Where to for Super Rugby?

[RebelYell]

When we stop taking SA money you know it’s because we’ve taken a step back toward amateurism or a Russian oligarch has bought the game in Oz.

Or we take the risk of going it alone/Trans Tasman, in collaboration with Fox Sports/broadcaster who wants to back it, and actually back ourselves to create and market a competition which can capture the hearts and minds of the Australian public, therefore generating enough money that we don't rely on anybody else's $.

And it can play to the intricacies of the Australian sporting market with scheduling etc.

We need bravery and risk-taking, but we won't get it because Raelene and Cameron would rather oversee the gradual death of the game and hand it over to the next people for it's final stages than take a chance on reversing the trends and possibly expedite said death.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

Aus could support 8-10 teams given a competition that creates the interest and growth to sustain it. It has by far the biggest economy with the capacity for this, what they cannot support is a competition like Super rugby that simply prevents being able to take advantage of that growth and economic capacity.

A domestic competition? I honestly have my doubts. The main support for rugby in Australia has overwhelmingly been for representative football - provincial and above. Club rugby gets a few hundred, maybe thousand at most. When current wallabies still actually played 1st grade in Brisbane there would still only be a few hundred people generally, I assume a little bit more for Sydney.

NRC is a great comp and has great talent but still struggles to hit decent numbers. There is just not enough depth of support there at that level.

Rugby in Australia needs some deep introspection. The current state of play is unsustainable.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

A domestic competition? I honestly have my doubts. The main support for rugby in Australia has overwhelmingly been for representative football - provincial and above. Club rugby gets a few hundred, maybe thousand at most. When current wallabies still actually played 1st grade in Brisbane there would still only be a few hundred people generally, I assume a little bit more for Sydney.

NRC is a great comp and has great talent but still struggles to hit decent numbers. There is just not enough depth of support there at that level.

Rugby in Australia needs some deep introspection. The current state of play is unsustainable.

Doesn't help that it's run on the fumes of an oily rag.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Or we take the risk of going it alone/Trans Tasman, in collaboration with Fox Sports/broadcaster who wants to back it, and actually back ourselves to create and market a competition which can capture the hearts and minds of the Australian public, therefore generating enough money that we don't rely on anybody else's $.

And it can play to the intricacies of the Australian sporting market with scheduling etc.

We need bravery and risk-taking, but we won't get it because Raelene and Cameron would rather oversee the gradual death of the game and hand it over to the next people for it's final stages than take a chance on reversing the trends and possibly expedite said death.

I still think a two phased competition structure could be a happy medium in the short term. Super Rugby and GRR run alongside one another for a similar length before the 4 Aus Super Rugby teams and the Force, Fiji, Samoa and Sunwolves/another Aus team join together in a re-worked NRC. Full time professional squads competing in a 7-10 weeks schedule plus finals.

It would also serve as an interesting test case for a more regional, time zone friendly alternative in the future.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If there's any grounding to Georgina's article in the SMH today that may very well be the case.

I think that RA are playing the only game they can at the moment which is committing to Super Rugby in absence of viable commercial alternatives and fact that yes did not want Sunwolves dropped but hard to argue if Japan national rugby body won't support them. In the meantime RA support exploring other commercial alternatives which includes GRR, developing NRC (e.g. potential for Samoa to enter) to see if other viable alternatives can be found in the long run to lesson reliance on Super Rugby.

It is clear Super Rugby with a round robin compeitition involving SA is not sustainable but in absence of alternatives you keep with that sinking ship whilst trying to find another ship to board rather than being thrown overboard with no ship to take you anywhere.

One just hopes some viable alternatives eventutate which could help be suppered on by world league but equally best not to have all your eggs in one basket at this point and certainly not having a foot in Super Rugby would not make sense given no clear proven commercial alternatives to go all in on.l

 

[sunnyboys]

Rugbynutter, I posted a few weeks ago in the NRC thread about an article mentioning the likely shutting down of the NRC.

 

[Aurelius]

When we stop taking SA money you know it’s because we’ve taken a step back toward amateurism or a Russian oligarch has bought the game in Oz.

Might not be the worst thing in the world. People on the ratings thread have compared the Super Rugby ratings with the A-League's, but one advantage that that the A-League has is that its clubs are privately owned, so as long as there are high net worth individuals who love soccer enough to lose money on it that competition will survive.

In fact, they're going the opposite way to Rugby Australia and actually adding teams. A radical concept, I know, but the point is that we've already seen the difference that private money can make in Australian rugby. As flawed as GRR may yet prove to be, at least it's showing a good deal more drive and ambition than the rest of Australian rugby which seems from the upside to just be twiddling its thumbs and hoping it wont lose out too badly from the next broadcast deal.

 

[Joe King]

If the format did become largely a trans-tasman comp, what would be the chances of the NZRU allowing their players to play for any team to perhaps expand in the Australian market with whilst maintaining the competitiveness of new teams in the Australian market? I'm thinking reinstating the Force.

Also, if Fiji are not suitable for economic reasons, what about if their team was based in Wester Sydney? Could potentially tap into that market without degrading the Waratahs brand.

 

[Rebels3]

If the format did become largely a trans-tasman comp, what would be the chances of the NZRU allowing their players to play for any team to perhaps expand in the Australian market with whilst maintaining the competitiveness of new teams in the Australian market? I'm thinking reinstating the Force.

Also, if Fiji are not suitable for economic reasons, what about if their team was based in Wester Sydney? Could potentially tap into that market without degrading the Waratahs brand.

I think it’d be easily workable if both parties agreed to certain parameters, such as (and only as an example) 60% of match day squad must be qualified for the nation they are playing in, the other thing and because we’d be the masters of our own destiny there could be competition wide bye weeks to all national squads to get together, etc. basically making where the players are coming from a moot point.

On the Fiji point, I think their value would come with increased audiences/attendance in areas with a strong islander community such as Brisbane, Sydney and Auckland. World Rugby and Aus/NZ government money would be a realistic prospect as well because WR (World Rugby) wants to see them continue to improve and the governments want to establish influence in the area. In a football sense they could become a “selling” club as well but contracting young/promising players on the island and then selling them for profit with transfer fees mid contract cycle to French and English clubs. It could provide revenue for the team to be run.

 

[Dan54]

Or we take the risk of going it alone/Trans Tasman, in collaboration with Fox Sports/broadcaster who wants to back it, and actually back ourselves to create and market a competition which can capture the hearts and minds of the Australian public, therefore generating enough money that we don't rely on anybody else's $.

Yep the only trouble is with the risk of going alone is obviously that RA will go broke (and of course noone on here would be anything but supportive), all the top Aus and probably NZ players will go to Japan or NH, but hey we will have a local amateur comp to watch. I only saying that because when speaking to mate who is in reasonable position in NZ rugby to actually have info, he says that NZRU have of course looked at other options for revenue, as he assumed all RUs do around the world, and there is not the same money on offer for a Trans tasman comp. It's all very well us coming up with alternative comps, like every game played in a time slot that suits me, playing only teams that really suit me etc etc, but as seen with something like NRC there is no way Aus rugby could survive on it. Don't forget without Super rugby paying the bills, probably NRC wouldn't survive.

 

[Quick Hands]

Aus could support 8-10 teams given a competition that creates the interest and growth to sustain it. It has by far the biggest economy with the capacity for this, what they cannot support is a competition like Super rugby that simply prevents being able to take advantage of that growth and economic capacity.

Absolutely.

 

[Quick Hands]

Doesn't help that it's run on the fumes of an oily rag.

Nobody with any sense would fund the NRC in its current form. The fact that anyone is willing to spend the fumes of an oily rag on it suggests that some people aren't very smart with money.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The whole concept of grr is growing on me ie Asia focus as I agree trans Tasman comp I could not see viable at this point. Attraction of rugby is internafionl appeal and oz and nz teams with Japanese side, China side, pacific island sides I could see potential with better economics.

 

[dru]

The whole concept of grr is growing on me ie Asia focus as I agree trans Tasman comp I could not see viable at this point. Attraction of rugby is internafionl appeal and oz and nz teams with Japanese side, China side, pacific island sides I could see potential with better economics.

One issue. For now NZ is not interested. RA need to determine how viable Super proposals are for Australia. A logical conclusions seems to be “no”.

Then there is no choice but to be the trailblazer - even if leaving the door open for NZ.

If the answer is “yes” then perhaps RA can better explain it to us.

 

[mst]

The whole concept of grr is growing on me ie Asia focus as I agree trans Tasman comp I could not see viable at this point. Attraction of rugby is internafionl appeal and oz and nz teams with Japanese side, China side, pacific island sides I could see potential with better economics.

One issue. For now NZ is not interested. RA need to determine how viable Super proposals are for Australia. A logical conclusions seems to be “no”.

Then there is no choice but to be the trailblazer - even if leaving the door open for NZ.

If the answer is “yes” then perhaps RA can better explain it to us.

NZR has signed a memorandum of understanding with Rugby Australia to support Forrest's venture.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12181213

 

[Rebels3]

I know the players association has put forward and prefer the Trans-Tasman concept, which to me indicates the concept commercially isn’t completely financially devoid. The major issue has been the relationship with both SA and NZ towards it, currently they need each other to have any power on an international stage.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's clear that any dramatic shift away from Super Rugby (unless it's a Trans Tasman comp) would require a significant injection of private money. As Aurelius pointed out further up the page, owners funding losses is an essential element of the A League (and indeed most of the rugby comps in Europe). The current situation where RA and the state unions running the pro teams are not for profits also trying to run and fund the grassroots/amateur game can't really work in an environment where it could be expected that those pro teams consistently lose money.

You have to have the players on side for any future change. Some think that we could restructure and just tell the players that here's the new deal and you'll now earn half as much money and it's for the good of the game. That simply won't work. If you lose the players you're destined for failure.

It's going to be very interesting what happens from 2021 onwards. The return to Super 14 next year potentially presents the opportunity to squeeze something else in between Super Rugby and inbound tests. The Super 14 used to run from early/mid Feb to the end of May. In June could you squeeze in 4 weeks of an Aussie Championships - 3 weeks of round robin between Tahs/Reds/Brumbies/Rebels followed by one weeks of finals (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4). Each team gets two home games which would help turn the shortened Super Rugby season into a more feasible season for the sides in terms of hosting games.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Today's the day!!

 

[Omar Comin']

It's going to be very interesting what happens from 2021 onwards. The return to Super 14 next year potentially presents the opportunity to squeeze something else in between Super Rugby and inbound tests. The Super 14 used to run from early/mid Feb to the end of May. In June could you squeeze in 4 weeks of an Aussie Championships - 3 weeks of round robin between Tahs/Reds/Brumbies/Rebels followed by one weeks of finals (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4). Each team gets two home games which would help turn the shortened Super Rugby season into a more feasible season for the sides in terms of hosting games.

Something like that could work, though a final after a 3 round robin between 4 teams isn't really necessary.

Perhaps a better option would be a state of origin series.

 

[Braveheart81]

Something like that could work, though a final after a 3 round robin between 4 teams isn't really necessary.

Perhaps a better option would be a state of origin series.

It's more so that you could give all teams two home games to supplement the Super Rugby season.

You could add the Force and make it four games with no final week but then you need 5 weeks to run it and I'm not sure you'd have the time. It depends on when the first test is.