The End of Super Rugby

[Chiefton]

I'll say as a general comment: The Bulls were fucking dire for years in S12.

The facts are, the Kiwis and Saffers don't really like Super Rugby being elevated above Currie Cup and NPC (or whatever the fuck they call it) and as a result some of the sting has gone out of their competition. Australia's problem is: club rugby is shit.

So the solution - in order of priority

1) Get a proper fucking international season, with games played in our winter because northern summers (except southern France) don't count.

2) Shorten the Super Season

3) Let the Saffers do what they please - it is probably better if they join the Euro comp due to scheduling. I don't bother watching live games from Safferland - when the Sharks Girls were out doing their thing I did, but they've toned that right down.

From there, get the Japs to sink a pile of money into the game here by letting them have a couple of teams, chuck in one each from the Pac Islands of the guys who don't have contracts in Europe, and your sorted.

The only thing I could add to this is that players should be able to play for any club anywhere in the world and be eligible for their country.
This will work perfectly if a proper international season is agreed upon.

 

[RoffsChoice]

The Reds, Brumbies and Chiefs all only lost one at home this season, the Crusaders and Bulls didn't lose any and the Cheetahs lost three.
The Cheetahs, Brumbies and Reds never lost by more than 7 at home, the Chiefs by 8.

So teams that reach the finals not only win their home games, but if they lose it isn't a blowout.

 

[Sidbarret]

The Reds, Brumbies and Chiefs all only lost one at home this season, the Crusaders and Bulls didn't lose any and the Cheetahs lost three.
The Cheetahs, Brumbies and Reds never lost by more than 7 at home, the Chiefs by 8.

So teams that reach the finals not only win their home games, but if they lose it isn't a blowout.

Going completely off topic, the cheetahs have a very interesting set of results over the last three years. They have won only 6 from 24 within their conference (four of those wins coming this year), while winning 14 from 24 against foreign opposition.

 

[Slim 293]

The only thing I could add to this is that players should be able to play for any club anywhere in the world and be eligible for their country.
This will work perfectly if a proper international season is agreed upon.

But then they won't be playing in Australia, New Zealand or South Africa.........

 

[RoffsChoice]

Sidbarret Wow! That's just incredible, I don't think any other team can claim that.

 

[Chiefton]

But then they won't be playing in Australia, New Zealand or South Africa...

Double edged sword. Salary caps will easily counteract some movement.

 

[Sidbarret]

Sidbarret Wow! That's just incredible, I don't think any other team can claim that.

There are a couple such anomalies.

One that would not be very popular on this board is the Waratahs, whose results are basically the reverse of the Cheetahs with 15 in conference wins vs 8 out of conference wins.

With a smaller sample, the Kings are also interesting, with 0 wins in conference and 3 wins and a draw against foreign opposition.

 

[nomis]

This guy has some reasonable ideas but I think the biggest downside is that the majority of the competition becomes focused on domestic games.

I think Super Rugby's biggest selling point and the reason why it is such a strong competition is that it features international provincial games every week.

Under the proposal presented, you'd basically be having a Currie Cup, an ITM Cup and a new Australian 3rd Tier competition and then have playoffs between the winners/runners up.

Yep, that’s it. If the conferences were closed off and the national domestic comps of each country doubled as the conference of Super Rugby, then interest in local derbies would be at a maximum. And if the cross-conference games were saved until the finals, then interest in the international games would also be at a maximum.

Personally, I like this idea because I think it partly solves the clash between Super Rugby and the national domestic comp mainly for NZ and SA, and allows those competitions to once again take centre stage in those countries. But it also provides AUS with a NPC of their own. All the while the perception of a single Super Rugby comp is kept in tact.

It raises other issues of course, one of which is having no international games during the regular season as you point out

He also mentions how many more games that his competition would have and how that will increase broadcasting revenue yet neglects to mention the cost of increasing the number of professional teams/players nor any mention that the standard would drop because you are spreading your best players more thinly.

Yep. Fair points. I would be interested to know how much money would be saved without all the international flights during the regular season. I’d also be interested to know the affect in NZ if they chose to support only 8 professional teams, rather than the 5 Super Rugby franchises plus the 14 professional/semi-professional teams they support currently.

But you are right, the teams would be less “super” somehow. At the same time, they would remain even and enjoyable to watch.

 

[wamberal]

What about the role of transfer fees in helping the game's development? If players are allowed to go anywhere in the world to play (while still being eligible for selection in their national team) we should also ensure that their country of origin is compensated IF they choose (or are forced to accept) qualification for another country's national team.

 

[Braveheart81]

wamberal - transfer fees are interesting and would certainly shift the power away from players and towards clubs. Personally I don't like the concept as it makes the players far more of a commodity and results in two things:

1) Clubs end up selling their best players prior to their contract expiring so they can extract value out of them. An off contract player can't be 'sold'.

2) Players end up playing at teams they don't really want to play at. The same certainly happens in any sports that have a draft as well.

 

[wamberal]

Braveheart,

It depends on the rules, don't it? Players can get dropped by the clubs and franchises now, happens all the time. But in my best of all possible worlds, the only transfer fee that would be payable would be when a player is offered a contract by a club or franchise in another country - once only. Not on further occasions.

It would also only apply to players from developing countries, or countries like Australia where there is signficant competition from an opposing code.


In other words, maybe my transfer fee would only apply when players move to one of the mega-rich clubs in England and France (although it would be nice to think that our Sydney equivalent millionaire's playthings would pay fees as well to the clubs whose juniors they poach!).

 

[RoffsChoice]

Some soccer leagues require the player who's contract is being sold to agree to wages before their sale is complete. A player who doesn't want to leave just set's their wage demands unreasonably high - If the club pays out then they get a lot of money. If they don't, they get to stay with the club.

Players off contract are also significantly cheaper for clubs to pick up, so a lot of them are picked up if they have a good manager.

I think it wouldn't really take power away from players to switch to transfer fees, but it would make money a bigger obstacle for player movement than it should be.

 

[Braveheart81]

How would you make that work though? Does an off contract player heading to France attract a transfer fee? I.e. would the Waratahs get paid a fee by Toulon for Drew Mitchell even though the Waratahs had no rights to Mitchell next year?

If the answer to that question is no, then surely it becomes of interest to the club to sell someone like Mitchell a year earlier while he still is on contract and they can extract some value out of it. The problem then becomes that a player might not want to leave Australia and go and play in France.

Transfer fees work in soccer because generally anyone paying a high transfer fee for your services will be a better club or at least comparable club to the one you're already playing at. It is completely accepted that it is better for your career to play in a foreign league unless you're from England, France, Italy, Spain or Germany and in some cases it even applies to those countries.

How do you manage that with rugby where players may just want to stay in Australia where they can represent the Wallabies and/or have a settled base here that they don't want to leave?

Does it end up hindering a player wanting to move overseas? Why should a rich French club have to play a transfer fee to obtain the services of a player who isn't contracted anywhere and wants to go and play for that team?

I'm not trying to be overly negative. I just think that there are several key differences in the current world of rugby when compared to soccer which does use transfer fees.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Just as a though experiment, I don't think it should be implemented, but it would be buying the rest of the contract.
Eg. Matt To'omua has one year of contract left and Racing Metro has asked the Brumbies if they would consider it. They think about it and ask Matt if he's willing to stick around after the contract expires, he says yes, so they say he isn't for sale.
Then Racing Metro asks the Sharks about Patrick Lambie (assume he's there until the end of 2014). The Sharks ask Lambie if he'll stick around and he says no, so they tell Metro that they'll sell his contract for $600 000. They accept, talk to Lambie, and he wants $700 000 a year. Metro says no so the sale doesn't go ahead.
Then Racing Metro asks the Crusaders for Tom Taylor. The Crusaders have the depth they want with Carter, Slade and Bleyendaal so they say they'll sell the contract for $500 000. Metro goes ahead and talks to Taylor, who wants $300 000 a year but only wants to stay for one year. Metro doesn't want to pay $800 000 for one play for one year so they say no.
Then Racing Metro asks the Waratahs for Jono Lance. It's looking more and more likely that he is just a depth player and he isn't happy. The Tahs have no use for him so they say they'll sell his contract for $400 000. Metro asks Lance how much he wants and he says $200 000 a year for three years. Metro thinks that's fine and agrees, so the sale completes.
Then Racing Metro also sees James O'Connor off contract. They talk to him, not needing to buy any contract, and offer him $300 000 a year for four years. He says yes and moves over.

 

[Bardon]

One thing transfers would also do is significantly increase the power and influence of agents. In soccer as agents get a cut of any transfer fee they often engineer moves for players more regularly than the player themselves would like to move.

If transfer fees do eventually come into rugby one thing I'd like to see implemented is that the club teams who developed the player when they were younger get a small percentage of any future transfer fee.

Also I'd like rugby to have some rule that would prevent the soccer style factory clubs who scour the world for talented kids as young as 8 or 9. They then put them in their system and 90% are washed up by the time they hit their mid teens.

Anyway back on topic and specifically on the topic of a NZ and Aus only Super competition. I'm not sure how well that would work. A competition between teams from 2 bitter rivals seems like it would be an instant hit.

But look at the Anglo Welsh Cup. I'm a complete Rugby tragic and watch everything from S15, Premiership, Pro12, HEC, Challenge Cup, Currie Cup, ITM Cup and I'd also watch Top14 if it was on my TV package. However I couldn't even tell you who won the Anglo-Welsh without looking it up first.

For me as an outsider the appeal of S15 is that it's indisputably the best teams in SH rugby going head to head to see who the best team is. Not sure Aus v NZ would have nearly as much appeal and it would put the Super comp on a tier below the HEC.

 

[terry j]

For me as an outsider the appeal of S15 is that it's indisputably the best teams in SH rugby going head to head to see who the best team is. Not sure Aus v NZ would have nearly as much appeal and it would put the Super comp on a tier below the HEC.

Bardon, you might very well be the one to give an inkling to a question I asked earlier in the thread

In all honesty, how is the Super Rugby comp viewed in terms of 'absolute' quality? I ask sincerely, for example I never manage to catch any of the NH games so I don't really know. Not withstanding the answer, my point is that any absolute quality it has stem from it including the SA teams? For the life of me I cannot see the quality increase if the SA teams left.

I presume that you DO actually live in Ireland and hence get at least some idea of the NH (well, irish at least) scuttlebut and thoughts??? BTW, what is HEC? (heneikin?)

In any case, and I am not an outsider (if outsider means living somewhere other than one of the Super Rugby countries) but I agree with you.

 

[southsider]

First of all that is a ranking system which is based on the IRB model taking to all the games into account. Not the positions of each team on the log.

2ndly why do you think SA suggested more derby games? Because NZ and AUstralia were scratching their heads. How can SA teams have such a huge merchandising market and yet the teams did not do so well in Super Rugby. How come the period when the Crusaders dominated Super Rugby NZ failed to win the World Cup. Yet SA and Australian teams manage to nip one. Why did SA went and paid most of the Kiwi squad to come to SA and not Australia, a World Team or some Frenchman. How did went into isolation and came out of it playing with almost the same group of players in 95 in 3 time catch up and win a World cup? How come the Stormers playing boring tackle tackle tackle scoring the least amount of tries in the comp yet still attract the most fans and the largest tv audience?

Well its simple. Teams can not play by themselves. And teams need to sell the product called Rugby to the opposition. In doing so you need to create a competitive balance. SA derby games are always or most times close games. The Stormers the fans do not know for a fact the they are going to slaughter the opposition. The results are always unknown to us as the Stormers did one thing that is having close games.


Look at 98 what did the NZ teams blowing away the opposition do the AB? Worst Tri nations ever for them.

The Lions might be last but they won the CC in 2011. The results were unknown in the games where they managed to beat the Sharks ran the Stormers close twice and beat the Cheetahs once. THey were competitive despite having injuries.

Look at NZ and how well are the AB doing? Why. Thanks to more derbies and closer games. THe Crusaders are not sweeping all before them. The Cheetahs came over to beat the Highlanders. THe Reds beat the Chiefs at home, The Bulls beat the Blues at their home and the Stormers went through Aus and NZ with single point victories or 5 points defeats. Going to SA teams had a tougher time. It created a more competitive balance which is what NZ wants to achieve. Take away SA and then see how that balance will be with competition? Teams dominating competitions are not good for the national side when they do it by big margins.

Just go look at the Currie Cup results of the years and relation to SA national side before 96 and you can look further on as well. When the Bulls dominated the domestic scene our national side suffered. When our Currie Cup competitions were competitive right up too the final our national side were competitive.

That is why the Crusaders fans booing at Cooper and at a Spencer is not a bad thing but can be good. When the Saders go to visit the Reds at home their home bush will be packed for some payback.

We can not adapt the NZ system with contracting players its illegal and against the labour laws in our country. So we can not contract players not playing for SA. NZRFU have control over the players teams and can move them around as they see fit.

In SA the unions have to make offers and pay for them. So teams like the Stormers who are partly owned by the MAC group will have better players as a Lions team who was under the control of SARU and live of scraps. The Sharks and Cheetahs are partly owned by SuperSport. The MAC group have a steak in the Kings as well.

Oh the Lions 2013 results so far

Lions Fixtures & Results 2013
The fixture list in place of Super Rugby for 2013 announced on 27 November 2012.
19-Jan-13 vs Russia @ Ellis Park – Lions 51 – Russia 13
26-Jan-13 vs Cheetahs @ Ellis Park – Lions 33 – Cheetahs 17
2-Feb-13 vs Bulls @ Orlando Stadium – Lions 32 - Bulls 38
9-Feb-13 vs Kings @ Ellis Park – Lions 41 : Kings 31
16-Mar-13 vs Mont de Marsan @ Ellis Park – Lions 56 – Mont de Marsan 24
1-Jun-13 vs Samoa @ Ellis Park – Lions 74 – Samoa 14
8-Jun-13 vs French Barbarians @ Ellis Park – Cancelled to be replaced with SA Barbarians
15-Jun-13 vs Stormers @ Ellis Park – Lions 42 – WP 12
21-Jun-13 vs Sharks @ Ellis Park – Lions 33 – Sharks 29
6-Jul-13 vs Blue Bulls @ Loftus – Blue Bulls 12 – Lions 50
13-Jul-13 vs Montpellier @ Ellis Park – vs Griquas @ Ellis Park – Lions 26 – Griquas 12
20-Jul-13 vs Grenoble @ Ellis Park – Cancelled
26-Jul-13 vs Southern Kings @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, PE – Kings 19 – Lions 26

sorry rassie maybe your argument got lost in translation a bit, I struggle to follow what your saying sometimes but that made no sense to me as a argument that SA has enough depth to justify another super team.........

 

[southsider]

I think you'll find that money and favouritism has fucked the club scene more than anything. The NSWRU in particular protects its eastern fortresses who have the money to own the competitions. Meanwhile, western Sydney is a wasteland.

Before Bruce Ross gets his blood pressure up: that's not to say that Sydney University didn't have their share of blood, sweat, and tears after they got relegated a few decades ago. But they had a fair few old boys with a pile of cash to turn that around, and clubs like Penrith and Parramatta don't.

What western Sydney does have is masses of bodies to throw at the problem, if they can shift the focus away from Loigue and Aussie Rules for just a moment.

yea was, just using it a a example, know it isn't the only problem with our domestic comps

 

[southsider]

Well some would argue that these are not South Africa's problems so why should they have to worry about it? Much like many on here are arguing that the political problems in South Africa are not Australia's problem, so why should they help South Africa by allowing them to have an extra team?

But we don't ask NZ or SA to worry about it? We fully understand its our problem and that we need to deal with it internally, whereas south Africa looks for aus and nz to bend over backwards to accommodate them

 

[Braveheart81]

The argument about depth in South African rugby is surely ignoring the fact that largely, the strength or weakness of the Kings is mutually exclusive from the strength or weakness of the Lions.

It's not like the Kings entering Super Rugby diluted the talent in the other South African teams. They also didn't cannibalise the Lions team that was kicked out.

Obviously a few players went to other teams from the Lions when they were kicked out but by and large those players were lost to Super Rugby for this season.

The situation was different in Australia when teams have been added because quite a lot of the players came from existing teams so it did dilute the overall strength of the Australian sides.

New Zealand could certainly raise an argument that they have better depth and could field an extra team quite comfortably but their problem is that there is no obvious place for the team to be based that would adequately support a Super Rugby franchise.