Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

Teams playing in a week to week competition are 'clubs', whether you call them 'franchises' or not.

Whatever competition emerges will be funded the same way - central contracts and funding from RA. At the moment RA finances 4 x Super Rugby clubs/franchises and 7 NRC clubs/franchises.

I agree. Any structure will be funded I much the same way as now. That's why I've suggested what I have. Reducing the overall salary cap in order to facilitate two more NSW and Qld teams. This would then allow for two more teams to be entered without having to set up new organisations.

And it wouldn't see a net declaring be in player spend. If there is a group interested in entering a bid then they would have to do so having to provide their own funding deriving revenue from sponsorship, merchandising and attendance etc.

This would achieve similar to what you've suggested. Eliminating tiers. We'd have elite amateur, domestic professional and Wallabies.

I think something that will have to change as well is the do away with Wallabies top up contracts and move to a strict game payment set up.

 

[Slim 293]

Ultimately, whatever professional competition we have going forward, whether it be domestic, trans-Tasman, Super Rugby MK VI, will need to be built on the existing professional franchises, and hopefully grown from there (Fiji, extra teams in NSW, Qld etc.).............

Ditching already well known, recognisable brands for reinvented new city/state teams would be a flop.

And Premier club rugby should remain at the level it is now, as it cannot be elevated into a viable broader domestic, professional system.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Ultimately, whatever professional competition we have going forward, whether it be domestic, trans-Tasman, Super Rugby MK VI, will need to be built on the existing professional franchises, and hopefully grown from there (Fiji, extra teams in NSW, Qld etc.).....

Ditching already well known, recognisable brands for reinvented new city/state teams would be a flop.

And Premier club rugby should remain at the level it is now, as it cannot be elevated into a viable broader domestic, professional system.

I'm flexible in my considerations. It doesn't need to be two new brands in NSW or Qld. It could be the Reds and Tahs plus two new regions managed by each organisations in both states. For example. The NSWRU could run both the Tags and a second NSW team which could be based in say Newcastle or Wollongong partnering with one of the Uni's in both regions as training bases. But all administration etc. being run out of Daceyville. Similar for Qld.

 

[kiap]

Do these suggestions qualify as tiers?

No, because it is the same (5 or so .......) Oz teams all season.

Like a round-robin group followed by cup or plate playoffs, it is the same team's squad playing throughout - and therefore the same tier.

But if you have an 8-10 team NRC, then select 2 or 3 origin squads from that NRC pool of players to play another series, then it's different squads, different teams, different tier.

 

[Quick Hands]

But if you have an 8-10 team NRC, then select 2 or 3 origin squads from that NRC pool of players to play another series, then it's different squads, different teams, different tier.

Not that I'm advocating this, just to clarify.

 

[kiap]

Fair enough, I look forward to the NH 'Sydney' Rays playing Perth Gold then in the Trans-Tasman bowl final vying for an 11th place finish.

 

[Quick Hands]

Fair enough, I look forward to the NH 'Sydney' Rays playing Perth Gold then in the Trans-Tasman bowl final vying for an 11th place finish.

Trans-Tasman bowl final???? Barely worth a response

 

[Quick Hands]

It's good to see that people are thinking about different models.

Can I suggest that one of the many failings of Super Rugby was that it was difficult for most people to explain how the competition worked. Already we have people planning all sorts of crossover competitions at the end with some teams going off to play here there and everywhere.

Whatever RA come up with has to be explained easily to the general public and journos. In the Australian context what works is that teams play each other, have a final series, a grand final and then premiers. That's how this thing needs to be marketed and sold.

Basically it needs a minimum or 8 teams and a maximum of 10. With that number of teams you play each other twice, you have a 3 week top 4 semi-final series and you end up with a winner. That's all folks.

Anything else should be dealt with separately. Rugby has an extremely crowded international calendar as it is and I think that some of the post seasons suggestions wouldn't be possible or realistic.

 

[kiap]

Trans-Tasman bowl final???? Barely worth a response

Just having some fun, QH. But you are quite right that some suggestions will turn out unrealistic.

Salaries are scaling back without broadcast cash - possibly except at the Force - and travel budgets are under pressure.

Worst case is Reg is right and paid rugby is gone. Or it may be that only 3-5 teams are viable instead of a full 8-10.

I'm punting in the middle on number of teams. Also advocating Trans-Tasman games. But no one knows the outcome right now.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Teams playing in a week to week competition are 'clubs', whether you call them 'franchises' or not.

Whatever competition emerges will be funded the same way - central contracts and funding from RA. At the moment RA finances 4 x Super Rugby clubs/franchises and 7 NRC clubs/franchises.

QH, but in the context of rugby in this country over the past decade or more, when there has been a distinct disconnect between various vested interests at Super/test and "clubland", the term clubs has widely become to mean SS, Hospital Cup, JID competitions - rightly or wrongly. I think for clarity it would help not to refer to a professional, or semi, competition involving the Super/NRC teams or similar entities as club rugby. Just my thoughts.

 

[hoggy]

Surely the only way the game can survive is separating the RA from the funding of teams. Say Fox sports does bid in the end, at most were looking at $12/15 million. Straight off the budgets of the Super teams would have to be reduced at least 50/60% just to start.

Surely the only option moving forward is for the RA to move to match payments for Wallabies and then allow the 2nd tier to exist at a level that can fund itself, if teams have a budget of $2 million, then so be it, revenue can only come with growth.

 

[Rebels3]

It's good to see that people are thinking about different models.

Can I suggest that one of the many failings of Super Rugby was that it was difficult for most people to explain how the competition worked. Already we have people planning all sorts of crossover competitions at the end with some teams going off to play here there and everywhere.

Whatever RA come up with has to be explained easily to the general public and journos. In the Australian context what works is that teams play each other, have a final series, a grand final and then premiers. That's how this thing needs to be marketed and sold.

Basically it needs a minimum or 8 teams and a maximum of 10. With that number of teams you play each other twice, you have a 3 week top 4 semi-final series and you end up with a winner. That's all folks.

Anything else should be dealt with separately. Rugby has an extremely crowded international calendar as it is and I think that some of the post seasons suggestions wouldn't be possible or realistic.

Personally I think the model has been used as an excuse than a reason. We can’t all be that dumb to be the only population in the world that can’t understand different technical elements of a draw. The US system is very convoluted compared to what we have and I’d like to think we have equal brain power to them, the European rugby and football systems have champions league qualifications, multiple trophies, relegation/relegation playoffs, the champions leagues has group phases, 3 x qualification rounds before the group phase, a coefficient that determines each season which country gets a certain amount of spots in the competition etc. the same in South American and Asian football. Even the afl and NRL are far from perfect systems. The afl you play everyone once and 4-5 of the other 18 teams twice, it’s hardly a fair system. I think it’s more an excuse for how crappy the competition has been than the actual format. Once again we can’t be that thick to not understand the system

The only system I didn’t agree with was the silly SA 2x4 team conference when the other conferences were 5 teams. That was bizarre.

I’m not a proponent for Super Rugby either, it lacks visibility and appropriate amount of content to truly engage fans.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

This could have an interesting impact on any future considerations. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-u...ng-traditional-start-date-synchronise-global/

 

[Quick Hands]

Personally I think the model has been used as an excuse than a reason. We can’t all be that dumb to be the only population in the world that can’t understand different technical elements of a draw.

Possibly, but many people in your target audience aren't interested in technical elements of a draw.

P. The US system is very convoluted compared to what we have and I’d like to think we have equal brain power to them

But sports fans in the US have grown up with those convoluted systems for a century, so they're used to them.

the European rugby and football systems have champions league qualifications, multiple trophies, relegation/relegation playoffs, the champions leagues has group phases, 3 x qualification rounds before the group phase, a coefficient that determines each season which country gets a certain amount of spots in the competition etc. the same in South American and Asian football.

The population is much bigger and they don't have the tyranny of distance as we do. There's many more clubs and because they have the quantity they are able to manage promotion and relegation reasonably easily. Soccer has the added advantage that it's possible to back up more quickly between games making multiple competitions easier. Because of the money involved they can afford to rest players for certain games and still put a high quality team on the field. Additionally, although soccer has positions they are more interchangeable that rugby where specialist tight 5 players for example are reasonably scarce at the highest level.

European rugby has different competitions, but nowhere near as convoluted as soccer.

The afl you play everyone once and 4-5 of the other 18 teams twice, it’s hardly a fair system. I think it’s more an excuse for how crappy the competition has been than the actual format. Once again we can’t be that thick to not understand the system

If we were ever able to put that many teams into a professional league, then we would adopt a similar system. The trade-off is that you expand the semi-final series to compensate for the draw. The cream always rises to the top though and the top 3 or 4 teams occupy those positions for the majority of the year. A version of this system has applied to Sydney Rugby on many occasions where the season has needed to be shortened for Olympics, RWC etc. There's nothing remotely complicated about it.

The only system I didn’t agree with was the silly SA 2x4 team conference when the other conferences were 5 teams. That was bizarre.

I’m not a proponent for Super Rugby either, it lacks visibility and appropriate amount of content to truly engage fans.

I always like to finish on a point on which we agree. [/quote]

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^Apologies for the formatting issues above.

Hope it makes sense.

 

[half]

For what its worth this is the model I would adopt and it keeps a small part of Super Rugby.

Australia 1
NZ 2
SA 2
PIN’s 1
ANG 1
Japan 1

Each nation play its own local domestic competition. The winner of each of the above nations winner gets a place with NZ & SA 2 places.

Played on a rotation basic, between Aus, NZ, SA, Jap & ANG, these 8 teams met in one country for a knock competition,
Round 1, 4 games involving 8 teams, leaving 4
Round 2, 2 games involving 4 teams.
Round 3, Losers of the round two games to play off for third place.
Round 4, Winners of round two games play off for top spot.

In one country in 3 weeks could almost do a bubble like now.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH, but in the context of rugby in this country over the past decade or more, when there has been a distinct disconnect between various vested interests at Super/test and "clubland", the term clubs has widely become to mean SS, Hospital Cup, JID competitions - rightly or wrongly. I think for clarity it would help not to refer to a professional, or semi, competition involving the Super/NRC teams or similar entities as club rugby. Just my thoughts.

No worries, but the central point remains - whether a team is called Tuggeranong Vikings, Canberra Vikings or ACT Brumbies it's the same franchise and it would be funded in the same way. To the Canberra rugby community it may or may not make any difference. In fact in relation to Canberra, Perth and Melbourne it's probable the name may make no difference to the marketability of the franchise.

However, whether people like it or not Sydney is critical to any domestic competition. What teams are called and what geographic area that represent could have a major impact on whether or not people will support the franchise or not. That needs to be considered and carefully researched before proceeding.

 

[Rebels3]

Possibly, but many people in your target audience aren't interested in technical elements of a draw.

Not one of those reason has anything to do with a persons mental ability to interpret who qualifies for something.

I’m not defending super rugby at all, infact I think it’s stupid to have a competition that is over so many timezones. But that’s a completely different question to the make up of a competition in terms of who’s qualifying, different conferences etc.

I’m just pointing out the competition structure isn’t the reason it’s failed. Timezones, lack of content, not enough home games for teams, etc. I’d put dramatically above conferences and an uneven draw.

It just frustrates me when people say it was too hard to follow, when every other competition in the world has their own uneven and silly structures.

 

[Slim 293]

To the Canberra rugby community it may or may not make any difference. In fact in relation to Canberra, Perth and Melbourne it's probable the name may make no difference to the marketability of the franchise.

Nope.......... big, big, BIG difference.

Go into one of the John I Dent Cup threads to catch a glimpse of how the greater Canberra rugby community feel about the Vikings.

 

[kiap]

Yep. The Vikings bring vital backing to ACT rugby which I really like. At the same time, that does bring some tensions but …

There is simply no question that the Brumbies name, recognition and IP market value is an order of magnitude higher.

It's the same with the Reds in Brisbane, Rebels in Melbourne … and, dare I say it, … Waratahs in Sydney.