Where to for Super Rugby?

[KOB1987]

I not arguing that Aus teams are competitive FFS have a look at all my posts, I just saying don't use one result to prove points!! I not saying and haven't ever said I believed a 2-3 teams from Aus is best, though I will say I doubt whether Aus rugby can afford to fund 5 teams even with Twiggy paying for one, I think RA can afford maybe 3 with Twiggy paying for one.

Unless other people/entities are helping to pay for all 5 Aussie teams, and maybe even the comp. Which seems to be gaining a bit of traction of late.

 

[KOB1987]

Unfortunately Foxtel seem to be the ONLY option for Aus rugby at this stage, noone else seems to be wanting it. And you right shrinking to greatness is not answer, but you can only afford a certain number of players! And that includes the ridiculous idea of diluting NZ talent!

According to NewsCorp..

 

[Dan54]

According to NewsCorp..

I would love to be wrong on that mate!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

According to NewsCorp..

Except its been mentioned that there were other parties in one of the recent articles.

 

[Dan54]

Ok only thing I saying I doubt whether either comp can go by itself with present teams, regardless of what fans say from each country. NZ has more chance of getting money from around world with Super Aotearoa, but not on a 2 round comp with 5 teams, and as players say you couldn't play 3 rounds as there would be no players still running at end. NZ could have a bloody good 8 team comp, with or without perhaps a PI team. Of course Aus rugby could have NRC type comp too, and I wonder what that would sell for on TV. And without TV money it won't work, if there was no TV money there would be no big money men in NH rugby either! The big money boys aren't charity cases, or they wouldn't be rich!!

 

[Dan54]

On a more immediate problem, what is the chance of Super AUS finishing this year with the cock up happening with Covid 19, I can see a lot of sport stopping here!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Except its been mentioned that there were other parties in one of the recent articles.

It was mentioned in Murdoch paper (telegraph in interview of Clarke who declined to comment on who were other interested parties)

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Ok only thing I saying I doubt whether either comp can go by itself with present teams, regardless of what fans say from each country. NZ has more chance of getting money from around room with Super Aotearoa, but not on a 2 round comp with 5 teams, and as players say you couldn't play 3 rounds as there would be no players still running at end. NZ could have a bloody good 8 team comp, with or without perhaps a PI team. Of course Aus rugby could have NRC type comp too, and I wonder what that would sell for on TV. And without TV money it won't work, if there was no TV money there would be no big money men in NH rugby either! The big money boys aren't charity cases, or they wouldn't be rich!!

If private equity money is tipped into a oz domestic comp it could mean not solely dependent on broadcast money (at least for initial years)

 

[molman]

Actually Dan, where we are headed is a little different. The two major models being put forward are not workable for one partner or the other:

a) shrink Aus to Kiwi greatness
b) Playing field leveler by NZ boosting Aus teams for Aus greatness (and lessor overall quality to NZ)

If the players are honest some form of middle ground will be found. I personally don't see what it can be, at which pint we end up with an untenable TT, and NZ shrinks into NZ, perhaps with PI, and Aus commits to domestic with all the hazards involved.

I think that final scenario is better for Australia than NZ, hence to me logically Aus can afford to play harder - if they have the balls for it.

Foxtel does not make the decision though will definitely have an opinion which will effect what they are prepared to do. But Foxtel is certainly indicative of broadcast value - which is something that both sides of the ditch need to hold front and center.

So far we just have continued posturing (both sides but mostly NZ) and the clock is ticking down.

Sorry, I'm a little confused about the two options you present and the outcomes you infer?


I'm also unconvinced that NZ regress by not having continuous competition of a equal standard (as they see it). In this day of resting All Black players, allowing sabbaticals in the Japanese competition (seen as easier on the players) and the recent comments from various NZ players isn't it apparent the playing at such a standard week in and week out may be a challenge.



You make life too onerous for your NZ talent and they start looking at better paying gigs for less toll elsewhere like Japan. We already lost players like McMahon for such reasons.



I also don't see the longterm economics for a NZ comp working. Even if NZ expand there are limitations to what Sky (their prime source of income) can pay. Their agreement was for a 14 team competition worth of content. NZRU would either have to make up the shortfall, spreading their resources or negotiate an adjustment to their agreement.
 The true value is the AllBlacks but I get the sense Sky have extended themselves as much as they can already.


Let’s say you go 8 teams in NZ like Dan mentioned, where does the extra money come from? Sky doesn't suddenly get a whole lot of extra subscriber dollars nor do I see the export price of the product suddenly increasing for a lot of other markets. Is there more dollars to be extracted from the NZ Rugby public, I'm not so sure.


Honestly it would be interesting seeing NZ go that route as they haven't really had to stick their neck out at all the whole time Super Rugby has been running. It's been the status quo pretty much since it started and they've really had the easiest market to navigate in many ways. Rugby AU have had much greater challenges with a competitive sporting landscape and SARU have had their own issues with the relative strength of their currency and the growing renumeration up in Europe which has taken a large toll on their local player stocks, not to even mention some of their player quota challenges and other dynamics in their market.


Also as others have mention, I'm not sure that it is clear at this stage that Foxtel are the only option. Optus and perhaps TEN were being discussed with some seriousness before COVID broke out. I agree with Reg and the crew on the podcast the other day, I was kind of look forward to a change of broadcaster just for the simple fact that a refresh would be nice.

 

[molman]

On a more immediate problem, what is the chance of Super AUS finishing this year with the cock up happening with Covid 19, I can see a lot of sport stopping here!

Qld has less active and total cases than NZ. Easy enough to play there (ala AFL) if need be.. or WA, TAS, SA... just NSW and VIC which have some challenges... and really VIC is the big issue.

I doubt sport will stop now, more likely a rollback on allowances (crowds etc..) and relocation / bubbles like Rebels in NSW if need be.

 

[Omar Comin']

BUT a domestic comp of the current 5 franchises, and extra team from each of NSW/Qld - call them country (irrespective of where you base them) and play their home games in the provincial cities and add the Drua, 8 teams, home and away, top 4 finals.

I doubt whether two country teams would really work as professional teams. They're either not going to have a true home or you'd be better off calling them Newcastle and Gold Coast (or Townsville or wherever you base the team).

But I really think it would be better to build cross town rivalries in Sydney and Brisbane before adding regional teams. South Brisbane vs North Brisbane, West Sydney vs North Sydney vs South East Sydney. That'd be the best way to build real tribalism quickly with new entities.

 

[Dan54]

Qld has less active and total cases than NZ. Easy enough to play there (ala AFL) if need be.. or WA, TAS, SA. just NSW and VIC which have some challenges. and really VIC is the big issue.

I doubt sport will stop now, more likely a rollback on allowances (crowds etc..) and relocation / bubbles like Rebels in NSW if need be.

I hope so molman, just I worried because I have horrible feeling now it's bad communtiy transmission it will sneak over the border. Probably just getting a bit negative about it as I so pissed they let it get it go so easily in Melbourne and it stuffing me up from getting home.

 

[hoggy]

I doubt whether two country teams would really work as professional teams. They're either not going to have a true home or you'd be better off calling them Newcastle and Gold Coast (or Townsville or wherever you base the team).

But I really think it would be better to build cross town rivalries in Sydney and Brisbane before adding regional teams. South Brisbane vs North Brisbane, West Sydney vs North Sydney vs South East Sydney. That'd be the best way to build real tribalism quickly with new entities.

Adding a 2nd team in NSW gives you a game a week in that market and allows you to begin growing a rivalry, same as QLD the issue being, starting a domestic comp do we begin with 5-6-8 teams.

Just under the current situation money is the issue.

 

[Dan54]

Sorry, I'm a little confused about the two options you present and the outcomes you infer?


I'm also unconvinced that NZ regress by not having continuous competition of a equal standard (as they see it). In this day of resting All Black players, allowing sabbaticals in the Japanese competition (seen as easier on the players) and the recent comments from various NZ players isn't it apparent the playing at such a standard week in and week out may be a challenge.



You make life too onerous for your NZ talent and they start looking at better paying gigs for less toll elsewhere like Japan. We already lost players like McMahon for such reasons.



I also don't see the longterm economics for a NZ comp working. Even if NZ expand there are limitations to what Sky (their prime source of income) can pay. Their agreement was for a 14 team competition worth of content. NZRU would either have to make up the shortfall, spreading their resources or negotiate an adjustment to their agreement.
 The true value is the AllBlacks but I get the sense Sky have extended themselves as much as they can already.


Let’s say you go 8 teams in NZ like Dan mentioned, where does the extra money come from? Sky doesn't suddenly get a whole lot of extra subscriber dollars nor do I see the export price of the product suddenly increasing for a lot of other markets. Is there more dollars to be extracted from the NZ Rugby public, I'm not so sure.


Honestly it would be interesting seeing NZ go that route as they haven't really had to stick their neck out at all the whole time Super Rugby has been running. It's been the status quo pretty much since it started and they've really had the easiest market to navigate in many ways. Rugby AU have had much greater challenges with a competitive sporting landscape and SARU have had their own issues with the relative strength of their currency and the growing renumeration up in Europe which has taken a large toll on their local player stocks, not to even mention some of their player quota challenges and other dynamics in their market.


Also as others have mention, I'm not sure that it is clear at this stage that Foxtel are the only option. Optus and perhaps TEN were being discussed with some seriousness before COVID broke out. I agree with Reg and the crew on the podcast the other day, I was kind of look forward to a change of broadcaster just for the simple fact that a refresh would be nice.

I was actually really saying why I don't think either country will go alone, I know NZ players would have to head for easier comps if they were given the option of playing each other week in and out, especially if teams were at super level. I do believe that just as many kiwis as Aussies are keen on separate comps, but like here decisions have to be made by the powers that be with regard to finances etc. We can all say hey lets just get private money in (heard it said in NZ too) but the number of people around wanting to lose money on sports clubs is probably not as thick on the ground as posters on rugby forums think! The one thing as posters if our ideas turn to custard next year or so all we got to do is wonder why the idiots that are in power actually listened to the fools who suggested it and deny it was anything we thought of

 

[Omar Comin']

Adding a 2nd team in NSW gives you a game a week in that market and allows you to begin growing a rivalry, same as QLD the issue being, starting a domestic comp do we begin with 5-6-8 teams.

Just under the current situation money is the issue.

I think the minimum to start with would be 6. But this would only be sustainable if you had a separate TT or Asia Pacific Cup competition after it or alongside it that guaranteed every team another 4+ games. But even with this structure I think 8 teams would work better.

 

[kiap]

starting a domestic comp do we begin with 5-6-8 teams.

A key word there is "starting". You've also mentioned money as the issue (depth and cohesion are others - also affected by money).

• To me that means 5 teams or, by stretching, 6 to start.

It's also useful to go back a step and revisit "Do we want a pro domestic comp?", leading to the why and how. It is an existential question, IMO; without it, Aus rugby slides below Tier 1 status.

That is my simple answer, but the issue gets muddied from there.

 

[kiap]

Domestic pro rugby is vital but won't be a self-sufficent answer. Bridging the gap will be needed, by one or more possible means. e.g.

• Recruiting more non-Oz qualified players.

• Adding, say, a Fijian side as a 6th team into a "domestic" comp? - It's still Aus controlled, so alright by me (albeit a doubtful scenario for 2021 due to COVID19 … but 2022, maybe).

• Does RA folding into Super Rugby work with NZ in the majority, i.e. only 3 Aus teams qualify? … IMO depends if it's a Champs Cup on top of a domestic comp where teams qualify; or instead of. If it is the latter: no. If the former: maybe (add a Challenge Cup for the other sides including PI team/s). -- Existing Aus teams continue to exist, as does a domestic comp.

• What about a "Super 10", 5 Aus v 5 NZ teams? … I think this could possibly work to start as an interim solution for 2021 (or even 2022). The odds of it imploding go up after that, if it doesn't suit the All Black agenda.

• etc.

Going purely solo for NZ won't work either. If anything Australia has possibly more upside on that front, but it'd be stepping backward before making progress.

 

[hoggy]

In some ways the Force have thrown the old spanner in the works. I think the RA would sign up-to a TT with 4 of the original Super teams, but they can't be seen to leave the Force behind now or just swapping them with the rebels.

You could argue for the preferred kiwi option of 2 Aus teams with a pacific team, with the point of building a genuine NRC below that.

For everyone like me that wants a domestic option, you equally have someone determined that an international flavor must constantly be present.

My big concern though is those necessary short term options invariably just become long term problems.

 

[kiap]

In some ways the Force have thrown the old spanner in the works. I think the RA would sign up-to a TT with 4 of the original Super teams, but they can't be seen to leave the Force behind now or just swapping them with the rebels.

True, but there's more involved than just a "be seen to" aspect. Included or not, the Force aren't going to disappear. RA's relative spending power is going down, meaning that of the Force is going up.

 

[hoggy]

True, but there's more involved than just a "be seen to" aspect. Included or not, the Force aren't going to disappear. RA's relative spending power is going down, meaning that of the Force is going up.

Exactly, and once you start getting people like Twiggy involved, they start asking some fundamental questions.

So you want me to fund this entity, yet the competitions set-up is specifically designed to suit anther entity. hang on a second??