Where to for Super Rugby?

[James Pettifer]

How hard can it be...

We play in a international type league via super rugby against NZ sides and of course we can't be competitive as akin to Heineken cup where stronger rugby nations have more places but don't rely just on that for national pathway.

So we reduce number of teams in Super Rugby (I would reduce to 2 or 3) but also establish a national semi pro long form domestic competition (NRC extension) with say a Fiji added. Semi pro as clear as mud we can't at this point sustain a pro national domestic comp.

I totally agree we can't sustain 5 professional super rugby sides as flawed product and we could not sustain this either in Trans Tasman or Asian comp..

But we have to build something better at next level below that could grow into a better more Asian focussed league..hence the semi pro concept..

Great. Let's go down to 2 teams. 100 currently professional players either go get another job in addition to playing rugby or all bugger off to France and Japan.

You'll basically be left with 2 players in any position. Any decent young player who actually wants to play will do well in the semi pro league and then hope something comes up in the 2 teams or goes overseas. At least the Cheika could easily defend picking the whole of the Waratahs.

 

[Gnostic]

^^^^ on performance there wouldn't be two players from all five teams, including extended squads, that deserve selection.

Honestly don't care if Super Rugby ceases to exist, IMHO Australian Rugby performed better prior to it in terms of the players own skill and performance.

 

[James Pettifer]

People will watch the A-League because it's on at a convenient time, and they can actually attend the matches. As many people stay up at unsociable hours to watch the Premier League, and even more so the UEFA Champions league, because they are of a much higher quality than the A-League.

And what would league would rugby fans be watching then? If you have a local league which is on at a convenient time and you can actually attend the matches ... I can't see people wanting to watch the NZ domestic league or anything in Europe.

I don't know how you can fail to see the significance of a touring side like Arsenal drawing a bigger crowd than the biggest A-League game of the year.

And I can't see you you think it is at all relevant ... so we match here ...
There are Arsenal fans in Australia, Arsenal hasn't played in Australia for about 40 years. I'd say that one of the reasons we are getting so many premier league teams visiting is the success of the A-League.

In bringing up the NRL and AFL, you've totally ignored their hsitories. Both used to have different names: The NSWRL and the VFL. They weren't the only Rugby and Football leagues in Australia, but they eventually dominated the WAFL, SANFL, and BRL. People in Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide were more interested in watching the Sydney/Melbourne competitions on television. Very quickly, the West Coast Eagles, Adelaide Crows, and Brisbane Broncos drew bigger crowds to their matches than the entire local league on a weekend. People felt those leagues were of a much higher standard, and made the switch.

And again, what Rugby leagues will people be watching?

Australia looks really bad in rugby because our teams are under-performing. Badly. At the same time, Super Rugby audiences have taken a dive in Australia. This is because the quality of the games have been low. There is no point promoting derby matches when they're of minimal bearing as to who will win the competition; they've lost their meaning.

But games between local clubs will have meaning if that is the competition.

And I don't think that the performance is the sole reason for the driving down of the attendances. Crowds for the Force have dropped significantly over the past 5 years even though their performance has improved. Crowds last year for the Rebels were well down even though it was their best year. Crowds in South Africa are down (based on the limited information I can find). I can't find anything on the NZ crowds.

The quality of professional rugby in Australia will drop more markedly if we decide to leave Super Rugby.

I think that could be well the case. But it wouldn't be as obvious as we would only be playing other Australian teams. We wouldn't be losing 26 games in a season to NZ as we wouldn't play them. Yes, the Wallabies may drop a little, but we have to stop thinking that we are going to be on equal terms with the All Blacks.

Look, honestly, the ARU has royally #$!#ed up rugby in Australia over the past 14 years. There were over 20,000 people watching Namibia v Romania in Launceston in 2003! They had a huge war chest and many bad decisions later we are where we are now. I can't see SA staying in Super Rugby past 2020 (unless the Pro12 deal either falls through or is a complete disaster) and I don't really think a trans tasman competition would be particularly appealing at the moment. In addition, there is going to be a massive reduction in the broadcast rights across all sports in the next run. Unfortunately the ARU are a rather reactive organisation rather than being proactive.

Culling a Super Rugby team would destroy the only positive that has occurred over the past 15 years which is the expansion of the rugby pathways into Victoria and WA.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

But the ARU (and oz rugby) could not continue to afford to prop up 5 Super Rugby teams as figures clear as day with funds given to prop up SRclubs - Rebels and lesser extent Force in particular.

With dramatic decline in crowds this season situation even worsened financially.

I am actually now accepting we need to go back to less professional teams and rebuild at next level below which is where semi pro national rugby competition comes in. Yes raising the white flag and accepting we have to go backwards to long term have any chance of moving forward. You can try and avoid reality but what do we have to wait until ARU or OZ super rugby sides go into administration (as latter only avoided in past by ARU bail outs which not sustainable and even less so in current climate).

Oz rugby is at a really difficult crossroads through some bad decisions and putting our hopes on a flawed product to support the growth of our professional game. Yes SANZAAR helped with that with expansion decisions.

But now Super Rugby so tainted because of this, it unfortunately will lead to the need for a complete new product post 2020 and definitely not branded Super Rugby as brand has been damaged almost beyond repair.

We need decisions that are long term focussed but both short and long term financially sustainable...moreso short term as rugby near broke. I don't like the idea of the Force being cut at all as WA key rugby market. But we can't sustain 5 Super Rugby sides in what is a competition that has continuing waning interest. Hence, if we want to sustain rugby markets in different states we need alternatives (or some miracles....Twiggy could be one of those miracles....at least for the Force/WA rugby.... but dangerous to put too much hopes into that).

But we don't need just money as that is only short term fix where we would be likely to just repeat the 2003 situation and just waste any money provided (including Twiggy's if he stumped up for the Force). As with money needs to come a clear strategy to rebuild and avoid near extinction. Super Rugby as it stands does not offer long term salvation for oz rugby so what's the alternative?

 

[Sauron]

I think that the Own the Force campaign is much more likely to secure the long-term future of the Force than whatever Twiggy decides to do.

 

[The Snout]

I am actually now accepting we need to go back to less professional teams and rebuild at next level below which is where semi pro national rugby competition comes in. Yes raising the white flag and accepting we have to go backwards to long term have any chance of moving forward. You can try and avoid reality but what do we have to wait until ARU or OZ super rugby sides go into administration (as latter only avoided in past by ARU bail outs which not sustainable and even less so in current climate).

Same place I'm at.

Ask me 4-6 months ago about the future of Super Rugby and I'd have said she'll be right mate, we'll figure something out.

But now, I'm of the opinion that Super Rugby is finished post contract and we better figure out how in Australia it's going to proceed afterward.

Speaking only for myself here, if we go a Feb to July NRC semi pro comp as the main game here, we're going to loose our top players no doubt to the NH.

But as a fan, I'm actually more excited by a Feb to July NRC competition that includes the Western Force and Melbourne than I am about Super Rugby without either.

 

[Braveheart81]

Braveheart, you must be pretty ignorant of the current state of Australian Rugby. We've already reached that point.

I'm of the firm opinion that in response to this threads title: "Where to for Super Rugby?" the best option is e) No super Rugby.

We gave NZ the chance to Trans-Tasman this shit. They denied. Fuck 'em, and fuck super rugby, it's doing Aus Rugby NO favours.


Sometimes to save the village, you've gotta burn the town.

They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but at the moment the ARU's only basket has a massive hole in the bottom. The eggs won't break if the baskets on the ground.


The best response in my opinion would be:
1) Take a leaf from the Big Bash and put two teams in your two biggest markets. Cut NSW country, we can't afford it. QLD Country becomes "southside", i.e. anywhere south of the Brisbane River. Country supporters support the QLD Reds.
2)Rebrand NRC teams to sync up with current Super franchises. We're not in the position of cricket to start completely from scratch, we need brand recognition for market penetration.
3) Run the 8 team comp (5 Super Franchises, +Western Sydney & Soufside & Fiji) in the NRC window until Super Rugby agreement finishes in 2019, then move to a standalone season.
4) Move to make the 2 expansion franchises semi-professional in 2018 & 2019(30k max per player), in order to be professional in 2020. This will cost $1.2mil.
5) Whichever Super team is cut retains professional status over the two year period. The big-name players are loaned to other franchises to save costs. Cost: unknown

Start small, shoot big. Hell, shamelessly introduce a State-of-Origin series between QLD, NSW & "the rest" over a 6 week period with each team playing home& away. Play it as the lead up to the RC.

I think Aus Rugby could even get behind the culling of a Super Rugby team if the ARU put forward a transparent proposal for us to go it alone. We all know it's broken. We just haven't been shown a light at the end of this very, very long dark tunnel that we've been travelling along since the mid noughties.

If all of the sudden the bulk of Australian players that are on between 80 and 200k+ a year are asked to play for 30k a year, what do you think happens?

What do the gate taking look like when tickets need to be sold at $20-30 each? How many people are likely to attend these games?

What happens to the TV broadcast deal? Currently Super Rugby enjoys a lot of international interest and that drives a fair amount of the TV revenue. I would guess the TV revenue would collapse with this is the suggested competition.

I think Australian rugby is in an incredibly bad state. I think leaping from Super Rugby and instead starting something like this would be a huge error and would be very difficult to recover from.

I do think that Super Rugby is failing and will reach a conclusion at some point relatively soon, potentially at the end of this broadcast deal. If South Africa moves north it gives New Zealand little opportunity but to build a competition with us and head into Asia. I think that is the pathway that will be taken and we need to be part of that. I think it would be far harder to transition into that if most of our players had already left to play in Europe.

Any sort of domestic expansion would require significant cash reserves to be able to implement without going bankrupt in year 1. It just isn't possible.

 

[RedsHappy]

A truly sad and painful read, but typical of so many mainstream commentaries today re Australian rugby:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/b...rfinal-crowd-in-canberra-20170722-gxgldb.html

 

[Ruggo]

If you don't have the heart to turn up and watch your team play finals footy at home, you simply don't deserve your team.

This was the moment when Canberra needed to step up and support their team and they blew it.

NO EXCUSES.

 

[I like to watch]

You don't need an excuse.
It's not a cult.
If less than 10k show up to a finals match,don't blame the supporters.
Something is seriously wrong with the product you are providing.
Address that or die.

 

[joeyjohnz]

If all of the sudden the bulk of Australian players that are on between 80 and 200k+ a year are asked to play for 30k a year, what do you think happens?

What do the gate taking look like when tickets need to be sold at $20-30 each? How many people are likely to attend these games?
Probably more than the 10k average currently experienced by 4/5 franchises.
What happens to the TV broadcast deal? Currently Super Rugby enjoys a lot of international interest and that drives a fair amount of the TV revenue. I would guess the TV revenue would collapse with this is the suggested competition.
There's barely 50k people tuning in to these matches in Australia on Fox... Audience numbers are down 75%
I think Australian rugby is in an incredibly bad state. I think leaping from Super Rugby and instead starting something like this would be a huge error and would be very difficult to recover from.

Revenue is set to collapse post 2020. Do you really think Foxsports are going to throw money at games that are currently drawing 50k viewers nationally? The average crowd figures of the Tahs, Force, Rebels and Brumbies prove that no one's watching. Anyone that thinks this will magically improve by cutting a team is quite frankly delusional.

In case you missed my point (which you did) I was proposing a way to end the perpetually downward spiral that is Super Rugby and perhaps lead us to standing on our own two feet.

But hey, lets have it your way. Come 2021 we'll be lucky to have 3 teams. Meanwhile, the NRL will have 5 times as many opportunities than Union, without even setting foot in Western Australia.

Now, there's many in the community that thinks the spare Super Rugby grant should be spent on the Tahs - much like their CEO.

Instead, I am proposing that it's shared among 3 semi-pro teams so that we have a domestic competition we can fall back on when Super Rugby's revenue collapses post 2020.

In no way, shape or form would "the bulk of players be on 30k". If you read my post properly you'd understand that there would be 3 teams of semi pro players. Since you quoted me in your post, it'd be handy to read points 4 & 5 again.

Although I won't hold my breath, you've proven time and time again that you'll argue an ARU positive position till the bitter end.


I believe it was Scully, or perhaps Redshappy that summed you up best a while back. You are, and have been an ardent supporter of the ARU, NSWRU and status quo which has gotten us into this mess. You are part of the problem.

You have been, and are on the wrong side of history my poor lad, and right now you're being deliberately facetious. For once, try not to act like the love-child of Pulver & Clyne, and for heavens sake, don't misconstrue my arguments or misrepresent my points.

 

[Slim 293]

You don't need an excuse.
It's not a cult.
If less than 10k show up to a finals match,don't blame the supporters.
Something is seriously wrong with the product you are providing.
Address that or die.

Yep........ Super Rugby is a dying brand - people have long stopped giving a toss.

But it doesn't mean we can't fix this....... as that Crimes article points out - Raiders crowds have gone up (and they're not going to make the finals), and they were getting beaten by the Brumbies for nearly 20 years.

 

[Ruggo]

Just die then.

Fuck the Brumbies off. As we say in rugby, use it or lose it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Revenue is set to collapse post 2020. Do you really think Foxsports are going to throw money at games that are currently drawing 50k viewers nationally? The average crowd figures of the Tahs, Force, Rebels and Brumbies prove that no one's watching. Anyone that thinks this will magically improve by cutting a team is quite frankly delusional.

In case you missed my point (which you did) I was proposing a way to end the perpetually downward spiral that is Super Rugby and perhaps lead us to standing on our own two feet.

But hey, lets have it your way. Come 2021 we'll be lucky to have 3 teams. Meanwhile, the NRL will have 5 times as many opportunities than Union, without even setting foot in Western Australia.

Now, there's many in the community that thinks the spare Super Rugby grant should be spent on the Tahs - much like their CEO.

Instead, I am proposing that it's shared among 3 semi-pro teams so that we have a domestic competition we can fall back on when Super Rugby's revenue collapses post 2020.

In no way, shape or form would "the bulk of players be on 30k". If you read my post properly you'd understand that there would be 3 teams of semi pro players. Since you quoted me in your post, it'd be handy to read points 4 & 5 again.

Although I won't hold my breath, you've proven time and time again that you'll argue an ARU positive position till the bitter end.


I believe it was Scully, or perhaps Redshappy that summed you up best a while back. You are, and have been an ardent supporter of the ARU, NSWRU and status quo which has gotten us into this mess. You are part of the problem.

You have been, and are on the wrong side of history my poor lad, and right now you're being deliberately facetious. For once, try not to act like the love-child of Pulver & Clyne, and for heavens sake, don't misconstrue my arguments or misrepresent my points.

I misread that part of your post. I thought you were saying to make that competition semi-professional with a cap of 30k per player.

I'm not trying to argue an ARU position.

I am arguing that holding out to follow what NZ is doing when the current TV deal ends is a better option than trying to jump ship and going on our own.

The Super Rugby TV is quite heavily reliant on interest outside of the SANZAAR countries and that provides a significant part of the revenue. AN Australian only competition will have limited appeal outside of Australia and the likely funds Foxsports would pay for it would not be great. They are in a worsening financial position and rugby in this country (outside of the premium tests) is not popular enough to be on main channel FTA in prime time so there is little or no competition for the broadcast rights.

I am not trying to argue for the status quo or to support the ARU. Their handling of pretty much everything has been a disaster.

What I am arguing is that trying to make the level just below the test team entirely reliant on the Australian market is going to create a massive shortfall in revenue required to keep our professional players in the country.

It would be a mediocre competition with only a smattering of our top players and in my opinion would be a financial basketcase.

That is not to argue in any way that Super Rugby is in a good position or has good long term prospects. I don't think it does and could dissolve after this broadcast agreement.

The ARU and SANZAAR have gotten Super Rugby into a huge mess. That doesn't mean that leaving Super Rugby and going it alone is a better decision though. I think it would be a worse decision and would not be able to generate anywhere near enough revenue to remain solvent.

 

[Slim 293]

Just die then.

Fuck the Brumbies off. As we say in rugby, use it or lose it.

Yeah, nah........

 

[I like to watch]

Just die then.

Fuck the Brumbies off. As we say in rugby, use it or lose it.

Reds & Tahs crowds have also fallen off a cliff, so they should both go as well?

Maybe the issue lies beyond these specific teams?

 

[daz]

Just die then.

Fuck the Brumbies, or the Reds, or the Tahs off. As we say in rugby, use it or lose it.

Fixed that for you. Nice looking slogan don't ya think? I reckon there are a few Force and Rebels supporters that would flock to that particular banner.

We need a fucking supporters union, dammit!

 

[Leo86]

The article said people didnt even know they had made the final or that one was being held. Well thats not the die hards fault, they were there. Who is responsible for promotion? Not being in Canberra/NSW, How was the promotion? Fox adverts? FTA adverts? Newspapers? Signage of any kind? Digital media? was a hype being generated in any sense?

 

[Ruggo]

When was the last time the Brumbies pulled a decent crowd? Seriously. This isn't an overnight problem. When we have a franchise to be axed, it is on the nose that a community wouldn't come and support their side in finals footy. Fact is Brumbies are safe as they are of the same protected species ilk as NSW and QLD. Brumbies should be merged with Melbourne but any talk of that would upset the Brumbies people who don't go and support their team. Brumbies exist on the back of the same rot that is killing the code nation wide.

I make no excuses for the Reds or Tahs. The self inflicted rubbish they have dumped on themselves is disgraceful.

 

[Slim 293]

When was the last time the Brumbies pulled a decent crowd?

20,000 against the Tahs last year.........

But all the crowds are down all around, and the Brumbies aren't the worst of them.