Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

I went to tahs match at new bankwest stadium where last tahs game I think I went to was when they won the final against the crusaders in front of 60k fans. Despite ordinary second half rugby was still not too bad and stadium fantastic for watching rugby. For me though the super rugby brand is so tarnished that only complete rebrand and reinvigoration of the competition can salvage this.

If Sanzaar and RA think just moving to a round robin competition with 14 teams is enough change then they seriously show how they should not even be in charge of running a lemonade stand. Sanzaar and past RA administrations have so screwed up super rugby and disenfranchised rugby fans and interest in this country that only a complete overhaul and new pro rugby strategy and competitions based on entertainment package that competes for the modern day sports fan in a competitive market for fan dollars and eyeballs can give us any hope.

We need couragous leadership that can drive real transformative change as window dressing is just hiding the rotting corpse that is oz professional rugby that everyone does not have to see to know it is on the nose.

 

[hoggy]

The quick answer to that is no!
It's all very nice to think that it could happen, but Aus rugby can't afford it, and would be completely either bankrupt, or running such a second string comp that the game would never recover. I know a lot talk about how successful soccer is with their second string comp, but their crowds at Suncorp make the Reds look huge! It is very hard to maintain an interest in sport if you give the people a comp without best players in it. League and AFL will always do reasonably well, because noone else really plays the game , so the best players in the world are in the local comp! Soccer gets good crowds at Internationals, because it when their best players are at home otherwise they all overseas playing, which is exactly what will happen to Aus rugby if you have a NRC standard comp as the top comp for Aus players.

The quick answer isn't exactly no, it is the convenient answer for those that do not want the structure to change.
It is hard to argue what part of the game is not already bankrupt.

Both the Roar and Red crowds are pathetic.

We've had the worlds best players involved in Super Rugby for 20 years now and there hardly maintaining an interest in the competition.

Yes League and AFL will always do well, but unlike rugby they use the same structure that 99% of successful sporting leagues use, it may have something to do with it.

Rugby will get good crowds to internationals as long as its best players are involved, that is also somewhat conditional on the game here somehow maintaining a supporters base enabling that, which is no guarantee considering the slow and steady decline of support and lack of domestic growth to maintain that support.

The biggest drawback to supporting a better domestic structure is not going bankrupt or such, but in simple terms the lack of desire or drive by those closely involved, i suppose you can call vested interests.

The game may be hemorrhaging at the edges, but the players are all getting there top salaries and the administrators are all doing okay, as some on here have previously stated, self interest rules.

 

[Quick Hands]

Waratahs barely drew 10,000 to the first game of rugby at the new Western Sydney stadium. Crowd no doubt bolstered by a few people who would have gone to go to a game at the ground and see what it was like. Also there was a Shute Shield match played as a curtain raiser which would have brought a few more in as well.

Waratahs now disappear into the middle of the night for two weeks in South Africa, then an away game in Brisbane, then a home game against the Jaguares, then an away game in Melbourne. Is it any wonder that they can't engage with the Sydney sporting public. It's pure madness to think that this is sustainable.

People can (and do) come up with all sorts of reasons as to why an alternative won't work. The present isn't working and the concept, whilst once successful, has had it's day. Steam trains were cutting edge transport once, but the world has moved on.

If rugby in Australia can't come up with a viable alternative to the super rugby model of an inter-continental, multiple time zone competition, then the professional game is doomed in Australia. You just can't sell this product to sponsors, broadcasters and supporters long term. It's all shrinking before our eyes and yet nobody in authority can come up with a better idea? It reminds me of the fable of the frog in the slowly warming water.

 

[half]

The quick answer isn't exactly no, it is the convenient answer for those that do not want the structure to change.
It is hard to argue what part of the game is not already bankrupt.



The biggest drawback to supporting a better domestic structure is not going bankrupt or such, but in simple terms the lack of desire or drive by those closely involved, i suppose you can call vested interests.

.

Kinda sums it up, we lack the balls to change, but even more importantly most don't see the problem.

Until we as a group not only acknowledge we are in deep deep poor and demand change we will simply get worst. WE need to totally change our structures is it that simple and we need to do it while there is still enough interest in rugby to change those structures.

 

[Dan54]

Kinda sums it up, we lack the balls to change, but even more importantly most don't see the problem.

Until we as a group not only acknowledge we are in deep deep poor and demand change we will simply get worst. WE need to totally change our structures is it that simple and we need to do it while there is still enough interest in rugby to change those structures.

See I not against change fellas, just against change for changes sake, I agree things could be a bloody sight better, but by destroying the game won't do it. It's pretty hard to say as most seem to want, have a local comp with Aus teams, and perhaps throw in a couple of Aussie based Island teams, and maybe a couple of Asian teams, so all the games are played at about 7.30 at night, and the comp should be weak enough to make sure Aussie teams are at the top table, and hey presto all the people who can't be bothered to go to the game will suddenly decide that's what they are going to do! Should be able to pay all the required players for bugger all too, as maybe there not a hell of a lot of TV coverage rights, at least for a few years until everyone sees how massive all the crowds are and how much interest it is creating. And the best thing is all our best players will stay here and play for next to nothing and ignore the big $s overseas . As I said I not against changes, but I certainly don't have the business acumen or sales ability of some of you to see how it will work, and until I the ones who actually have to run the game do I suspect not a lot too dramatic can change.
If any of us think that RA, NZRU or SARU are not constantly looking at ways to have alternatives, I really think we believe too much of what trolls who not really sure of anything are posting.

 

[half]

^^^^
Dan

Honestly I don't know where to start.

You seem to want and iron clad guarantee from the almighty himself that changes made will work. Change involves risk but no changing is by mega light years more risky.

Rugby has F.....D in a big way, whether we die now or in 15 years is not important its simply the existing structures don't work and IMO have not worked for years if not decades.

I have often posted we need new capital, new smarts, people who understand markets and sports markets in particular.

To do this we need a independent competition funded and run by private teams under license to RA.

USA sporting models are the best to follow and IMO the MLS is the best of the USA models.

In Australia rugby is in huge trouble mostly self inflicted.

We have two choices, continue on with band-aid fixes to the current systems or develop a new system.

 

[dru]

^^^^
Dan

Honestly I don't know where to start.

Yep.

 

[Quick Hands]

If any of us think that RA, NZRU or SARU are not constantly looking at ways to have alternatives, .

The problem being that the needs of each of those three bodies are quite different, thus any solutions will be reluctant compromises which may not really suit anybody. This seems to have been what has occurred over the past decade.

I think it goes without saying that a largely (or all) Australian competition would have Australian teams at or near the top. You're characterising that outcome as being something strange. It's no different than English teams playing in an English competition with English teams finishing at the top or French teams paying in a French competition with French teams at the top. It's not really a strange concept.

On the other hand, what is a strange concept (in terms of world sport) is a weekly competion being played across 4 continents (soon to be 3) with teams disappearing from public view for 2-3 weeks at a time. Super Rugby has been in decline for a while, remember that Super 18 was touted as the thing which was going to save the concept. That didn't work and we've moved back to Super 15 and it still isn't working. I'm sure that SANZAAR is constantly looking at alternatives, but I strongly suspect that all of their alternatives are just reworking the same tired concept. I'll bet that they haven't looked at an alternative where the member nations conduct their own domestic competition followed by a shorter championship style tournament with teams from each nation involved.

I understand why NZ are broadly in favour of the status quo, as rugby is the premier sport in the country so therefore the game there has the strength to withstand suboptimal competition structures. South Africa similar, but the game there faces political interference which has an impact. Australia has completely different issues. Here rugby isn't the premier winter sport and so we have to get almost everything right almost all the time to be successful. Rightly or wrongly the Australian sporting public want club-based or at least geographically based entities playing home and away against other Australian teams (or mainly against other Australian teams). The expectation is that fans want to be able to see their team play every week. The Australian sporting public has spoken and they just aren't buying what SANZAAR is selling. In most commercial operations this would result in bankruptcy, receivership etc.

The longer this keeps going as it is, the more difficult it becomes for the game in Australia to recover. Eventually it might reach a stage where it can't recover and all our players are based in Europe and return home in the international window to play for the Wallabies.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Why does it take the broadcasters to table more comprehensive changes to super rugby like idea of having a pool of marquees to even up teams across borders.

This is about understanding what the modern day sports fan wants and does not want and the dwindling super rugby crowds show change around the edges like dumping the Sunwolves and moving to a round robin format will more likely only accelerate the decline of oz professional rugby with less domestic fixtures.

We are at a crossroads for sure but most of us are lacking confidence that RA can provide the leadership to drive major transformative change. They need help and be that twiggy and his team, world rugby or whoever but I hope they really do realise that the aim has to be find paths that drive major overhaul of professional rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^^^^
Dan

Honestly I don't know where to start.

You seem to want and iron clad guarantee from the almighty himself that changes made will work. Change involves risk but no changing is by mega light years more risky.

Rugby has F...D in a big way, whether we die now or in 15 years is not important its simply the existing structures don't work and IMO have not worked for years if not decades.

I have often posted we need new capital, new smarts, people who understand markets and sports markets in particular.

To do this we need a independent competition funded and run by private teams under license to RA.

USA sporting models are the best to follow and IMO the MLS is the best of the USA models.

In Australia rugby is in huge trouble mostly self inflicted.

We have two choices, continue on with band-aid fixes to the current systems or develop a new system.

The MLS model is the one being used by Major League Rugby in the US. And could provide a reasonable model for any such initiative. I know that there's a bond payment required to gain a seat on the board and criteria around financials ensuring they are able to maintain operations for a minimum of 5 seasons.

We may be in rare agreement here. This would be an interesting model to put out there to see if there's the will and/or interest to invest. Certain things like the salary cap would be a little more beefed up than the current MLR one but if you were to put requests for EOI's for interested parties to invest in a league of between 8-12 teams with a salary cap of $2.5-3m it would be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Adam84]

Super Rugby is stuck in a vortex of losing talent, not just rugby talent but high profile marketing talent.

I used to enjoy watching South African teams because I knew quite a few players from each team, these big South African teams with a bit of an aura and unique style about them. Some of the teams come over and I struggle to recognise one or two names in the entire team.

Similar to New Zealand but I still know more players, but I remember back in the 90s and even early 2000's the teams seem to be ladened with older and better known players because they weren't been siphoned off to Europe or Japan.

I think the pinnacle of Super Rugby was between 1997-2003, thats when the player depth across all teams was at its greatest and the attacking philosophy of the game at its best.

 

[Dan54]

T

I think it goes without saying that a largely (or all) Australian competition would have Australian teams at or near the top. You're characterising that outcome as being something strange. It's no different than English teams playing in an English competition with English teams finishing at the top or French teams paying in a French competition with French teams at the top. It's not really a strange concept.
.

Actually I don't and we have such a comp in Aus already, and have had for last few years, it called the NRC! It's got all Australian teams, plus one from Fiji, perhaps everyone should get along and support that and that might grow into what is being called for, because I can tell you something, there bugger all supporting it now! From what I read the Shute shield seems to bring in good crowds (Only what I have seen in here etc), but not sure what people pay to get in , or how much money they making, but if anyone of these concepts are the answer lets get behind them! And just to add the English and French teams that play are generally filled with quite a number of imports , and if you asked how they manage, they will tell you that the ones that are going alright actually play in a multi country tournament . The problem we got here is not the comp, but more the tyranny of distance, and I believe that until we actually can find a decent comp without the travel etc we need to make the best of what we have!

 

[Dan54]

^^^^
Dan

Honestly I don't know where to start.

You seem to want and iron clad guarantee from the almighty himself that changes made will work. Change involves risk but no changing is by mega light years more risky.

Rugby has F...D in a big way, whether we die now or in 15 years is not important its simply the existing structures don't work and IMO have not worked for years if not decades.

I have often posted we need new capital, new smarts, people who understand markets and sports markets in particular.

To do this we need a independent competition funded and run by private teams under license to RA.

USA sporting models are the best to follow and IMO the MLS is the best of the USA models.

In Australia rugby is in huge trouble mostly self inflicted.

We have two choices, continue on with band-aid fixes to the current systems or develop a new system.

And I think if RA did pull out of Super rugby, and go broke (or broker than now) and all the players did bugger off, I am sure half you would be in here applauding them for it?

 

[wamberal]

"Mostly self-inflicted". Half, would you care to elaborate on this a bit? You do understand that our game is up against some hugely popular and successful locally governed codes, don't you? They were both professional when we were still amateur. One of them had huge financial inputs from poker machine palaces. The other has always had fantastic community support.

We have been the runt of the litter since 1908, or thereabouts.


Explain, please, what we could have done better.

 

[half]

And I think if RA did pull out of Super rugby, and go broke (or broker than now) and all the players did bugger off, I am sure half you would be in here applauding them for it?

Dan, if had read my posts over the years I have always said we need to transition to a new structure, and it would take a minimum of four years.`Further we needed to gather all stakeholders together and be very inclusive.

To this end, and this is repeating what I have often posted but for the sake of clarification, we need visionary leadership that can command not demand respect and lead the conversation for the entire rugby community including fans, players, sponsors, broadcasters and potential investors.

Recently I have added the time has passed that our governing body can achieve major change, we don't have the capital and the ability to hire the intercultural capacity to develop internally a path forward. Meaning we need both capital and intellectual skills and we don't we look like getting them. So lets develop a competition similar to many other codes world over by having private team ownership in a franchise based system.

Your point pertaining to what do we do for revenue when Super Rugby goes is the owners of the new competition will look after it.

"Mostly self-inflicted". Half, would you care to elaborate on this a bit? You do understand that our game is up against some hugely popular and successful locally governed codes, don't you? They were both professional when we were still amateur. One of them had huge financial inputs from poker machine palaces. The other has always had fantastic community support.

We have been the runt of the litter since 1908, or thereabouts.


Explain, please, what we could have done better.

Wam

Wow, seriously.

If you have to ask that question, no answer will satisfy

 

[Quick Hands]

Actually I don't and we have such a comp in Aus already, and have had for last few years, it called the NRC!

The NRC in it's current format isn't satisfying anything. Again, in NZ playing a competition at that time of the year works. Starting a football competition in Australia at the same time as AFL and NRL start their finals is doomed. I'd also note that the teams in your NPC are longstanding traditional entities, while the NRC was created from scratch, has little or no links to traditional rugby clubs and has changed so many times in its short life that even many of us who supported it at the start have drifted away.

they will tell you that the ones that are going alright actually play in a multi country tournament.

Countries which are either in the same time zone, or one hour different. You're not comparing like with like. Super rugby is multi-continental which is completely different.

The problem we got here is not the comp, but more the tyranny of distance, and I believe that until we actually can find a decent comp without the travel etc we need to make the best of what we have!

The tyranny of distance is a function of the multi-continental nature of the competition. It's inseperable and is the core of the problem.

The only alternative which doesn't have travel is a domestic one - you basically said it yourself.

I understand that you support and like Super Rugby. It sort of works for New Zealand for a number of reasons, but none of those reasons apply to Australia. It's just not working here and worse than that, it's actually dragging the game down here.

Last year the Waratahs attracted barely over 12,000 people to a Quarter Final against an NZ team in Sydney at Alliance. A game which would have drawn close to 40,000 not so many years ago. Super Rugby gets close to zero coverage in the mainstream commercial news sport segments, it's just in a slow motion death spiral. The question is, will RA jump out and parachute to a chance of survival or stay until the plane hits the ground.

 

[Quick Hands]

And I think if RA did pull out of Super rugby, and go broke (or broker than now) and all the players did bugger off, I am sure half you would be in here applauding them for it?

The players are leaving now.

 

[half]

The MLS model is the one being used by Major League Rugby in the US. And could provide a reasonable model for any such initiative. I know that there's a bond payment required to gain a seat on the board and criteria around financials ensuring they are able to maintain operations for a minimum of 5 seasons.

We may be in rare agreement here. .

Thanks for the compliment.

Maybe I am slowly turning you from the dark side.

More seriously tho, although rare as you suggest its very significance.

Why you ask, because if the MLS model is acceptable, then it it is the polar opposite of what we have today. Moreover it means a national domestic competition and moving away from the US media company i.e Fox model that has by the nature of its operation put us on our current descending path.

PS and as an aside if you want I can explain in great detail how the MLS system works and how and why that would be IMO a huge success in Australia for rugby IMO rugby would start to worry the NRL within a few years. But I warn you to do that I have to talk about NRL & Football in some detail as well as a little AFL and many on this forum like that.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Thanks for the compliment.

Maybe I am slowly turning you from the dark side.

More seriously tho, although rare as you suggest its very significance.

Why you ask, because if the MLS model is acceptable, then it it is the polar opposite of what we have today. Moreover it means a national domestic competition and moving away from the US media company i.e Fox model that has by the nature of its operation put us on our current descending path.

PS and as an aside if you want I can explain in great detail how the MLS system works and how and why that would be IMO a huge success in Australia for rugby IMO rugby would start to worry the NRL within a few years. But I warn you to do that I have to talk about NRL & Football in some detail as well as a little AFL and many on this forum like that.

I actually knpw how the MLS system works as I know how MLR works. A number of their leadership group actually have MLS backgrounds.

 

[half]

I actually knpw how the MLS system works as I know how MLR works. A number of their leadership group actually have MLS backgrounds.

Thats great, someone else who understands how it works.

I also noticed today on the Roar, Geoff Parks is saying the Nobody Really Cares, competition looks like folding.

If this does occur it's something else I said would happen even before it was announced and have done so every year of its operation. Its not that I wanted it to fail, it was obvious to me for many many many reasons it would.

I mention this not to gloat or say 'I told you so", moreover to further illustrate that when you set up anything as ambitious as the NRC you need three things, Capital, Smarts, & to stick to you'or stated objectives. The NRC does not have the capital, has no real business smarts. but worst when from a duel objective i.e prepare players for higher honours and to grow and expand the game. Soon preparing players for higher honours dominated the thinking which IMO is beyond sad.

To my point, the now two failures [assuming Geoff Parks is right] of establishing a level below Super Rugby, and with Super Rugby in decline, maybe it's time for our own revolution and open the books to investors to take the risk and pay for the development of a national domestic competition. To do so requires a structure that IMO has some history, success and would work in the Australian sporting environment and as I said the MLS model is well worth considering.

If memory serves me correctly you are out Campbelltown way. If so you would more than likely see what & how at a local level the new team in the A-League is doing and how sad is it that the main backer and funder of this team is on record as saying he would have preferred to establish a rugby team.

Cheers, and I am quite pleased someone else understands how the MLS systems and structures work and understand its simply a model not an endorsement of US soccer.