May - Rugby Championship (New 5 Nations) (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jun - SH internationals (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jul - Super Rugby
Aug - Super Rugby
Sep - Super Rugby
Oct - Super Rugby
Nov - NH internationals
Dec - Rest

Argentine Schedule

Jan - Rest
Feb - Rest
Mar - New South American Professional Championship
Apr - New South American professional championship
May - Rugby Championship (New 5 Nations) (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jun - SH internationals (Non Internationals back at club land)
Jul - Super Rugby
Aug - Super Rugby
Sep - Super Rugby
Oct - Super Rugby
Nov - NH internationals
Dec - Rest

*more games for our super clubs to be exposed to (marketing opportunities)
*more content for our members to engage and build affiliation with Super club (11 homes games)
*more rest for players
*Greater emphasis on the domestic comps with the best players actually playing, each country also guaranteed a "champion" (positive news story)
*Asian dollars in the Rugby Championship and not Super Rugby
*More emphasis on Club Rugby
*Appeases TV companies (Perhaps FTA for Aus championship? TV networks a lot more interested in Reds/Tahs/Force brand than the NRC versions, non rugby fans actually have heard of them)
*No stoppages in any competition
*Multiple competitions to keep fans engaged (eg. Football)

I'm sure there is plenty of holes in this, but worth a thought anyway

I like the fact you thinking of answers rebel, though I think perhaps with your suggested approach there would be fairly big problems with Club rugby, NZ you can't have NPC (or ITM) running when club rugby is on, as they are mainly players coming from clubs, I assume SA the same. Although I not keen on ANZAC test (just my thoughts) if you did work in this schedule I think you would have to try and swap SH and RC as all coaches would want the SH tests as warm up/try outs for Rugby championship. But once again, I like when posters actually come up with alternatives instead of just saying what's wrong, and I do like the way you have built a reasonable rest in to programme.

 

[kiap]

I like the fact you thinking of answers rebel, though I think perhaps with your suggested approach there would be fairly big problems with Club rugby, NZ you can't have NPC (or ITM) running when club rugby is on, as they are mainly players coming from clubs.

Should Super Rugby shrink as per his proposal (or die, as per other predictions) then NZ are going to have to make some changes.

Currently NZ has 5 Super Rugby squads using players in the Feb-April window. If Soup is no longer in that space, then expanding it to say 7 provinces-worth of squads is only an extra 80-90 players.

The better players will follow that paycheck which won't be matched by local level clubs.

Impossible isn't something that can't be done - it's just something that hasn't been done before. Of course, whatever is done will be decided by NZR.

And this is all hypothetical talk anyway.

 

[Tomikin]

I'm against any state of origin teams.. Have a domestic season the top 2 - 3 teams enter super rugby e.g. champions league, others split off into a challenge cup with the rest. We may not win the Super Rugby as strong NZ teams will but locally will have games constantly then we have the international flavor at the end.

Sent from my HTC 2PS6200 using Tapatalk

 

[formerflanker]

Indeed, I recall full page ads with NFJ spruiking Concord Oval as the Twickenham of the south.

Well it certainly went south didn't it.

Still one of the best grounds in Sydney, but shamefully underused. A better venue for the shambolic Waratahs than decaying Brookvale Oval.

Yes, but Brookie is closer to my place.
(he says half-joking, half seriously.)

 

[Dan54]

Should Super Rugby shrink as per his proposal (or die, as per other predictions) then NZ are going to have to make some changes.

Currently NZ has 5 Super Rugby squads using players in the Feb-April window. If Soup is no longer in that space, then expanding it to say 7 provinces-worth of squads is only an extra 80-90 players.

The better players will follow that paycheck which won't be matched by local level clubs.

Impossible isn't something that can't be done - it's just something that hasn't been done before. Of course, whatever is done will be decided by NZR.

And this is all hypothetical talk anyway.

I like his proposals Kiap , and I know we looking at hypothetical ideas anyway, but I don't think even Aus rugby grassroots would accept the NRC being played early and stripping clubs of their players. Maybe if some way of playing club rugby later in year. Though I suspect in Aus, and also up to a point in NZ, by then everyone would of wandered off to some other sport, ie League etc.

 

[Braveheart81]

Still one of the best grounds in Sydney, but shamefully underused. A better venue for the shambolic Waratahs than decaying Brookvale Oval.

The facilities at Concord are woeful.

How many women's toilets are there?

The field is great but everything else about the venue is nowhere near up to scratch.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You continue to perpetuate the myths and cop outs to explain away every problem.

I don't think Wamb is trying to explain away the problems, rather deflecting any talk of solutions.

 

[kiap]

Though I suspect in Aus, and also up to a point in NZ, by then everyone would of wandered off to some other sport, ie League etc.

Yep. Super Rugby as it exists now will be cactus before long.

Average NZ punters may be slow to realise it. They don't want change but change is coming.

The scramble is on to salvage a professional setup to keep the public face of the game visible and alive.

I don't think even Aus rugby grassroots would accept the NRC being played early and stripping clubs of their players.

Poster Rebels3's proposal is for 5 Aus teams + a PI side so this doesn't apply.

But let's say it does. The same case and same numbers apply to Australia; an extra 80-90 players over Soup.

RA haven't officially confirmed this yet, but NSW is having its NRC teams shrunk to two in four months time. It's like Super Rugby writ small.

Extra Aus teams to the 5+1 aren't a necessity. But, for argument's sake, if two (properly funded) pro teams were created out of seven amateur NRC squads, there wouldn't be too many needed from Shute. Multitudes of applicants for paid gigs are out there from plenty of countries.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The facilities at Concord are woeful.

How many women's toilets are there?

The field is great but everything else about the venue is nowhere near up to scratch.

Yep. I actually like the idea of the Tahs playing out of Concord as a more central location but it's in desperate need to renovation. I know the Tigers want to develop the main stand as a means of attaining a training facility. Perhaps if the NSWRU got on board and had those plans amended to keep the seating capacity alongside it then it might get pushed through faster for both organisations.

 

[Quick Hands]

The facilities at Concord are woeful.

How many women's toilets are there?

The field is great but everything else about the venue is nowhere near up to scratch.

I can tell you that Brookvale Oval is worse. On every metric - no scoreboard at the moment, toilets date from the 1960s and there aren't that many male or female, field is substandard, electrical system borderline unsafe.