Where to for Super Rugby?

[rugboy]

There are so many players wanting a pro contract. nearly every player at Uni to start with, virtually every player playing 1st grade SS.

Numbers of players are not the problem. The standard would drop a bit from Super Rugby if we open up more domestic teams, but so what.

It would still be a very high standard and we would have our own national comp with our best players (Wallabies) playing.

I would take a pro contract too. But I doubt an old overweight bloke would appeal to broadcasters, the public or help create the type of competition that would be competitive with what was originally proposed and that was a playoff with the NZ Champion teams. Nor would it help the wallabies climb from 7th spot in the world rankings.

The point was "competitive" teams. Brining SS players in does not create the competition strength for any of the things mentioned, which should be the aims of whatever the new competition looks like. The waratahs have a number of those players already.

While I understand why people think a domestic comp sounds the most appealing. It isn't reality. McLennan himself said the TT model was most appealing to broadcasters.

A domestic model like you have described wont bring in the $. Therefore the top players will leave meaning we wont have the "best players (Wallabies) playing".

 

[Derpus]

you would have to think North Sydney Leagues club would be open to some sort of venture with Rugby.

They want back a spot in the NRL and seem to be blocked forever. Rob & Hamish go and pay them a visit

The finances dont add up and never will.

 

[Raytah]

Although he is a favoured RA journo so it could be a preemptive leak to gauge reaction. There was something in the article from McL saying that a TT model might only have 3 or 4 Aust teams.

I can definitely see us ending up with a 9 team TT comp with a "Southern Brumbies" concept.

- If NZ want to retain 5 team footprint, it would be sadistic of RA to go with 5 teams unless they actively want want our teams to be the perennial whipping boys.
- RA's financial constraints means 5 is probably not viable in any case.
- From what I can gather, the 'captains' are probably lobbying for 3 (4 may be a compromise).
- A 9 team home and away comp would suit the mooted window if a global calendar comes through (May-Sep) .
- If RA want Twiggy in the tent, a cull/merger becomes the default option.
- Although they might not like to admit it, a merger solves structural issues for both the Rebels and the Brumbies. Both regions don't produce enough top level players, but combined they'd go close. The Brumbies struggle commercially even when they perform on the field in large part due to size of the Canberra market. The Rebels struggle on the field.

Obviously the key risk is isolating fans further by trying to be something to everyone and instead creating something that means nothing to anyone. Notwithstanding, I can still see why this option needs to be on the table.

 

[Rebels3]

There is almost 0 chance of a Brums/Rebels merger.

Taking aside the performance of the clubs, there is a tyranny of distance between the two areas. Our professional offerings means there isn’t enough content to spread over the two regions and therefore not enough content to engage with corporate sponsors, etc. and for fans it means an almost impossible task to create rusted on fans with a lack of engagement.

If there is teams chopped (higher prob of the Rebels) it wouldn’t be a merger. To be honest I’d say the most likely scenario is 5 teams going forward using a combination of Private Equity and funding from RA. There is very much a focus on Aus first, the lessons on dropping the Force and the disharmony it creates between the players base, governments, supporters etc. is just a blow the game couldn’t be seen to be going through again.

Super Rugby I believe will end up going through a commission structure through independence from the National Union. Perhaps NZ teams will remain primarily funded by their national union but I believe in the next 18-24months Aus Super Rugby teams will be answering to different masters than they currently are. I’d say an open market on players would be more likely than a merger but obviously things change in these crazy times but I cannot see it happening.

Someone is more likely to take a tough pill and not exist anymore than some Frankenstein mash up.

 

[Omar Comin']

The point was "competitive" teams. Brining SS players in does not create the competition strength for any of the things mentioned, which should be the aims of whatever the new competition looks like. The waratahs have a number of those players already.

You're not taking into account the fact that rugby has a global player market and that an Australian domestic comp could have a significant % of foreign players. The number of professional Australian players wouldn't have to increase very much to have 8 teams.

To begin with, one of the teams could be the Fiji Drua/Latui - they've been strong in the NRC and would very likely be competitive if able to fully professionalise. It might even be possible to have a 2nd overseas team if World Rugby or some other backer was interested in funding another PI or Asia Pacific team. But it doesn't really matter either way as there is an excess of quality players from around the world that are currently amateur or semi-pro. There's really not many professional competitions and all of them have significant limits on foreign players.

How many guys from the Pacific Islands and Argentina for example would jump at the chance to play professionally in Australia for something close to the median Australian salary? I'd bet there's dozens. Not every Jaguares squad member for example is going to get a contract in Japan, France or England, there's just not enough places for foreigners in those leagues on top of all the former All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks they sign. There's plenty of decent kiwis and saffers playing semi-professionally in the Mitre10 Cup and Currie Cups as well.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I would take a pro contract too. But I doubt an old overweight bloke would appeal to broadcasters, the public or help create the type of competition that would be competitive with what was originally proposed and that was a playoff with the NZ Champion teams. Nor would it help the wallabies climb from 7th spot in the world rankings.

The point was "competitive" teams. Brining SS players in does not create the competition strength for any of the things mentioned, which should be the aims of whatever the new competition looks like. The waratahs have a number of those players already.

While I understand why people think a domestic comp sounds the most appealing. It isn't reality. McLennan himself said the TT model was most appealing to broadcasters.

A domestic model like you have described wont bring in the $. Therefore the top players will leave meaning we wont have the "best players (Wallabies) playing".

We need a pretty drastic change to our Pro Rugby tier. A new competition is going to take time to develop and engage with fans.

Going to an 8 team Domestic comp would mean the addition of approx 80 more contracted players. Assuming squads of 35.
The average contract will fall, perhaps its only semi pro with some players only getting match payments or small retainers. they may need a second job.

The top players will still get their top ups and wont leave. If they do they care more about money then playing for their country.

 

[rugboy]

You're not taking into account the fact that rugby has a global player market and that an Australian domestic comp could have a significant % of foreign players. The number of professional Australian players wouldn't have to increase very much to have 8 teams.

To begin with, one of the teams could be the Fiji Drua/Latui - they've been strong in the NRC and would very likely be competitive if able to fully professionalise. It might even be possible to have a 2nd overseas team if World Rugby or some other backer was interested in funding another PI or Asia Pacific team. But it doesn't really matter either way as there is an excess of quality players from around the world that are currently amateur or semi-pro. There's really not many professional competitions and all of them have significant limits on foreign players.

How many guys from the Pacific Islands and Argentina for example would jump at the chance to play professionally in Australia for something close to the median Australian salary? I'd bet there's dozens. Not every Jaguares squad member for example is going to get a contract in Japan, France or England, there's just not enough places for foreigners in those leagues on top of all the former All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks they sign. There's plenty of decent kiwis and saffers playing semi-professionally in the Mitre10 Cup and Currie Cups as well.

So who funds these 3/4 new teams? Assuming Force could be twiggy funded. RA cant afford to fund its current 4 with a renew and significantly less tv deal. WR (World Rugby) wont underwrite all of them.

You are still talking about the second tier of overseas players. The top tier will filter into the top competitions salary cap wise.
I still cant see anyway that this new format with the next best from Mitre 10 Cup or Currie Cup lifts the standard and would be comparable to a TT comp. Nor therefore would it attract the same broadcast money. As already stated Mclennan even noted that broadcasters want a TT comp.

 

[rugboy]

We need a pretty drastic change to our Pro Rugby tier. A new competition is going to take time to develop and engage with fans.

Going to an 8 team Domestic comp would mean the addition of approx 80 more contracted players. Assuming squads of 35.
The average contract will fall, perhaps its only semi pro with some players only getting match payments or small retainers. they may need a second job.

The top players will still get their top ups and wont leave. If they do they care more about money then playing for their country.

How does a competition with full time and part time athletes work? What will the quality of this competition look like? This would be an almighty backward step. As I said this reduces the quality of the whole spectacle. It is an entertainment business. Reducing quality is not a good way to entice casual fans, sponsors, investors or broadcast money. As i've said before what will be the result for the national team with its players playing in a semi pro competition? Even if RA were able to still fund top ups to keep its top players we would see a massive player drain in the mid tier level, we are already starting to see it, if paper talk is believed with some of the Reds and a number of Rebels players, reducing these players to part time would accelerate these departures.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

you would have to think North Sydney Leagues club would be open to some sort of venture with Rugby.

They want back a spot in the NRL and seem to be blocked forever. Rob & Hamish go and pay them a visit

If I think of the dialogue from Hamish - discussions with PE - and commercial realities....forget a 8 team pro domestic competition - at least short term.

Rather I think they are looking at trans Tasman competition with say 3 to 4 oz sides which includes the force (assumption force twiggy funded) ie brumbies and rebels merger. The offset will be this national club competition it appears but that would require funding and assumption is PE investment is what is required to use some of the funds for this.

Problem is how realistic is PE investment - well at least with global calendar and nations cup concept plus cvc investment activity it is at least plausible.

 

[Quick Hands]

There is almost 0 chance of a Brums/Rebels merger.

Taking aside the performance of the clubs, there is a tyranny of distance between the two areas. Our professional offerings means there isn’t enough content to spread over the two regions and therefore not enough content to engage with corporate sponsors, etc. and for fans it means an almost impossible task to create rusted on fans with a lack of engagement.

If there is teams chopped (higher prob of the Rebels) it wouldn’t be a merger. To be honest I’d say the most likely scenario is 5 teams going forward using a combination of Private Equity and funding from RA. There is very much a focus on Aus first, the lessons on dropping the Force and the disharmony it creates between the players base, governments, supporters etc. is just a blow the game couldn’t be seen to be going through again.

Super Rugby I believe will end up going through a commission structure through independence from the National Union. Perhaps NZ teams will remain primarily funded by their national union but I believe in the next 18-24months Aus Super Rugby teams will be answering to different masters than they currently are. I’d say an open market on players would be more likely than a merger but obviously things change in these crazy times but I cannot see it happening.

Someone is more likely to take a tough pill and not exist anymore than some Frankenstein mash up.

The thing is, I don't think the Kiwis want 5 x Aust teams. I suspect that they want 3 for an 8 team competition and McL is hoping to get 4 in with a bit of negotiation.

There's not enough Aust content with 5 teams either.

Let's be clear, NZRU is going to to what's in its best interest. The collapse of Aust pro rugby isn't in their interest so they'll give a bit to keep it going. But nor is it in their interest for Aust pro rugby to develop in the medium to long term to challenge the NZ dominance, so keeping us a small as possible is also in their interests.

We're an independent country and we should be running our own competitions for our own players, coaches and supporters. Remaining in a subservient relationship with another country means we can never adjust structures to suit our own needs without their approval and agreement.

TT is a short term fix which may help stave of bankruptcy until BIL 2025, but it's neither a medium or long term solution to anything.

 

[Omar Comin']

So who funds these 3/4 new teams? Assuming Force could be twiggy funded. RA cant afford to fund its current 4 with a renew and significantly less tv deal. WR (World Rugby) wont underwrite all of them.

You are still talking about the second tier of overseas players. The top tier will filter into the top competitions salary cap wise.
I still cant see anyway that this new format with the next best from Mitre 10 Cup or Currie Cup lifts the standard and would be comparable to a TT comp. Nor therefore would it attract the same broadcast money. As already stated Mclennan even noted that broadcasters want a TT comp.

It seems that the broadcast money is going to be cut significantly regardless of the competition format. The question is whether it's worth continuing to shrink the professional game here in order to maintain the current level of playing quality (and player wages) in order to compete with New Zealand Super Rugby teams and keep all the Wallabies based domestically.

I am almost certain that RA think the answer is yes, and that we will go to 3 teams in a TT competition. This will be acceptable to a lot of people.

But I question whether this is the best long term option for Australian rugby. Perhaps we are better off building a competition that is purely designed to grow rugby in the Australian market. 8-10 teams, cross town rivalries in our biggest markets, more afternoon games, state of origin etc. New teams would have to be funded by private investors, but this may be possible if they have actual control over the teams and the teams have control over the competition. Whatever amount of private investment and revenue such a competition could generate (plus whatever grants RA can afford to give it) would determine the salary cap and thus the playing level. RA could still top up a core group of Wallabies players in order to keep them in Australia, but maybe it's okay to select more of the squad from overseas.

 

[KOB1987]

I can definitely see us ending up with a 9 team TT comp with a "Southern Brumbies" concept.

- If NZ want to retain 5 team footprint, it would be sadistic of RA to go with 5 teams unless they actively want want our teams to be the perennial whipping boys.
- RA's financial constraints means 5 is probably not viable in any case.
- From what I can gather, the 'captains' are probably lobbying for 3 (4 may be a compromise).
- A 9 team home and away comp would suit the mooted window if a global calendar comes through (May-Sep) .
- If RA want Twiggy in the tent, a cull/merger becomes the default option.
- Although they might not like to admit it, a merger solves structural issues for both the Rebels and the Brumbies. Both regions don't produce enough top level players, but combined they'd go close. The Brumbies struggle commercially even when they perform on the field in large part due to size of the Canberra market. The Rebels struggle on the field.

Obviously the key risk is isolating fans further by trying to be something to everyone and instead creating something that means nothing to anyone. Notwithstanding, I can still see why this option needs to be on the table.

Are you Wayne Smith?

This from this mornings Aus:

 

[hoggy]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-over-trans-tasman-plans-20200612-p55235.html

A warning for all those advocating an 8 team TT comp, this suits NZ with Australia a long way back in 2nd place.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It seems that the broadcast money is going to be cut significantly regardless of the competition format. The question is whether it's worth continuing to shrink the professional game here in order to maintain the current level of playing quality (and player wages) in order to compete with New Zealand Super Rugby teams and keep all the Wallabies based domestically.

I am almost certain that RA think the answer is yes, and that we will go to 3 teams in a TT competition. This will be acceptable to a lot of people.

But I question whether this is the best long term option for Australian rugby. Perhaps we are better off building a competition that is purely designed to grow rugby in the Australian market. 8-10 teams, cross town rivalries in our biggest markets, more afternoon games, state of origin etc. New teams would have to be funded by private investors, but this may be possible if they have actual control over the teams and the teams have control over the competition. Whatever amount of private investment and revenue such a competition could generate (plus whatever grants RA can afford to give it) would determine the salary cap and thus the playing level. RA could still top up a core group of Wallabies players in order to keep them in Australia, but maybe it's okay to select more of the squad from overseas.

I think the answer is they are trying to do both ie this is where national club competition comes in - maybe there is intent if get a broadcast deal for this they allow some payments for those in top tier ie semi pro type competition for the national club competition

 

[KOB1987]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-over-trans-tasman-plans-20200612-p55235.html

A warning for all those advocating an 8 team TT comp, this suits NZ with Australia a long way back in 2nd place.

RA need to sit down and work out the MOST ACHIEVABLE model that is in the best interests of Australia and try to navigate towards that. It will then come down to negotiation, just like every other commercial situation in the real world. If it can't be negotiated with NZ satisfactorily then fuck em, go it alone.

 

[Slim 293]

Are you Wayne Smith?

This from this mornings Aus:
View attachment 11532

I don't think Wayne Smith considers the fact that if there's one team the Kiwis wouldn't want in a TT competition because of their time zone - it's actually the Western Force.

 

[Derpus]

i really fail to see why it wouldnt be a 10 team comp...

 

[hoggy]

RA need to sit down and work out the MOST ACHIEVABLE model that is in the best interests of Australia and try to navigate towards that. It will then come down to negotiation, just like every other commercial situation in the real world. If it can't be negotiated with NZ satisfactorily then fuck em, go it alone.

The problem is, the 8 team model would be quite suitable to many in Australian rugby. But as others have said is it in the best interests of the game here long term, i for one don't think it is.

And yes agree with you we should negotiate, IMO we should go it alone so the game can learn to stand on its own two feet here, but i'm not sure the RA will say fuck em.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't think it's in our best interest to reduce the amount of teams we currently have...........

And I don't think it's in our best interest not to partner with NZ, as the research has shown there's considerable interest here in their teams and they provide us with the highest quality opposition.

 

[RebelYell]

I still see this as an opportunity for Rebels or Brumbies to agree a deal to play some games in Fiji