Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Technically that doesn't rule them out of playing in the RC. In fact it would make expanding it from 4 to 6 teams more likely in my opinion. But it would effectively kill off their competitiveness even further in Super Rugby. If this is going to happen then NZ needs to realsie that the way forward is best suited by letting SA make the move north to the Pro 14 on a wholesale levels while remodeling Super Rugby into a primarily AP format. It would be simple enough as with the Jagaures there would still be 10 teams. Play 18 rounds with only one involving having to travel to play in an unfavourable time zone.
Ignoto
Greg Davis (50)
I'm not that disappointed that the Saffers want to move north. As an Aussie fan (and from Fox Sports/broadcasters perspective), the time zones means no-one watches the games even if it includes an Aussie team. I have zero interest or reason to watch a SA vs SA team.
Argentina would be best of demonstrating how they actually help the Australia and New Zealand Unions, otherwise, you'd be better off cutting the Jags out of the competition and running a two tier system with the J-League (i.e. with promotion and relegation). Incorporating the Japanese teams could also allow Aussie's to play abroad for extra cash and still be Wallaby selectable.
Argentina would be best of demonstrating how they actually help the Australia and New Zealand Unions, otherwise, you'd be better off cutting the Jags out of the competition and running a two tier system with the J-League (i.e. with promotion and relegation). Incorporating the Japanese teams could also allow Aussie's to play abroad for extra cash and still be Wallaby selectable.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
But you then have the situation of what can we offer the Japanese, there not stupid, what do we offer there market???
S
Show-n-go
Guest
Higher quality opposition for the JRU perspective
For the company owned teams, a chance to showcase their teams and their brand to a larger audience across multiple countries
Ability to sign more marquee players resulting in their teams doing better (assuming they allow a rule change to compete for any team in the comp to be eligible for national selection, which I believe is a smart and inevitable move)
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
Not sure I buy that, what audience NZ & Aus ?? they can just but more quality players. There audience is Japan, not some hybrid comp over multiple countries, take a look at Super rugby, why buy into that. Look at the whole Sunwolves debacle, remember were the beggars now.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...e-needs-a-divorce-lawyer-20200206-p53ygn.html
I reckon this is one of the better & most balanced articles iv'e seen.
I reckon this is one of the better & most balanced articles iv'e seen.
S
Show-n-go
Guest
Well yea, Japanese companies have huge stakes in Australian markets, it makes sense for them to want to grow that via inclusion from their rugby sides. They are a company first and foremost not a rugby franchise, these teams are used as a way to promote their brand, companies don’t just have teams because of a love of the game, it’s an investment.
And they can’t just buy more quality players, there’s a large crop that won’t go because of national selection restrictions, only a select few get releases from their super clubs to have a Japanese season. But with the right negotiations they could have the best of the wallabies and kiwis lining up to represent their team/company and even better they would no longer be coming off the back of just finishing a gruelling season in another comp, because they’d all be in the same competition
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Zero_Cool
Arch Winning (36)
I am not at all surprised by this news of South Africa, they've been edging more and more towards this, for a while now the South African Rugby Union has been taking advantage of A&NZ pushing for every advantage they can and it's hardly been an equal partnership at least for the last 4 maybe 8 years. I think also South Africa pushing the Sunwolves out of Super Rugby was the most clear example of this.
I think the best move is to cut out South Africa form the RC and Super Rugby as soon as possible, for Super Rugby we keep the Aussie and Kiwi teams we have, adding in Japan; I'm not sure what we do with Argentina but my instinct is to let them go, although I personally love the champagne breakfast rugby. But we'll have to go cap in hand to Japan, maybe if we keep Argentina in Super we also invite back the Force and then go with Super 12. I personally like conferences playing conference teams home and away as it puts the focus on local games; maybe 2 conferences with the Australian teams and Japan and then the New Zealand teams with Argentina, each play home and away to conference teams and play each of the non-conference teams half at home and half away for a total of 16 games, add in a few weeks off for the Test series, maybe a bye round for each of the teams and we don't change the calendar.
If we don't go with conferences we could play everyone home and away for a total of 22 games, but that's probably pushing the calendar a bit far. If you go with playing everyone once that's only 11 rounds and I think that's probably too much of a reduction.
Considering the Rugby Championship I think the best option is to invite Japan, and go with 4 (Australia, Argentina, New Zealand and Japan) I think if we added both Japan and Fiji it'd mean we can't go with two games each as the RC would then be 8 games long; I think 6 games is probably a good length. The other consideration is commercial, Japan is a much bigger market, a much more accessible market.
TLDR I think the future of Australia and New Zealand Rugby is with Japan.
I think the best move is to cut out South Africa form the RC and Super Rugby as soon as possible, for Super Rugby we keep the Aussie and Kiwi teams we have, adding in Japan; I'm not sure what we do with Argentina but my instinct is to let them go, although I personally love the champagne breakfast rugby. But we'll have to go cap in hand to Japan, maybe if we keep Argentina in Super we also invite back the Force and then go with Super 12. I personally like conferences playing conference teams home and away as it puts the focus on local games; maybe 2 conferences with the Australian teams and Japan and then the New Zealand teams with Argentina, each play home and away to conference teams and play each of the non-conference teams half at home and half away for a total of 16 games, add in a few weeks off for the Test series, maybe a bye round for each of the teams and we don't change the calendar.
If we don't go with conferences we could play everyone home and away for a total of 22 games, but that's probably pushing the calendar a bit far. If you go with playing everyone once that's only 11 rounds and I think that's probably too much of a reduction.
Considering the Rugby Championship I think the best option is to invite Japan, and go with 4 (Australia, Argentina, New Zealand and Japan) I think if we added both Japan and Fiji it'd mean we can't go with two games each as the RC would then be 8 games long; I think 6 games is probably a good length. The other consideration is commercial, Japan is a much bigger market, a much more accessible market.
TLDR I think the future of Australia and New Zealand Rugby is with Japan.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Like it or not, Australia has 5 pro teams and any way forward has to reunite with WA. Another key issue is that any future comp needs the Nations to stand behind the comp without being myopic. There should be a formalised position where players in the comp are eligible for national honours, irrespective of the club they play for or the nation they base as home. A level playing field is required.
Back home in Aus, we also need things resolved with SRU and a National club comp is required. If this is NRC or a version of it, good, but work is required here including integrating that comp with the State systems.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Not sure of the relevance of this comment. Possibly misreading SRU as SARU? I would usually use RSA for South Africa fwiw.
Zero_Cool
Arch Winning (36)
Yeah, on this I think it's unavoidable that we have an intermediate competition -- there are about 10 teams each in the Shute Shield and Q-Premier comps not sure about ACT, Vic, SA, WA etc. but that's probably a minimum of 30 teams, if you have a 'Champions Cup' type comp you'd be excluding more than half your teams (and half your young talent), otherwise you're having a comp that's just way too big and unwieldy. So I think if not the NRC something like the NRC is really important, maybe 2 teams per Super team, for a total of 10, maybe the Brumbies, Rebels, and Force have only one each and you add a team for SA and/or the NT or something like that. I think no more than say 10 teams, to begin, but maybe as few as 7. You can keep Fiji too if you want, they add a good point of difference for the comp.
Personally, I think the NRC needs to be a home and away comp minimum to ensure it's got real credibility.
As for all Super players being Wallabies eligible I don't think the Wallabies can do that without New Zealand reciprocating that, but then it'd become a financial competition and eventually you'd see the New Zealand teams wain as they simply don't have the financial capacity to compete. (To this end the population of Brisbane is about 2.2 million, all of New Zealand is only 4.7 million; the GDP of Brisbane is $157B and New Zealand is only $205B, and obviously Japan eclipse all of them.) I think the best way to moderate this is to agree to a comp wide salary cap.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Yes there is a truism there in the populations, moreso the relevant economies. BUT the nubers that count are the rugby players and NZ chews us up. You need to balance the talent across a comp.
To be clear, if we are offered NZ based on their current teams v without a balance - I don't want them. Watching teams get belted by the kiwis each week does not create a constructive or $competitive product. I'd much prefer to drop the quality but keep it relatively balanced. Then meet them in the internationals at rep level. We are fighting for our lives here, kiwis are in fighting with us, or can be left out.
Ignoto
Greg Davis (50)
With the J League being owner by corporations, you play to the ceos ego. From their perspective imagine being the first Japanese team to beat the elite Kiwi and Australian Super Rugby teams.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
What does this change, you have to think someone had knowledge of this, the RA surely has to factor this into the broadcast agreement, and it makes you wonder why FOX were so keen to put pen to paper.
The fact is come 2026 the whole landscape is going to change whether they want or not maybe earlier.
In some ways this backs up Castles approach, what good would have signing up to a continuation of the status quo, knowing you were going to be left high and dry come the end.
Reality maybe a cold shower but at least preparing for it should be the minimum.
The fact is come 2026 the whole landscape is going to change whether they want or not maybe earlier.
In some ways this backs up Castles approach, what good would have signing up to a continuation of the status quo, knowing you were going to be left high and dry come the end.
Reality maybe a cold shower but at least preparing for it should be the minimum.
molman
Peter Johnson (47)
RSA have been smart with their manoeuvring. Even their push for the inclusion of 6 teams into Super Rugby when it was questionable they had the talent and then the way they were able to peal these off to integrate into the Pro14. I agree with some of the pondering in the Dailymail piece. The integration of Japan (and possibly Fiji) into a revised Rugby Championship makes sense. I think strategically Australia needs to be ensuring that they strengthen their domestic competitions to ensure they are not forever beholden to other interests. The challenge for AU/NZ is being crowded out from playing against the new exclusive club forming up north. With the increasingly crowded calendar it will mean that there will be less opportunities against those countries. I think the removal of the Sunwolves weakens AU/NZ's future position in having more options and is ultimately to RSA's benefit.
Zero_Cool
Arch Winning (36)
Yeah, I know this is probably a little controversial but I think the Kiwi's are starting to come back down to earth, I know they don't have their AB Stars, but the Hurricanes and Highlanders both looked quite poor and the Blues traditionally have been awful but you never know. Either way my point is I don't think New Zealand is going to continue to be AS dominant as they have been in recent time; and you'd expect it's not going to always be a thing.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
So SA joining 6 Nations...not surprising.
Rugby Championship can be expanded to 6 teams by 2024 by inclusion of Japan, Fiji and USA.