Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

Western Reds tops the Bottle Brushes.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Right go convince the broadcasters.

Then help the broadcasters come up with a deal that all the Unions will accept.

We'll all wait patiently.

If the numbers could work this would have happened already.

NZ says they want to play SA teams regularly but if they are given the same money they will go along with your idea. Why? because the loot will not add up.

It is all about the money. The current model delivers more money on the table.

My first position is to see no teams cut but from long term commercial perspective I could see Brumbies relocated to Melbourne as likely option if team is cut.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[p.Tah]

We'll at least this crap is getting people talking about rugby again. Cunning plan by the ARU. Even in the NRL and AFL forums they are

FoxSport news mostly about rugby

 

[Scotty]

The only long term solution, in my opinion, to increase the market share of rugby in this country is to have a trans Tasman only competition. They can add a champions league type of thing with South African and Japanese sides and maybe Argentinian as well.

The big benefits:

- NZ and Aus play similar styles and maybe able to make changes to the rules to help reduce stoppages
- Most Australians only know Oz and NZ teams. Gives them something to relate to
- All games will be in or near prime time

I really don't care what people say about tv income from South Africa - we may have short term pain but I am confident of long term gain with a trans Tasman series.

 

[southsider]

From a kiwi point of view, do fans really want more games against South Africa or is that just the administration wanting it that way??

I don't know too many kiwis going "fuck yea lets get up at 2-3am to watch a game" or too many kiwis that are really know South African playing rosters like they know the Aussie ones.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ the reasoning is that exposure to SA teams, esp in SA, during Super Rugby conditions our players in terms of the SA style, playing at altitude, etc for Internationals. Evidence for this is that we only gained parity (& now a healthy lead) win/ loss-wise v Bokke & only won a series there after the creation of Super 10-12-14.

I broadly agree with that historically, but I'm not convinced that it's still as valid now that playing at altitude can be simulated & there's no longer any real size differential between players from SA c.f. those from Straya, Argentina, etc plus the advent of "every game live" & video analysis making it all but impossible for SA to spring some hitherto-unknown monster tight forward or battering ram back on us.

I think it's now used more as a diversion from the real reason which is that NZ teams playing in SA get good ratings in Europe (Strayan teams somewhat less so by all accounts) which translates into more TV rights money.

So to actually answer your question, yes it's the admin but citing the history as the reason to carry on the traditional rivalry sounds better than "it's all about the money, bro".

 

[southsider]

Yea I get all the reasoning behind it but I feel like

1) it's NZ they could play anybody and still be top of their game and conditioned well

2) surely at some point their (NZ) product will suffer domestically by having more games at shit hours against players they don't relate to as well. Maybe even to the point that the money they get from tv deal etc isn't worth it

I genuinely think going to a trans-Tasman tournament is best for everyone. In the short term we will lose money and kiwis will hand it to us Aussies for a period of time. But the end product will be more exciting, especially if they include a Pacific Islander team (I think this would be their one and only chance to get a professional "islander" team in domestic footy) and with any luck keeping the sun wolves could in the medium to long term off-set the financial loss we suffer from fucking SA off to Europe.

 

[Ulrich]

I think it goes the other way as well in that we as fans in SA particularly love watching our sides pit themselves against Kiwi opposition.

All the talk even before the competition started this season has been "We'll have to wait until round 5 to see if we're any good". It's not just the journalists, coaches and players but we as fans feel the same.

You always play better against people you like than against people you don't funnily enough.

EDIT: I'd say that NZ are at least moderately concerned about South Africa's demise of late.

 

[southsider]

I think it goes the other way as well in that we as fans in SA particularly love watching our sides pit themselves against Kiwi opposition.

All the talk even before the competition started this season has been "We'll have to wait until round 5 to see if we're any good". It's not just the journalists, coaches and players but we as fans feel the same.

You always play better against people you like than against people you don't funnily enough.

Mate you lot don't seem to have a bloody clue what you want.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think it goes the other way as well in that we as fans in SA particularly love watching our sides pit themselves against Kiwi opposition.

All the talk even before the competition started this season has been "We'll have to wait until round 5 to see if we're any good". It's not just the journalists, coaches and players but we as fans feel the same.

You always play better against people you like than against people you don't funnily enough.

EDIT: I'd say that NZ are at least moderately concerned about South Africa's demise of late.

The problem with the SARU position is that they say they want less travel at the same time they say that they want less local derbies and more games against NZ teams. Aspects of their postion are mutually exclusive.

 

[Ulrich]

Mate you lot don't seem to have a bloody clue what you want.

We know what we want. It's the administrators that are confused.

No one here wanted the Kings for example.

 

[southsider]

We know what we want. It's the administrators that are confused.

No one here wanted the Kings for example.

But at the same time you want more games against kiwis, less local derbies but can't hack the travel. Go figure how that's gonna work

 

[Ulrich]

But at the same time you want more games against kiwis, less local derbies but can't hack the travel. Go figure how that's gonna work

I think the administrators' points were it was crap being on tour for 4 weeks. The first game traveling West to East is always difficult and the last game is a bit of a stretch. Players being away from family etc for extended periods can't be ideal either. Aus and Kiwi sides come here from East to West, play 2 games and that's it.

I'd say nobody would have a problem if we only played NZ teams. It's the duration of travel that doesn't suit us. As much as you would like a ANZAC competition we'd similarly like having a Saffa-Kiwi comp. That will never happen and the ANZAC does make more sense but I'm just pointing out the reality here.

Aus and SA don't care much for one another. I don't know of anyone that will watch an Aussie derby here, but we'll often forsake our family responsibilities early morning to watch a Kiwi derby.

That's also the reason we're not happy currently. Yes, the travel is less, but half our sides are only playing Aussie sides. It doesn't interest the public so how they decided on that I don't know. I'd rather have more travel and ensure we play the kiwi sides than the current format.

 

[Twoilms]

The high demand for New Zealand rugby does seem to justify their intention to have the most teams. That and they can put out 5 highly competitive teams.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's also the reason we're not happy currently. Yes, the travel is less, but half our sides are only playing Aussie sides. It doesn't interest the public so how they decided on that I don't know. I'd rather have more travel and ensure we play the kiwi sides than the current format.

That's why I can't work out why your administrators pushed so hard for Super 18 as it actually reduced the number of NZ v SA games - which is the opposite of what both nations say that they want.

Your administrators seem a lamentable as our lot. Pity we couldn't have conspired for the lot of them to stay in London.

 

[southsider]

I think the administrators' points were it was crap being on tour for 4 weeks. The first game traveling West to East is always difficult and the last game is a bit of a stretch. Players being away from family etc for extended periods can't be ideal either. Aus and Kiwi sides come here from East to West, play 2 games and that's it.

I'd say nobody would have a problem if we only played NZ teams. It's the duration of travel that doesn't suit us. As much as you would like a ANZAC competition we'd similarly like having a Saffa-Kiwi comp. That will never happen and the ANZAC does make more sense but I'm just pointing out the reality here.

Aus and SA don't care much for one another. I don't know of anyone that will watch an Aussie derby here, but we'll often forsake our family responsibilities early morning to watch a Kiwi derby.

That's also the reason we're not happy currently. Yes, the travel is less, but half our sides are only playing Aussie sides. It doesn't interest the public so how they decided on that I don't know. I'd rather have more travel and ensure we play the kiwi sides than the current format.

The reality of the situation is that a lot of the problems from super rugby are a direct result of South Africa and the SARU, South Africa are always the ones to kick up a fuss, the sport is run by political agendas, you have more teams than can manage, style of play is (generally) boring, while your telecasts bring in money they are horribly run and your crowd attendance is on par with ours (except in our country at least we are the 3rd or 4th choice code)

It makes every sense for you guys to move to Europe the time zones are more friendly and with more money getting pumped into domestic rugby in England especially the competition is only going to get stronger and stronger. Plus they play to your style of play more.

 

[mudskipper]

BRUMBIES legend Stephen Larkham has hit back at suggestions of a Super Rugby merger with the Melbourne Rebels, saying the club will only ever play out of Canberra.
With speculation rife about the future of the Brumbies, Rebels and Western Force, one mooted option has been to merge the Canberra-based franchise with the privately-owned Melbourne outfit.
“I think it’s disappointing that people are even suggesting that,” Larkham said.
The Canberra-born rugby great, who is in his final year as Brumbies coach, backed up comments by chief executive Michael Thomson that the nation’s capital is the team’s home.
“We support this region and the region supports us,” Larkham said.
“The Brumbies will only ever play out of Canberra.”

Brumbies coach and club legend Stephen Larkham says his team are going nowhere.

Source: Getty Images​

Larkham said the Brumbies had received no indication they would not be in Super Rugby next season, meaning the club should push ahead in the search for his successor.
“We’ve been the most successful Super Rugby franchise in Australia,” Larkham said.
“Our books are good, our squad is strong and there’s no reason why we can’t push ahead for a new coach next year.”
Cheetahs chief executive Harold Verster said earlier in the week he believed one Australian team and one South African team would be cut from the competition.
But Larkham said his remarks were speculative.
“The decision hasn’t been made at the top level,” he said.
“CEOs from South African franchises throwing statements out there — it’s people speculating as to what’s going to happen.
“Until something happens we believe we’re going to be here next year.”

 

[Ulrich]

It makes every sense for you guys to move to Europe the time zones are more friendly and with more money getting pumped into domestic rugby in England especially the competition is only going to get stronger and stronger. Plus they play to your style of play more.

I have stated before that I would not mind this, but in reality I don't think Europe will want that. There's hardly any benefit to them.

Would look really bad to see the Sharks in London in front of a full crowd the one week, singing and chanting, then returning home to play in front of 10 000 in a 50k seater.

Africa should sort itself out. If Zim, Botswana, Namibia et al were any good we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The same goes for South America. Rugby just isn't global enough at this stage and the Southern Powers happen to be spread out a fair distance geographically.

 

[mudskipper]

I think the administrators' points were it was crap being on tour for 4 weeks. The first game traveling West to East is always difficult and the last game is a bit of a stretch. Players being away from family etc for extended periods can't be ideal either. Aus and Kiwi sides come here from East to West, play 2 games and that's it.

I'd say nobody would have a problem if we only played NZ teams. It's the duration of travel that doesn't suit us. As much as you would like a ANZAC competition we'd similarly like having a Saffa-Kiwi comp. That will never happen and the ANZAC does make more sense but I'm just pointing out the reality here.

Aus and SA don't care much for one another. I don't know of anyone that will watch an Aussie derby here, but we'll often forsake our family responsibilities early morning to watch a Kiwi derby.

That's also the reason we're not happy currently. Yes, the travel is less, but half our sides are only playing Aussie sides. It doesn't interest the public so how they decided on that I don't know. I'd rather have more travel and ensure we play the kiwi sides than the current format.

I find you have a tough enough time just playing Australian teams... But I understand you want to play NZ teams too...

 

[Rebels3]

Has anyone thought about the consequences of rugby in 10/15 years time? Once the argentines reach a level where they need more than one team? What about the japanese will their market demand another team in 10/15 years time, especially with what I hope the legacy of the rwc will leave? What happens then? I also fear that for both SA and AUS that by reducing teams you
are pretty much saying that's as good as it's going to get for rugby. These are your 4 teams for ever in a day. Will we be back to where we are now, will the jaguares dominate once European cash becomes to much for kiwi players dropping their level back to the pack, will we be complaining that it's unfair to have a whole national team playing. What about the pacific islands, locking it to 15 teams essentially says you will never have any professional set up.

Now obviously something needs to change, that much is clear. But is it the short term fix that we are all in hysteria about? Are all that selfish to think my team deserves a spot more than yours because I have history (only 20 years) or my city is bigger and more commercial than yours.

Personally I think we need a 2 tier system it's the only way forward where everyone is given an opportunity. Perhaps have a lower salary cap for the 2nd tier, encourage loans (jake Gordon anyone). It might get rid of stock piling of players and give youngsters an opportunity, it'll only help everyone. It'll also keep teams on their toes to continue to promote pathways. All games would be competitive, people would say the 2nd tier is going to be terrible, but so is the aflw, the big bash league, numerous football leagues around the world, the top 14 etc.these are all competitions that have captured the audience, not through quality but the contest. Hell the 6 nations traditionally has been low in quality and look at that. The quality is in the contest, it's in the battle, plus the top tier would be promoting such a high level it'd be great for all levels of the game in the participating countries. Creating two tiers also provides the option for as much expansion, retraction, what ever is needed. Two 9 team divisions over 16 weeks can easily be turned into 2 10 team competitions etc. It will also give a considerably lower base level for teams to grow. Games would mean more with promotion, relegation, finals, survival.

Anyway my two cents. Just feel we need more constructive conversation than trying to point the finger at everyone