Where to for Super Rugby?

[Joe King]

I support the idea of 5 OZ franchises, because you can have almost 200 hired players for Wallabies playing Super Rugby level but not at this cost. If the ARU don't have the money and depth to have 5 competitive franchises then is not the way. To attract companies to invest in Super Rugby you need succesfull teams or at least competitive teams, if your 5 teams are smashed by everybody, not only by the migthy Kiwis, then is not a sustainable format.

With the performances of 2016 and 2017, I suggest back to the 3 teams format. You need to be competitive to attract sponsors and new supporters or you can be the NZ Warriors of Super Rugby.

I can understand why NZ (and others) might be pushing for this from a competition point of view. Super Rugby needs to be of a significantly high standard to ultimately withstand Europe, if at all.

And I am prepared to accept this proposal *IF* there really is a problem with Oz depth and reducing a team would fix it.

Maybe this is the solution, but I'm not sure. It seems some Oz teams with plenty of Wallabies still don't win very consistently. So I don't know if adding a couple more Wallabies to each Oz team would do the trick.

Some would say the problem with the Oz teams is mainly to do with skills. And that this is a coaching/structural problem.

The solution might be in focusing on skills a lot more (especially for developing players) and letting the NRC run for a few more years.

I want to rule this out as the potential problem before we lose a team that we may not get back again.

So I really hope they go to 3x6 conferences for the remainder of the broadcast deal (2020): play everyone in own conference twice (10 games) + 3 teams from the other two conferences (6 games) = 8 home and 8 away games for each team. Plenty of local derbies + a sufficient amount of cross-conference games, without the travel being too strenuous particularly for the SA teams.

Then at the end of the broadcast deal, if no real improvement in the Oz depth (and SA financial problems), look to cut some teams and go back to 3x5 conferences (unless there is something even better by then).

 

[cyclopath]

No Super form which is purely the reason for the policy to select Australian based players, which by you will have to agree has been always my position. I do not pick and choose or play favourites. Like I said if Beale walks straight back into the Wallabies and I was a player adviser of somebody like Kyle Godwin I'd be saying mate you have no future when dealing with faithless administrators who play semantics to choose their favourites.

You need to use a better example than Godwin. Not even close to the same league as a player. And I am in favour of picking OS players, under whatever rule is applied at the time (60 or other) as we just do not have the quality of depth to do otherwise, and I doubt we will in the foreseeable future.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I can see why NZ would push for 15 teams as end of the day they would benefit by a) having most teams in Super Rugby and hence entrench their top league status by having more professional players than the next top two Southern Hemisphere sides and b) hopefully get short term better competition from SA and Oz sides by having top professionals distributed amongst existing sides...but my concern would be just more head overseas without improving quality of existing squads. My cynicism is a) is the bigger driver than b) for NZ's position.

But SA and Oz will of course be pushing their own self interests so nothing surprising there.

 

[p.Tah]

Nothing new in this but a good overview of the situation

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/rugby-bosses-need-to-stand-up-for-australia-20170309-guutbu

 

[dru]

The concept of cutting an Australian region from rugby (WA/Vic/ACT) and suggesting that is does anything other than carve out and reduce the rugby community in Australia, to me is just preposterous.

It will NOT concentrate the talent from the pie. It WILL reduce the size of the pie. How that helps anyone, including NZRU and SARU I am simply flabbergasted trying to understand.

I've been a determined supporter of the ARU but this is not at all looking good.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Nothing new in this but a good overview of the situation



http://www.afr.com/business/sport/rugby-bosses-need-to-stand-up-for-australia-20170309-guutbu

Good article...yes ARU needs to do what is best for Australian Rugby and agreeing to the 18 team fiasco and having less Australian derbies was not acting in Australia's best interest. I agree the ARU board needs to step up and start showing some strong leadership on this as personally serving the interests of NZ or SA who have no where near the competitive pressures Australian Rugby faces from other codes won't help Australian Rugby's survival.

I do wonder in agreeing to the 18 team expansion in it current format they sold out on Australian Rugby and its best interests. Question is whether they will again bend over and do Australian Rugby a disservice. We shall see...

 

[p.Tah]

I was rooting for an 18 team expansion when it happened. I just didn't expect it to have such a bizzare draw where Japan played in SA conference and some of their games in Singapore.
Should have gone to 3x6 conferences in the first place.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I was rooting for an 18 team expansion when it happened. I just didn't expect it to have such a bizzare draw where Japan played in SA conference and some of their games in Singapore.
Should have gone to 3x6 conferences in the first place.

More I.think about it if we.could create a.Tran Tasman competition where plAyers could play for any side I.could see.this as commercially very successful. Idea growing on me. Why would nz do this you say as commercially could grow bigger and more successful competition that
Generates more Tv money. What has rn been smoking you might say but maybe there is something really in.this as we need something left field to.grow the game down here.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[p.Tah]

^^^ there could be 10 teams with the majority of the players kiwis

 

[Rugbynutter39]

^^^ there could be 10 teams with the majority of the players kiwis

Lol yes but if creates a more appealing product and competition long term I think it would even out...

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

Well IMHO of this is even close to the truth every rugby supporter need to tell the ARU to go and f#*#! Absolutely pathetic.

If they won't fight for the game they all need to go especially Pulver.

The article indicated that the Kiwis said we we want 3 cut and the ARU didn't say no. Cheetah and Kings are the SA candidates, Rebels or Force are our scarifies.

My hot money is the ARU trying to sweet talk Cox in to private equity ownership of the Brumbies as a trade off for scuttling the Rebels and trying to do a merger type arrangement with some home games to be played in Melbourne.

The ARU are incredibly stupid as this will cause major fallout and even cast doubt on the NRC.

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/cheetahs-facing-super-rugby-axe

 

[dru]

I'm beginning to wonder how much this is simply an ambit claim by the NZRU. Cutting a team in Aus is one thing. Cutting one in SA is another. But wait, not one but TWO teams in SA?

Really?

Lets not forget that the SARU nailed-to-the-wall position is two home finalists. And they'd like travel to be the same for SA as it is for NZ/Aus. Oh and six, yes six, not five and definitely not four franchises. And to leave the local derbies for the Curry Cup.

An NZRU fall back position might be to the 3x 6 conference model after SA have been horrified into re-considering their "nailed-down" position.

None of that impacts my view of the ARU in allowing this to continue without vocal support for Aus requirements. It is completely ridiculous to expect Brumbies, Rebels and Force to continue operations in this environment without leadership from the ARU.

We may end up with not just an acceptable solution but actually a desired one. But if that is the ARU strategy, that NZ will sort out SA and it work for Aus - it's like all your cash on red 6 at the roulette wheel.

I would not want my career treated with this disdain.

 

[Braveheart81]

You would hope that Australia's preferred position is to keep all five teams. I would assume this to be the case.

Clearly there will be a reduction in broadcast revenue if they drop from 18 teams to 15 teams and presumably there would need to be significant negotiations with all the broadcasters if any reduction was to take place as they have a contract to 2020. If you dropped three teams there is no way you could make up the lost games by increasing the length of the competition because there aren't the available weeks.

NZ would obviously like it to be possible to have two home quarter finals given their dominant position in the competition. Maybe their preference to drop 3 teams back to 15 teams is the aggressive position so that the compromise is a 3x6, 18 team comp where the fourth place team on points (probably a Kiwi team on recent form) also gets to host a quarter final.

It's hard to see why the Sunwolves should remain. Their complete non-competitiveness won't change with their lack of preparation and has probably scuppered any chance Super Rugby can continue to expand to new markets. Do they really guarantee that much additional broadcast revenue? It's hard to see Australia and South Africa not pushing for the Sunwolves to be cut (if there are to be cuts) to save their own skin.

If South Africa have to lose two teams, they're not going to have two home finals anyway (if it goes back to 15 teams, maybe we'd go back to a six team finals series) so presumably they should be in favour of the 3x6 structure with only one guaranteed home final ahead of losing teams.

 

[Twoilms]

^^^^^
There aren't many arguments you can make for the continued presence of the Force or Rebels that dont also apply equally to the Sunwolves, seems to me. Neither have ever been competitive, and they've been given a lot more time and help.

 

[Braveheart81]

^^^^^
There aren't many arguments you can make for the continued presence of the Force or Rebels that doesn't also apply equally to the Sunwolves, seems to me. Neither have ever been competitive, and they've been given a lot more time and help.

For the ARU they need to determine how much better they actually think the four remaining sides will be come if we drop one team. It would be entirely incorrect to assume that the players who leave Super Rugby will be almost all from the the bottom 50 players in the country.

They need to know how much revenue the whole competition will lose from both a change to the broadcast deal (going from 18 teams to 15 teams) and how much Australia's split will reduce of the overall deal. Whilst the Australian Super Rugby sides (and in turn the ARU) are struggling financially, the ARU can't afford a big financial hit from dropping a side.

They also need to consider the reactions from fans. How much permanent damage will be done to rugby in Australia overall and how much damage will there be in the city that loses its team?

The issue with the Sunwolves is that they assemble too late to ever be competitive. I can't see that changing. The Rebels and Force have both produced some mid table results. Whilst the Rebels particularly are struggling this year you wouldn't expect them to ship 50 points every week which is exactly the position the Sunwolves are in and I can't see that changing. Even if the Rebels seem just as bad as the Sunwolves this season, there's no point the ARU deciding that they should be the one to lose a team because they don't have a great argument to make in favour of their 5th side vs the Sunwolves.

 

[Twoilms]

Well, the general consensus seems to be that we have over-extended ourselves both financially and in terms of talent. That's why we are talking about a contraction in the first place?

Presumably, if the ARU moves to remove a team a cost-benefit analysis has been conducted. How much Revenue do the Rebels really bring in?

Also, i agree that there will be a lot of short term damage to the fan base, particularly in the region that is directly hit. But, given Rugby's current trajectory, if nothing changes there won't be any fans left anywhere in a decade.

 

[Braveheart81]

Presumably, if the ARU moves to remove a team a cost-benefit analysis has been conducted. How much Revenue do the Rebels really bring in?

Moving from 4 to 5 teams increased the proportion of the broadcast deal we received which included the Rugby Championship.

I am not sure how the split works now with 18 teams and Japan and Argentina involved but prior to the Rebels we got 4/14 of the overall SANZAR deal and then that increased to 5/15 of the overall deal. That was a significant change for Australia.

 

[dru]

Dont disagree with your last para.

But no, over-extension is not really why we are discussing contraction. It is politics. Cutting a team is one thing, cutting a rugby community is another altogether.

Where is this cost-benefit you speak of? We here a lot of noise from Sydney about a second team etc, but no back up there either.

Historically, with the benefit of hind sight, it may not have been wise to expand to 5 teams (not necessarily agreeing), but to contract after the fact is not the same as not going there in the first place.

Contraction will see more talent head over seas. It will see a reduction in fans. And it will remove a chunk of the Australian rugby pie. "Here AFL, all yours" does not seem a strategy that should have any support here.

 

[Joe King]

You would hope that Australia's preferred position is to keep all five teams. I would assume this to be the case.

Clearly there will be a reduction in broadcast revenue if they drop from 18 teams to 15 teams and presumably there would need to be significant negotiations with all the broadcasters if any reduction was to take place as they have a contract to 2020. If you dropped three teams there is no way you could make up the lost games by increasing the length of the competition because there aren't the available weeks.

NZ would obviously like it to be possible to have two home quarter finals given their dominant position in the competition. Maybe their preference to drop 3 teams back to 15 teams is the aggressive position so that the compromise is a 3x6, 18 team comp where the fourth place team on points (probably a Kiwi team on recent form) also gets to host a quarter final.

It's hard to see why the Sunwolves should remain. Their complete non-competitiveness won't change with their lack of preparation and has probably scuppered any chance Super Rugby can continue to expand to new markets. Do they really guarantee that much additional broadcast revenue? It's hard to see Australia and South Africa not pushing for the Sunwolves to be cut (if there are to be cuts) to save their own skin.

If South Africa have to lose two teams, they're not going to have two home finals anyway (if it goes back to 15 teams, maybe we'd go back to a six team finals series) so presumably they should be in favour of the 3x6 structure with only one guaranteed home final ahead of losing teams.

I hope you're right. You would think that if they were going to cut some teams, they would need more than a few "days" to consult with the broadcasters as SANZAAR has stated.

Unless... could they have already negotiated this earlier with the broadcasters as a real option? I hope not

 

[Joe King]

The concept of cutting an Australian region from rugby (WA/Vic/ACT) and suggesting that is does anything other than carve out and reduce the rugby community in Australia, to me is just preposterous.

It will NOT concentrate the talent from the pie. It WILL reduce the size of the pie. How that helps anyone, including NZRU and SARU I am simply flabbergasted trying to understand.

I've been a determined supporter of the ARU but this is not at all looking good.

I don't disagree with you, it's just might be a hard argument to win.

I can see why some would think that if increasing the number of teams dilutes the player depth, then decreasing the number of teams would concentrate it.

It may not always be right, but its easy to believe.