• 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.

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Cheika speaks truth

"The reality is we've had Super Rugby, it's been losing money for all the clubs hand over foot and we've maintained our presence in that tournament.

"This is where I fell out a fair bit with Australian Rugby. A few years ago when they were making the last arrangement around what the next Super Rugby was going to look like, I was adamant about changing towards trans-Tasman, and Japan as well."

Cheika said time zones made it difficult to incorporate South African and Argentine teams, whose presence made it challenging to build a local fan base.

With less travel, he believed it would be easier to operate a home-and-away draw which was the lifeblood of supporters and sponsors.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...er-rugby-overhaul-cheika-20200522-p54vj1.html
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)

You missed perhaps the most truthful bit of all, quoting Cheika:

"We've got bigger and bigger because we wanted more TV money, more TV money," he said.

This has been the fatal, ill-considered driver - repeatedly prioritising $ income and thus 'quantity of teams to sell in TV hours' over: quality of rugby played, the real depth or otherwise of adequate player talent to match the quantity of funded teams, fan attractiveness, system-wide skills development, and adequacy of coaching depth to match the expansion of the number of Super teams, etc.
 

papabear

Watty Friend (18)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Origin_series

For anyone interested in the history.

Interestingly, rugby league sticks with its international calender despite not having the interest that union and soccer have with theres.

From a rugby league perspective, I think you keep sticking with the international calender, because whilst it may never be as big as competitors it adds to the rugby league experience.

I think just like rugby league has to ignore what the AFL or anyone else is doing and focus on itself to grow and survive, so does rugby union. Forget about crowd comparisons tv ratings comparison and bring people a product they enjoy.

I have always thought the schute shield should have been expanded to include BRU clubs and go from there sort of like how nswrl and vfl went about things, but maybe its too late for that, but sydn uni eastwood, gordon, randwick, I would think these brands have value but maybe not with Private school take over of union.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
You missed perhaps the most truthful bit of all, quoting Cheika:



This has been the fatal, ill-considered driver - repeatedly prioritising $ income and thus 'quantity of teams to sell in TV hours' over: quality of rugby played, the real depth or otherwise of adequate player talent to match the quantity of funded teams, fan attractiveness, system-wide skills development, and adequacy of coaching depth to match the expansion of the number of Super teams, etc.

Related to this is that if a sport insists on an FTA component in a broadcast deal then the value of those rights diminish for the Pay TV broadcaster. RA were never willing to insist on this because they were fully aware of the short-term economic implications. A couple of weeks ago I posted excerpts from a Parliamentary enquiry on sports broadcasting and the anti-siphoning list fro 2006 from memory. It was revealing to see that sports such as rugby, soccer and basketball didn't want any additions to the anti-siphoning list as it would affect their earning capacity.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Surely it would be easier to bring in an established SW team and quarantine them, they could be put up somewhere nice with training facilities, than cobble together a whole new team, coaches, support staff etc.

Maybe even in Western Sydney? Cambelltown? Use the current problem as an opportunity.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
I'm not sticking the boot into Castle but for those who said she was faultless:

She made the decision to re-sign with SANZAAR.


And look, maybe that is her fault.

But where else were we going to score millions a year for a sport with a rubbish public profile and performance metrics crashlanding in Botany Bay?
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
And look, maybe that is her fault.

But where else were we going to score millions a year for a sport with a rubbish public profile and performance metrics crashlanding in Botany Bay?

Well shock, a CEO has to make tough calls and is judged on them with their job all the time. Even if they thought it was the right one at the time. I'm just saying she had to live and die by the deal with SANZAAR.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
I'm not sticking the boot into Castle but for those who said she was faultless:

She made the decision to re-sign with SANZAAR.

100%. And I said some time ago here - to deal with the rapidly unfolding SANZAAR game model train wreck that surely would lead Aust rugby to disaster, was in fact the most important, the most compelling, of the challenges she was required to face in early 2018 as the incoming new RA CEO. Nothing else as a major priority for competent RA leadership was of this strategic significance to the code's survival and viability at that juncture.

She, the RA board, her executive team and the mooted '$1m pa media consultants' (laugh or cry) proceeded to totally fluff it.

In late 2019 they signed on to an only marginally amended version of the SANZAAR Super Rugby historical model and yet, worse, with new economic and fan problems attached to it, ie, less home games (at least every second year wasn't it?) for each Aust local RU.

Thus, with that act of weak and non-insightful leadership, the die was recklessly cast and it is only the COVID crisis that has, in this respect anyway, potentially saved Aust rugby from the final lurch into total fan disillusionment and broader, but related, business disasters.
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
Whatever happens by whoever needs time.

It’s fascinating reading this thread over say the last three months when the penny finally dropped a National Domestic Competition was by light years the best way to go.


Unlike NZ & SA we don’t have a ready made local domestic competition that needs tarting up to make it reasonable. Nor do we have the fan numbers that SA enjoy, nor do we have the NZ experience where its rugby first daylight second and moonlight third.

Moreover, years of being hidden away on Fox, with little attention to growing the playing base has left us with the oldest supporter age group, falling player numbers leaving rugby in Australia exposed like we have never been before in our history.

As someone who called out Super Rugby in the late 90’s, yes that early, screamed after the 2010 FIFA world cup in SA things will change in SA, begging for years to go to a fully privately own league akin to USA models.

What I SCREAM & YELL now is this is not the time to apply another Pulver top down competition or Gary Flowers before him and his competition. We need to come together and develop a rugby conceptual framework and then within that framework develop a product with the broad support of all stakeholders.

WE need time. Listen lets take a couple of years maybe three years to do it. Lets go back to club rugby and get everyone together and find a way forward.

I fear egos and power plays will get in the way. The only way to achieve lasting and sustainable change is to change the governance models that we have and from there unite the stakeholders behind a common cause.

IT WILL TAKE TIME, so lets accept that fact.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Whatever the final model looks like, people need to accept what works in the Australian context. I suspect that there are still more than a few out there who in their heart of hearts really want to see Super Rugby continue.

What is apparent for anyone who even casually follows other sports who have a national competition is that almost universally teams and team names represent cities/town/suburbs/groups of suburbs/regions. This provides the degree of parochialism necessary to sustain supporters over the long term, not just when the team is winning. The teams are also readily identifiable for sponsors and broadcasters. The use of state of territory identification is left to state representative teams.

NRL
Manly-Warringah, Cronulla-Sutherland, St George-Illawarra, Newcastle, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, South Sydney, Parramatta, Canterbury-Bankstown, Penrith, North Queensland, Wests and the Warriors (NZ).

AFL
Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, St Kilda, Geelong, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Sydney, Greater Western Sydney, Hawthorn, Fremantle, West Coast

FFA
Sydney FC, Melbourne FC, Melbourne V, Western Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne, Western United (Melbourne), Adelaide, Newcastle, Central Coast and Wellington (NZ)

NBL
Sydney, Brisbane, Cairns, Illawarra, Melbourne, Perth, South East Melbourne, Adelaide and the Breakers (NZ)

Big Bash
Sydney 6s, Sydney Thunder, Melbourne Renegades, Melbourne Stars, Hobart Hurricanes, Brisbane Heat, Perth Scorchers, Adelaide Strikers

Netball
Adelaide Thunderbirds, Collingwood, Giants (Greater Western Sydney), Melbourne Vixens, Sydney Swifts, West Coast Fever, Sunshine Coast Lightning and Qld Firebirds

Aust Water Polo League
Sydney Uni, Balmain, Drummoyne, Wests, Cronulla, Brisbane Barracudas, (Brisbane Mermaids for women), Uni of WA, Fremantle, Adelaide, Fremantle, Barbarians (playing out of Victoria) and Qld Breakers (River City club have used this to differentiate from the Brisbane team)
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
100%.

How does it make sense there's a comp with NSW, QLD and ACT in it and then Melbourne? Which is why if there was a TT comp and Aus went to 7 teams it should be Western Sydney and Sydney City, Canberra, Brisbane City and Gold Coast
 

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
And look, maybe that is her fault.

But where else were we going to score millions a year for a sport with a rubbish public profile and performance metrics crashlanding in Botany Bay?

Club Rugby! ;)

NRC is no good as its a perfect product for the market and could be really good for the game but nobody has enough political capital in to lever it for personal gain so it's a lame duck.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
Barbarians could only work if the existing franchises share the wealth. If a wallaby is not in the starting 15 or a franchise has a backlog of talent in certain positions they could join this team.Probably won’t happen as injury replacements,game day rotations and self interest would probably stop the Existing teams from doing so. Players like Mack Mason would be able to show over a duration of time rather than being warehoused and bagged/lauded when they Finally get a chance, then players Who have fallen gone down the pecking order like Tom Robertson they can show what they’re capable of. Plenty of holes in it, so don’t shoot me, it seems that’s the only way a barbarian team could work to me.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
A Barbarians team is bloody expensive. Think the Melbourne team from the 2007. They had to relocate everyone for the season and that is effectively what broke that tournament.

A Barbarian team based in Sydney is still going to have to recruit at least half it's team from interstate, house them, fly them etc. The cost of that is ridiculous.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
A barbarians team isn’t ideal. Just looking at ways it could be viable.it would be good to get more fringe players on the park to build depth. But logistically it’d be better to have a bye round, as a last minute cobbled together team is on a hiding to nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top