Where to for Super Rugby?

[KOB1987]

Also, I've got Sky News on to get away from constant riot coverage, they have spent a fair bit of time on Rugby this morning. I feel an announcement is imminent.

 

[Rebels3]

This could have gone in any number of threads, here will do. The Aus are running this event on Facebook on Wednesday night, I'll be there.
https://www.facebook.com/events/635112590456803/

How can this be a thing in Australia? Where is the prerequisite 90% NSW representation lol

I’ll be tuning in btw, looking forward to it

 

[drewprint]

Nice. Thanks for sharing! I’ll be joining this too. The more GAGRs on the better actually.

 

[ForceFan]

Yet another talkfest by Rugby Australia.
These 4 can provide commentary but not influence the game in Australia.

Super Rugby will be dead after 2020 as the broadcast $$s are drying up and the administrators have failed to create a Plan B.

The discussion should be strongly focused on: What is the landscape going to look like, and where are the $$s coming from, for rugby union in Australia in 2021 and beyond?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Hi

Yet another talkfest by Rugby Australia.
These 4 can provide commentary but not influence the game in Australia.

Super Rugby will be dead after 2020 as the broadcast $$s are drying up and the administrators have failed to create a Plan B.

The discussion should be strongly focused on: What is the landscape going to look like, and where are the $$s coming from, for rugby union in Australia in 2021 and beyond?

Recent messaging from the new chairman has indicated that dialogue is in focus and hoping to continue the dialogue with others like twiggy on this. Take whatever position / view on that I suppose.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yet another talkfest by Rugby Australia.
These 4 can provide commentary but not influence the game in Australia.

Super Rugby will be dead after 2020 as the broadcast $$s are drying up and the administrators have failed to create a Plan B.

The discussion should be strongly focused on: What is the landscape going to look like, and where are the $$s coming from, for rugby union in Australia in 2021 and beyond?

There's little harm in this media event but anyone after a robust, truthful and accountability-oriented discussion re what Aust rugby/RA needs to urgently do is likely to be disappointed.

1. In fairness and given their employers, the Rebels blokes will only be able to sprout generally anodyne and 'the bleeding obvious' type sentiments that stay well away from anything likely to upset RA or VICRU.

2. Horan is a notorious brown-nosing ambassador for RA. He simply never says anything even vaguely insightful or contentious and like clockwork sucks up to the the employing elite that is always 'doing its best in difficult circumstances and XX and YY in charge are really good blokes'.

3. Smith is of the 'easy option' school of mainstream Aust rugby journos. Step 1: Call RA for self-justifying PR-oriented quotes or data drops from its Chair or senior executives. Step 2. Blame no one for RA disasters and debacles, rather just hand-wring philosophically over how unfortunate all the problems are. Step 3. Generally pour scorn on the 'harsh critics' who are not sympathetic enough to 'how difficult a job everyone in Aust rugby is having and everybody just wants the best for code'.

 

[KOB1987]

Well lets just say, for example, the 4 were:

Jason Little
Brad Thorn
Georgina Robinson
Tevita Kuridrani

What would be the individual criticisms in this instance? Barring a panel discussion with the RA board, who would you propose would be the 'influencers'?

 

[Quick Hands]

Well lets just say, for example, the 4 were:

Jason Little
Brad Thorn
Georgina Robinson
Tevita Kuridrani

What would be the individual criticisms in this instance? Barring a panel discussion with the RA board, who would you propose would be the 'influencers'?

A meaningful panel discussion requires a range of views regarding problems and be able to present a range of different ideas as to solutions.

One of the reasons that RA is in so much trouble is the closed shop mentality which produces an organisational group think where people either can't or don't want to see the problems or focus on a very narrow set of "acceptable solutions." i.e. solutions with accord with the general thinking already cemented within the organisation.

A fair dinkum discussion would include at least one of Papworth or Poidevin - their views might be uncomfortable for some and many will disagree with them. Somebody from regional Qld or regional NSW or both who might also present a different perspective.

Like when the highly respected ex-Wallaby the late Terry Curley gave the Waratahs some home truths at an open form back in 2011.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...uld-jolt-tahs-complacency-20110520-1ewn6.html

 

[dru]

I actually agree with this. It takes some doing and an intestinal battle as I wouldn’t trust either Papworth or Poidevin as far as I can throw them.

But they are obvious invitees at any broad panel discussion that intends moving toward better internal relations.

 

[Quick Hands]

I actually agree with this. It takes some doing and an intestinal battle as I wouldn’t trust either Papworth or Poidevin as far as I can throw them.

But they are obvious invitees at any broad panel discussion that intends moving toward better internal relations.

Including people and bringing them inside the tent also puts an obligation on them to come up with solutions instead of just airing their grievances.

 

[Froggy]

Terry Curley's observations are exactly the comment I made pages ago. From a business perspective, this is an entertainment business. To be profitable, you need people wanting to watch the game, either at the ground or on TV. That is how you get gate takings, broadcast deals and sponsorships. And those are the income sources.

So what makes people want to watch a game of team sport? Three things, it must be accessible (which to me MUST include FTA), it must be entertaining (which I think it broadly can be with just a few very minor rule tweeks, with the scrum the place to start), and people must become invested in their teams, as they are with NRL or AFL. Whatever we design in the future must have these three elements as it's fundamental goal.

This won't be achieved overnight, but it IS achievable. And it requires visionary leadership prepared to play the long game, realise there will be missteps, own them and correct them, and have the courage continue to drive towards the long term goal. Look at the Sydney Swans. When they moved to Sydney in 1982 nobody gave it a snowballs chance of working. They battled through the early years with Eddleston and all the other disasters and average crowds of 9,000, but now are an extremely successful franchise with a loyal supporter base, huge media coverage and an average crowd of 34,000. It CAN be done.

 

[Quick Hands]

Terry Curley's observations are exactly the comment I made pages ago. From a business perspective, this is an entertainment business. To be profitable, you need people wanting to watch the game, either at the ground or on TV. That is how you get gate takings, broadcast deals and sponsorships. And those are the income sources.

So what makes people want to watch a game of team sport? Three things, it must be accessible (which to me MUST include FTA), it must be entertaining (which I think it broadly can be with just a few very minor rule tweeks, with the scrum the place to start), and people must become invested in their teams, as they are with NRL or AFL. Whatever we design in the future must have these three elements as it's fundamental goal.

This won't be achieved overnight, but it IS achievable. And it requires visionary leadership prepared to play the long game, realise there will be missteps, own them and correct them, and have the courage continue to drive towards the long term goal. Look at the Sydney Swans. When they moved to Sydney in 1982 nobody gave it a snowballs chance of working. They battled through the early years with Eddleston and all the other disasters and average crowds of 9,000, but now are an extremely successful franchise with a loyal supporter base, huge media coverage and an average crowd of 34,000. It CAN be done.

100% correct Froggy.

I'd just note again at this point that getting people to invest in their teams includes how the teams are named and what and where they represent.

State based identification of teams isn't what works in Australia and should be avoided. I again note that the team you provide as an excellent example is called the Sydney Swans, not the NSW Swans.

 

[dru]

I suspect we are perhaps far enough into things now to make some suggestions predicting how things may pan out. Note please the difference between an opinion of what will happen, not what should happen.

TLDR: shrink to greatness likely to continue but Aus pro rugby to survive all be it with continued down-trend.

Firstly the proposed 2020 domestic will happen subject to finance, but you'd imagine they will adjust to funds available. There seems little reason to expect Rebels (or Waratahs) to improve and it is hard to imagine the Force doing much more than the occasional upset. This will change few minds regarding the "right" number of Aus franchises in Super.

It seems likely, for now, that a TT "virus bubble" may be available by the end of the season. Hence a move to a mini TT champions league may occur to complete the season. NZ likely to dominate. Again likely to change few minds on the "right" number of Aus franchises in Super.

For 2021 it is now hard to imagine that RSA will continue with a full fledged Super, however perhaps a cut down involvement might be considered as the Saffers chase Europe comps. NZ are not going to be satisfied with a domestic comp as the prime NZ pro rugby vehicle which in turn will kill any TT proposal for domestic comp followed by Champions league - with or without Aus SOO style involvement.

Even if Aus decides to proceed with the main Australia arranged comp being domestic or quasi domestic - this wont suit NZ who will want top teams for their concept of Super. RA will not be willing to dictate our interests and the state unions will not stay strong behind RA if they did. Arrangements will be made from NZ picking and choosing franchises they want in a new Super.

OTOH if RA decides to run with a new form of TT Super as the primary pro comp in Aus, they will STILL not have any real influence on how the Super comp pans out and NZ will still pick and choose the winners. RA will not voice the narrative this way but open honesty is not something we have learned to expect.

Any attempt to build an Aus vehicle that involves teams outside of Aus, will either be done on the skirt hems of NZ, or we might look to the second picks after NZ sets up what they think is strong. Either way we wont be directing what happens.

I expect a continuation of Super (version 57) with fewer Aus teams - or perhaps a process which is a slower way to fewer Aus teams. What I have called the "slow speed train crash" model for pro rugby in Aus.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the stated "pathways" between club rugby and pro ranks. NRC will go (no funds). Perhaps something (probably equally non-sustainable) will eventuate as an interstate club comp. It is unlikely to fill a role in breaching the gap between amateur and pro - at least it will be less useful than NRC has been. Commercial success is another thing but if it has SRU support it has a better chance than NRC did. On this basis alone should be encouraged.

Twiggy is a wild card but failing the NZRU considering commercial strength along with rugby strength (when interesting opportunities might lie in NZ - GRR connection) WA is likely to remain isolated. Further attempts by RA to align Twiggy to any national based club comp are no more likely to succeed in 2021 than they have previously.

One final note - Rennie may well achieve a "new coach bounce" with improved performances. This could kick in optimism - that would feed into any revised Super proposal.

I suspect that the Reds and Brumbies are OK. Probably also the Waratahs (other than the Brumbies no state is entitled to demand choice by performance here). A meaningful pro rugby comp with a National footprint appears dead. Our ability to grow opportunity for local talent and to grow our fan base seems destined to share the shrink to greatness strategy which will be encouraged by NZ and actively pursued by RA who have proven unable to think outside the box. Any innovation is unlikely to chase individual Aus player opportunities within a broader Super, not by the amount of teams we have.

I will be absolutely delighted to be shown wrong, but I am not optimistic.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^Sadly dru, I think everything that you had said here is correct.

I think we have to strap in for the 10 year train wreck scenario, such a missed opportunity.

I would also offer the view that the fact that we have NZ coaches and administrators involved in Aus rugby, the subservience to the NZRU and the fawning acceptance of whatever NZ want is more likely than ever.

 

[Joe King]

This is my (more optimistic) crack at speculating at what the rugby landscape will look like in 2022 and some of my reasoning:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/06/07/my-fearless-predictions-for-rugby-in-2022-and-beyond/

Attached is visual of it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Prefer the optimism over Dru's pessimism JK. There will be naysayers, but hopefully those in power will look to make something along these lines work.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I actually agree with this. It takes some doing and an intestinal battle as I wouldn’t trust either Papworth or Poidevin as far as I can throw them.

But they are obvious invitees at any broad panel discussion that intends moving toward better internal relations.

no one willing to nominate A Jones?

 

[Quick Hands]

no one willing to nominate A Jones?

A. Jones is not a committee type of person. I doubt he'd accept even if nominated. I'm sure he would be able to nominate someone though.

But the larger point is that it's actually quite productive to have people who disagree with the mainstream or have different views in any planning process. It might be uncomfortable for those on the inside who believe in a particular way of doing things or a particular model of governance or competition structure etc.

However, the appointment of P. Marlow, P. Waugh and D Herbert to the latest RA sub-committee suggests that dissenting voices aren't wanted and the same old group of insiders will be making all the decisions.

EDIT: In short, dru has nailed it in his post above. Nothing surer than RA will be following his script almost verbatim.

 

[Lindommer]

.....the closed shop mentality.....would include at least one of Papworth or Poidevin.....

"closed shop mentality", and including Papworth and Poidevin as NOT members of that club! Spare me, that pair and their ilk have banged on about the threat of ARC/NRC/Super Rugby and ANYTHING which threatens the paramount positions of the privileged clubs in Sydney rugby, especially theirs. They have NO interest in any significant change for the betterment of Oz rugby. Talk about "closed shop".

 

[Quick Hands]

"closed shop mentality", and including Papworth and Poidevin as NOT members of that club! Spare me, that pair, and their ilk, have banged on about the threat of ARC/NRC/Super Rugby and ANYTHING which threatens the paramount positions of the privileged clubs in Sydney rugby, especially theirs. They have NO interest in any significant change for the betterment of Oz rugby. Talk about "closed shop".

You may not like Poidevin and Papworth and you may disagree with everything they say and you may be right that they don't want any change that betters Australian rugby. However, that's not a closed shop mentality.

Closed shop mentality; any business that only hires the same types of people all the time or only thinks the same way.