Where to for Super Rugby?

[Derpus]

Agree mate, so I guess the boards have to negotiate proper deals with THEIR own tv stations?
And do you think Force who seem to have a few dollars more than say Rebels should have to split it with them?

No I think in an ideal world the imaginary 'Super Rugby Board' would negotiate TV deals in NZ, Aus and internationally and then that money is pooled and split between the clubs (with a little retained by the board for operating expenses).

If the comp needs additional funding it comes from RA and NZRU in equal parts and goes into the pot.

The main issue with that structure I see is top up contracts for All Blacks and Wallabies. A problem, but a navigable one.

 

[Dan54]

No I think in an ideal world the imaginary 'Super Rugby Board' would negotiate TV deals in NZ, Aus and internationally and then that money is pooled and split between the clubs (with a little retained by the board for operating expenses).

If the comp needs additional funding it comes from RA and NZRU in equal parts and goes into the pot.

The main issue with that structure I see is top up contracts for All Blacks and Wallabies. A problem, but a navigable one.[/quote


I agree in a perfect world, but you remember what happened last time they tried that don't you? And perhaps maybe like is being done with MP (Moana Pasifika) and Drua, no team should be allowed in comp if they can't afford it. If TV money split between all teams, and then each team has to show that they (or their main rugby board) can afford for them to be there.

 

[Derpus]

They've never tried that. Of that much, I am certain.

 

[Tomikin]

See we agree and Robinson said on TV at very beginning that a seperate board was needed. But you keep saying NZRU TT comp, but it's not, if it TT it's both parties comp. And I agree RA should say what they want tweaked or changed , by all means.

But if they do come up with a comp and RA sign up for it ,and you don't like it, surely it's not NZR's fault. RA's board should never sign up to something they not happy with, so if they do sign up (as they have in past), you will admit in no way is it NZR's fault. Mate even you say sanzaar type body is the way to go. Then you say NZR was responsible somehow for RA's problem within that comp. RA had as many votes as SA and NZR in the way Sanzaar was run.
Funnily enough you and I agree with a lot, only a couple of things we don't , but everyone not taking responsibilty for thei own game is the main one.

It's not NZRU fault. It's our fault.. we aren't good enough, but we need to sort outseleves out. I see that as our own comp with our board running it and a seperate cross over. That's best for us.. Then we keep our own comp and the Kiwis can do whatever they want.

Why is it so important to every Kiwi that we join them for a weekly arse raping. Why is it on us too go full TT ? It's not commerical sound for Australian rugby we shouldn't do it.

If the board decide that it is the best option then I'll back it and watch.. I just don't think it is.

 

[Adam84]

No I think in an ideal world the imaginary 'Super Rugby Board' would negotiate TV deals in NZ, Aus and internationally and then that money is pooled and split between the clubs (with a little retained by the board for operating expenses).

If the comp needs additional funding it comes from RA and NZRU in equal parts and goes into the pot.

The main issue with that structure I see is top up contracts for All Blacks and Wallabies. A problem, but a navigable one.

Absolutely the independent board should have been appointed for the development of the tournament from the very start, to outline format, player eligibility, teams, broadcast negotiations and funding distribution.

However what we're seeing is individual unions bickering over the breakdown of teams, funding and tournament design. If, and its a big If a independent board ever gets appointed their powers will be nothing more then the management of a pre-exsiting tournament bound by that the unions have agreed on.

IMO the independent board idea was lip-service that has amounted to nothing.

 

[Derpus]

Absolutely the independent board should have been appointed for the development of the tournament from the very start, to outline format, play eligibility, teams, broadcast negotiations and funding distribution.

However what we're seeing is individual unions bickering over the breakdown of teams, funding and tournament design. If, and its a big If a independent board ever gets appointed their powers will be nothing more then the management of a pre-exsiting tournament bound by that the unions have agreed on.

IMO the independent board idea was lip-service that has amounted to nothing.

Yeah i was just fantasizing.

 

[Dan54]

Yeah i was just fantasizing.

Yep well this independant board that was going to dream up comp should of happened 5 years ago, it didn't so we need a comp set up and a board to run it. Same as funding etc, nothing can change too much as NZR and RA are already tied into contracts and would be crazy to throw them out.
See most here say old Super comp didn't work, so what alternatives did RA come up with?

 

[Tomikin]

The problem with using the Vikings is you'd be splitting the Brumbies/ACT playerbase, I don't think they've got the local comp / playerbase to support two Super Rugby teams, Queensland Prem League & Shute Shield have a much larger playerbase.

Hence the we don't have the player base... But Money Talks and that's one thing the Vikings have in spades..

 

[Tomikin]

Yep well this independant board that was going to dream up comp should of happened 5 years ago, it didn't so we need a comp set up and a board to run it. Same as funding etc, nothing can change too much as NZR and RA are already tied into contracts and would be crazy to throw them out.
See most here say old Super comp didn't work, so what alternatives did RA come up with?

we had our 5 teams and we can invite 3 other teams one PI and 2 of the NZers.

Sounds great

 

[Zero_Cool]

I think to say it's our fault that we got worse relative to the best rugby nation in the world is a bit much. Like sure we are at fault a little, but I think the truth is we've also had challenges unlike those faced in New Zealand. I'd point out those with (compared to us) unlimited money and player pools aren't all that much better against the Kiwis either. I doubt the Top 14 or English Premier teams would be winning a comp with those Kiwi Clubs.

Yes we've got to focus on ourselves for a bit, but also New Zealand aren't exactly being accommodating. They've been utterly dominant of Super Rugby for a good 10 years now, sure we've had sprinklings of other teams but the Kiwi's have utterly dominated Super Rugby, and frankly it was becoming an issue before COVID... AND importantly the NZRU didn't exactly do anything to rein in their teams. If anything they just put their foot down on the gas!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

See we agree and Robinson said on TV at very beginning that a seperate board was needed. But you keep saying NZRU TT comp, but it's not, if it TT it's both parties comp. And I agree RA should say what they want tweaked or changed , by all means.

But if they do come up with a comp and RA sign up for it ,and you don't like it, surely it's not NZR's fault. RA's board should never sign up to something they not happy with, so if they do sign up (as they have in past), you will admit in no way is it NZR's fault. Mate even you say sanzaar type body is the way to go. Then you say NZR was responsible somehow for RA's problem within that comp. RA had as many votes as SA and NZR in the way Sanzaar was run.
Funnily enough you and I agree with a lot, only a couple of things we don't , but everyone not taking responsibilty for thei own game is the main one.

I got a bit lost Dan with your posts but hey I will give you thumbs up for debating. RA at this point yes has to be held to account of signs up to poor TT designed competition as actually knows now has other options. Yes we want independent board and Robinson said he wanted this a year ago - ok so where is it?

 

[Bullrush]

I think to say it's our fault that we got worse relative to the best rugby nation in the world is a bit much. Like sure we are at fault a little, but I think the truth is we've also had challenges unlike those faced in New Zealand. I'd point out those with (compared to us) unlimited money and player pools aren't all that much better against the Kiwis either. I doubt the Top 14 or English Premier teams would be winning a comp with those Kiwi Clubs.

Yes we've got to focus on ourselves for a bit, but also New Zealand aren't exactly being accommodating. They've been utterly dominant of Super Rugby for a good 10 years now, sure we've had sprinklings of other teams but the Kiwi's have utterly dominated Super Rugby, and frankly it was becoming an issue before COVID. AND importantly the NZRU didn't exactly do anything to rein in their teams. If anything they just put their foot down on the gas!

In what professional competition do you tell the best teams to 'rein it in'?!? Accomodating?!? This is a terrible, terrible attitude. Not one NRL fan would watch rugby union with that kind of approach to the competition.

Can you imagine the response of NRL fans - regardless of whether they supported NSW or QLD - if the Maroons had been told to 'rein it in' during their 8yr dominance of SoO?! Imagine telling Jordan and the Bulls to be more accomodating when they were winning 6 championships?!

I'm not sure what challenges you're specifically talking about but NZ has its own as well.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

we had our 5 teams and we can invite 3 other teams one PI and 2 of the NZers.

Sounds great

Works for me - kiwis can keep their 5 teams and create an extra 2 teams to compete in our competition- I like it so lock it in. Problem solved.

 

[Derpus]

In what professional competition do you tell the best teams to 'rein it in'?!? Accomodating?!? This is a terrible, terrible attitude. Not one NRL fan would watch rugby union with that kind of approach to the competition.

Can you imagine the response of NRL fans - regardless of whether they supported NSW or QLD - if the Maroons had been told to 'rein it in' during their 8yr dominance of SoO?! Imagine telling Jordan and the Bulls to be more accomodating when they were winning 6 championships?!

I'm not sure what challenges you're specifically talking about but NZ has its own as well.

They have made subtle changes to level the playing field, though, including rule tweaks.

It doesn't have to be polarizing. It can be 'we are going to make some changes to level the field' without telling the front runners to stop being so good. They do it in loads of sports. F1 for example.

Although i think this is basically what you are suggesting.

 

[Derpus]

Yep well this independant board that was going to dream up comp should of happened 5 years ago, it didn't so we need a comp set up and a board to run it. Same as funding etc, nothing can change too much as NZR and RA are already tied into contracts and would be crazy to throw them out.
See most here say old Super comp didn't work, so what alternatives did RA come up with?

I dunno Dan. Why don't you ask them?

Saying that RA haven't come up with a better option doesn't suddenly make NZRU's terrible option better.

If they can't find a resolution to this issue though, you can be sure that it'll be yet another kick in the teeth for rugby in the pacific.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

They have made subtle changes to level the playing field, though, including rule tweaks.

It doesn't have to be polarizing. It can be 'we are going to make some changes to level the field' without telling the front runners to stop being so good. They do it in loads of sports. F1 for example.

Although i think this is basically what you are suggesting.

They've been making shit rule and interpretation changes to keep the home nations competitive for yeeeeears.

 

[Zero_Cool]

It's not like the NZRU walk down and tell them to go easy... But they could share their IP (coaching staff and other resources etc), they could decrease the talent retention rate, decrease salary spending etc. The comp could adjust rules or open player transfers etc. Many many many things that could have, or still could be done, but won't be.

The NRL & AFL does it all the time!

 

[Brumby Runner]

The problem with using the Vikings is you'd be splitting the Brumbies/ACT playerbase, I don't think they've got the local comp / playerbase to support two Super Rugby teams, Queensland Prem League & Shute Shield have a much larger playerbase.

That's true enough ZC, but surely the same observation could be levelled at splitting the Tahs and Sydney Uni.

 

[Brumby Runner]

They have made subtle changes to level the playing field, though, including rule tweaks.

It doesn't have to be polarizing. It can be 'we are going to make some changes to level the field' without telling the front runners to stop being so good. They do it in loads of sports. F1 for example.

Although i think this is basically what you are suggesting.

Could be wrong but I'm sure the 6 tackle rule was introduced at least in part to bring St George back to a level playing field after they had dominated the game over 11 years through their "softening up" style of play.

 

[Bullrush]

It's not like the NZRU walk down and tell them to go easy. But they could share their IP (coaching staff and other resources etc), they could decrease the talent retention rate, decrease salary spending etc. The comp could adjust rules or open player transfers etc. Many many many things that could have, or still could be done, but won't be.

The NRL & AFL does it all the time!

Share coaching staff and other resources?! You probably missed the Cooper Cronk controversy in the NRL but no - I don't think that happens in other professional codes.

Decrease talent retention?!? WTF

Decrease salary spending. Salary cap is being lowered next year but how do you expect Australia to keep talent if they aren't allowed to pay them?

Adjust rules. Why? It's a great global game as it is.

Open Player Transfers. Agreed. I've talked about it quite a lot here. I would make this Players AND coaches. And recruit coaches perhaps more than players.