• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Omar Comin' said:
Guys who are currently being signed because teams can't sign better talent from NZ or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

We can't forget Aussie teams are already sourcing (some) non-local players.

If NZ Rugby allows ABs to be selected from within Australia then it would tend to increase the quality of NZ players available to Australian sides.

But the ARU still have to approve all Super signings. Using measures like foreign player caps and contract clauses, the quantity of import players can still be guarded.

The NZ Rugby selection policy is not within the ARU's control, in any case.

In the same way that Australia decided to allow 60 cap players to be selected from outside the country, etc., New Zealand can come up with their own selection rules on who may represent them.

It's up to Australia to sign off on how many of those guys do play here.
 
L

Leo86

Guest
Omar Comin' said:
It'd only lessen opportunities for Aussies who aren't good enough to be high level Super Rugby players. Guys who are currently being signed because teams can't sign better talent from NZ or elsewhere.

You're saying the negative of this could be that NZ teams will keep flogging Australian sides. But expecting things to change by following the status quo seems less likely to me. I always thought a better option for strengthening our super rugby teams was to allow more imports, rather than cut a team and abandon an entire region of the country.

Any increase in talent across Australian super rugby will improve competitiveness of our teams - which helps improve popularity, which inspires kids to play the game and over the long term leads to a turnaround in fortunes throughout all levels. And even in the short term having stronger squads would only improve the level of the Australian players that are in our teams.
Click to expand...


Good points, I spose then if this is a thing that NZ are interested in, then maybe it will strengthen relations at SANZAAR level (between Aus and NZ). At the same time instead of losing players to NH comps, it would be an incentive to at least keep em in Super Rugby and improve the comps strength. Still think we need certain restrictions
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Leo86 said:
Good points, I spose then if this is a thing that NZ are interested in, then maybe it will strengthen relations at SANZAAR level (between Aus and NZ). At the same time instead of losing players to NH comps, it would be an incentive to at least keep em in Super Rugby and improve the comps strength. Still think we need certain restrictions
Click to expand...
I think Hanson's comments about allowing nz players be eligible for all blacks is recognition that nz can't just do nothing to help oz Rugby at pro level be stronger if they want to have competition they are in involving oz teams as oz teams getting thrashed by kiwi teams not appealing to anyone and I think they would be picking up the vibe that consideration of just not being involved in super rugby is at least by oz Rugby public increasingly attractive option. Might argue not realistic option but oz Rugby fans making it clear just accepting what sanzaar and nz currently offer not attractive. Less oz fans watching nz..Oz team games also hurts them with broadcast deals. So guess what they will have to take oz concerns seriously as next broadcast deal at serious threat dollar wise at this rate.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
 
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Rugbynutter39 said:
I think Hanson's comments about allowing nz players be eligible for all blacks is recognition that nz can't just do nothing to help oz Rugby at pro level be stronger if they want to have competition they are in involving oz teams as oz teams getting thrashed by kiwi teams not appealing to anyone and I think they would be picking up the vibe that consideration of just not being involved in super rugby is at least by oz Rugby public increasingly attractive option. Might argue not realistic option but oz Rugby fans making it clear just accepting what sanzaar and nz currently offer not attractive. Less oz fans watching nz..Oz team games also hurts them with broadcast deals. So guess what they will have to take oz concerns seriously as next broadcast deal at serious threat dollar wise at this rate.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I really don't see the issue. Just mandate that 75% of each squad must be Aus eligible. In a squad of 35 that's 26 places. Same for the NZ franchises.
 
Brainstrust

Brainstrust

Watty Friend (18)
I'm not sure that increasing the number of Kiwi imports will solve much in terms of quality performances. The money available for the better players from what I can gather is considerably better in Europe / Japan etc, so the better NZ players would head there before here, meaning the ones we get in Australia just arent going to be top shelf. In addition for every average NZ'er we take it denies an opportunity for an average Aust player to be in the mix and hopefully improve by being professional. THE ARU and NZRU need to really think hard about what the comp should look like after 2020 and plan for that. In the mean time, Aust rugby needs to get its act together and make serious improvements in areas identified such as fitness / conditioning and skill development, as well as improving the standard of coaching across the country from top to bottom. The appointment of Kafer is a positive start, but needs real follow through by action from top to bottom. I doubt fiddling with the player content is going to improve things much going forward. We need more Aust players getting better coaching and more exposure to high quality rugby programs, not less players getting the same old stuff, and fewer opportunities due to average NZ'ers filling player rosters because they can't A) get a run in NZ, or B) get a run in Europe or Japan on bigger money.
 
dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
WorkingClassRugger said:
I really don't see the issue. Just mandate that 75% of each squad must be Aus eligible. In a squad of 35 that's 26 places. Same for the NZ franchises.
Click to expand...

I'd set it by position. One Kiwi allowed for each number 1 - 15. 1-18 maybe. No more than 5 in any team.

This way we avoid not having enough 9s or 10s etc available at National level.

Much better plan for level playing field than condensing 5 into 4.
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
if you allow NZ players to play in Oz and be eligible for AB's and not the case if go outside of playing in NZ or Oz for the better players with AB aspirations it would at least provide some attraction.

Of course Europe etc will always dollar wise be attractive option but allowing to play in oz and be eligible for AB's (and close to home) would at least be attractive for some of the better NZ players. No one would be suggesting that majority would still not go to Europe but if we attracted say 10-15 quality players this could make all the difference as remember only 5 oz teams and possibly only 4 for next year.

NZ needs to work with Oz if they want to address the current lower interest in a competition that involves both Oz and NZ teams as everyone is going to get screwed at next broadcast deal if NZRU does not get over its petulance and past issues with the ARU.
 
GaffaCHinO

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
FiveStarStu said:
I'll take the bait.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Force have now lost their major sponsor for 2018
Click to expand...


Nice fact mate but not true.

Yes there has been things in the media regarding the last government doing the deal before the election and a review onto all state gov finacials his is all political point scoring for the new gov.

The only real article attaking the deal came from a Melbourne based journo.... Funny that.

The new gov has publicly backed the force. the only contingent on the deal is the force being around next year.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Rugbynutter39 said:
NZ needs to work with Oz if they want to address the current lower interest in a competition that involves both Oz and NZ teams as everyone is going to get screwed at next broadcast deal if NZRU does not get over its petulance and past issues with the ARU.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps NZRU does not want players that are eligible for ABs playing outside the NZ teams maybe because they are worried it will hurt the ABs, not for any perceived problems with Aus rugby. While I can see the upside for Aus rugby, I not sure there enough upside (if any) for NZ because I cannot see any Aus team with NZ players doing anything but flogging them to death coming into or out of a test season, as they would rightly want to get their pound of flesh, I think we all see what happens in French rugby etc with imports.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
dru said:
I'd set it by position. One Kiwi allowed for each number 1 - 15. 1-18 maybe. No more than 5 in any team.

This way we avoid not having enough 9s or 10s etc available at National level.

Much better plan for level playing field than condensing 5 into 4.
Click to expand...


I would just stand back and let it rip. To my mind, the single most important objective is to develop a domestic competition that actually excites some public interest. The better the players, the higher the degree of skill and watchability.


Most of the better Keewees would want to play with the better teams. Which is not us. But we would pick up some talent, and our standards would improve.


All boats rise on an incoming tide. All the local players would benefit from playing alongside some better players.
 
KevinO

KevinO

Geoff Shaw (53)
dru said:
I'd set it by position. One Kiwi allowed for each number 1 - 15. 1-18 maybe. No more than 5 in any team.

This way we avoid not having enough 9s or 10s etc available at National level.

Much better plan for level playing field than condensing 5 into 4.
Click to expand...

Careful that's the smartest post i have seen for 50 pages.

GaffaCHinO said:
Nice fact mate but not true.

The only real article attaking the deal came from a Melbourne based journo.. Funny that.
.
Click to expand...

Come off it Gaffa, Melbourne does not have any Rugby journos to write that article and you know it. The only rugby journos this far south of the border all write for GAGR and not the newspapers.
 
GaffaCHinO

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
oztimmay

oztimmay

Geoff Shaw (53)
Staff member
KevinO said:
Careful that's the smartest post i have seen for 50 pages.



Come off it Gaffa, Melbourne does not have any Rugby journos to write that article and you know it. The only rugby journos this far south of the border all write for GAGR and not the newspapers.
Click to expand...

Roy Ward the only exception. The rest of the talent pool write for GAGR!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Dan54 said:
I think perhaps NZRU does not want players that are eligible for ABs playing outside the NZ teams maybe because they are worried it will hurt the ABs, not for any perceived problems with Aus rugby. While I can see the upside for Aus rugby, I not sure there enough upside (if any) for NZ because I cannot see any Aus team with NZ players doing anything but flogging them to death coming into or out of a test season, as they would rightly want to get their pound of flesh, I think we all see what happens in French rugby etc with imports.
Click to expand...



But they are in the same competition and travel distance between oz / nz minimal as Dan that is what we are talking about - hence the difference. They should be no more flogged then what NZ players playing for NZ Super Rugby sides. And actually if current reports about OZ Super Rugby players not having sufficient fitness for test rugby it suggests if anything they would have it much easier playing for OZ super rugby side.:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top