Exit from Super Rugby?

[Bardon]

Oh they definitely should be working on development prior to the RWC to put themselves in the best position to leverage the boost the game will get. But I don't see how 1 new franchise without a beefed up domestic league is going to benefit Japanese rugby as a whole.

It's more likely to be just another long trip for SA, NZ and Aus teams and might be branded pointless if the new teams are propping up the table. It takes a long time to build a new franchise and you don't tend to gain many fans if you finish bottom every year.

That's why a pan-asian comp would be better in the long term. Give fans a chance to see their team winning and qualifying on merit and going into the competition with some confidence.

I certainly wouldn't go to see a Tokyo based Super Rugby franchise for every home game if they were just inserted into the current format. I would go to some games as a chance to see the Tahs, Reds, Saders play. But with those teams coming every year the novelty would wear off if most games are over as a contest at half time.

The problem I see with a franchise model with no underpinning system is that it would be implementing a system that well established rugby nations are all struggling with on a much less developed rugby nation and expecting it to turn up roses.

I'd like to see those in charge of the game take a more long term view on rugby development and take a responsible approach to regional rugby development. This is something I'd level just as much at the unions up here as those in SANZAR.

Developing the game properly in our respective regions will benefit rugby as a whole.

If I were in charge of the IRB the first thing I'd do is get all the unions together and tell them that a portion of any TV, sponsorship deals etc. are to be paid into a fund to be used for developing the sport in Tier 2 & 3 nations.

There are plenty of other changes I'd make but I'd don't have all day to type them and I'd be getting way off topic.

 

[spikhaza]

CAn I just say my preferred model is for a champions league style format in years to come. I would love to see the top 2 from each country play off in a knockout seeded competition at the end of the regular season.

I think then you'd get genuine interest in these games.

My big problem with playing South Africa is when teams playing like crap and perhaps with less of a support base fly to SA to play another team doing really badly. It's got a big air of oh, meh, why did they bother

 

[boyo]

There HAS to be FTA coverage in Australia (not only Super Rugby Extra Time, not only Wallaby Tests, not only Shute Shield) for viewers that don't have Foxtel to see rugby union.

As far as I'm concerned, anything else is tinkering around the edges.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Bardon, do you think there would be a chance of gaining a decent following for a Tokyo based team in some sort of Asia-Pacific Super Rugby comp or conference?

Say if it was pretty much the Japanese national team with a couple of marquee foreigners.

Given Japan did beat Wales in one of those matches (albeit without their Lions players), I think they'd be competitive with most super rugby teams.

I find the idea behind a Asian Super Rugby competition quite interesting to the point where I wrote something up on The Roar a few years back.

A Trans-Tasman competition makes the most sense in the short term. I love Super Rugby and enjoy watching the SA teams when they are out this way but you do get the distinct feeling that in its current guise the competition is reaching its used by date.

I think it may be time for Super Rugby to effectively split itself in two opening the door for the inclusion of a couple of Asian teams (Singapore and evidently Suntory) and a team from both Fiji and Samoa (I know they won't bring a lot of money in from local broadcast but I think people will be surprised in the interest these teams will generate when in town which will help in the revenue stakes) forming the Asia-Pacific Rugby Championship.

SA can drive their own expansion agenda into Argentina and/or Europe. Even explore other options in Africa (Kenya have proven very worth entrants in the Vodacom Cup).

 

[BDA]

The higher up the chain yes agreed, But you just can't prostitute the Wallabies for 20 games a year for revenue. playing the All Blacks 3-4 times a year ain't working, theres nothing special about it any more. The AFL produce over 200 games for the domestic market, we get just on 40 with Super rugby, and people wonder why they get $250 million.
99% of succesful sporting competition are domestic based. Yet for some reason in Australia we only think it would work if we have teams from other continents involved.
Look i don't know whether ditching Super rugby is the answer. But surely something is better than the slow death that is happening to rugby in Australia now.

I agree with the sentiment. Not sure what the answer is but in the end it might be to concentrate on a domestic competition, rather than a provincial comp. It would be a risk yes, it may bring the standard of the national team down yes, it may hurt revenue in the short terms, but we have to get our code to a point where we can put on more games in Australia.

Yes the quality of the Super teams has a positive flow on effect to our national team, but that doesn't mean scrapping Super rugby will cause Australia to become a 2nd tier nation. Whatever happens we will still compete against the Blacks every year for the Bledisloe. We'l still play the Boks in the Rugby Championship.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. As a fan I'd love to keep to current format, but if those in the know at the ARU determine that we have better growth opportunities by concentrating on a domestic or trans Tasman comp then so be it. It sounds to me like the planned expansion of the Super comp (which will supposedly scrap the conference system which saw an increase in local games) will not be in the best interests of our code and if that's the case we should staunchly oppose it. The truth is we need to insist on going in the opposite direction. That is to say, we need to create more home games for our sides.

To be honest I think an OZ/NZ comp of say 12 teams would be received very well by fans and it would undoubtably increase revenue for the ARU, and would in time lead to increased broadcast dollars.

 

[Omar Comin']

Oh they definitely should be working on development prior to the RWC to put themselves in the best position to leverage the boost the game will get. But I don't see how 1 new franchise without a beefed up domestic league is going to benefit Japanese rugby as a whole.

But Japan already have a professional domestic league. The point of 1 or 2 franchises at a higher level would be to give more of their best players greater exposure to top class rugby (it wouldn't be any different to say Italy in the Pro 12). And also hopefully increase interest in rugby among the general population, which have shown some appetite for world class rugby. The Japanese guys playing in super rugby at the moment have shown they're up to it. Imagine if there were 25+ Japanese players exposed to that level week to week. I agree it would only work if they were competitive, but I think that's quite probable.

If Japan can get to the point where they are competitive with the SANZAR nations (say at the level of Argentina), then I'm pretty sure SANZAR would invite them into the rugby championship very quickly. It would be in our interest for rugby to become a bigger sport in Japan and have them part of our cross-border competitions. Plus, the other thing is Japan play a very exciting, very fast style of rugby. They're great to watch.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think it may be time for Super Rugby to effectively split itself in two opening the door for the inclusion of a couple of Asian teams (Singapore and evidently Suntory) and a team from both Fiji and Samoa (I know they won't bring a lot of money in from local broadcast but I think people will be surprised in the interest these teams will generate when in town which will help in the revenue stakes) forming the Asia-Pacific Rugby Championship.

SA can drive their own expansion agenda into Argentina and/or Europe. Even explore other options in Africa (Kenya have proven very worth entrants in the Vodacom Cup).

Completely agree with this. Not sure you could have separate teams in Fiji and Samoa...not without significant government or private investment. They'd need benefactors. But it would be cool. I think it more likely you could have a combined Pacific Island team based out of Auckland or even Western Sydney - and they could play the odd game in the Islands.

Ultimately what I would like to see is a tender process for new teams - as we had recently for the NRC. Open it up to bidders and see what interest is out there. We're just guessing otherwise. Keep an open mind about number of teams and where they come from etc.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think the advent of professionalism has pushed NZ, SA and Aus further ahead of the Northern Hemisphere even though we are more poorly funded. I put a lot of this down to the strength of Super Rugby and has served us better than the various Northern Hemisphere competitions.

More money in the NH should have closed the gap yet it has widened. I think a big part of that has to be due to Super Rugby.

And possibly because a lot of NH money is thrown at SH players. If they concentrated on developing their own, they just might be stronger in the long term.

 

[RugbyFuture]

Right now I agree with some of you in that we need to form and grow the NRC in order to take control of a national rugby identity. However long term if South africa want more teams let them have them - in the currie cup and promote them up as that stands so they compete against the other teams. If Australia goes down in rugby, that means NZ will follow behind it in some capacity because of the lack of competition with it. South Africa is an old enemy sure, but nothing like that of Aus V NZ.

In reality it seems that because SA have always had such a limited number of teams its a problem that their third and second tiers are overcrossing eachother now. New Zealand is managing its franchise and regional teams by keeping them seperate, but if expansion keeps up one has to think it will overlap too.

Super Rugby has contributed to the standard of play, but from what I understand in SA and NZ as in aus its undermined tribal mentality which destroys marketing opportunities. Its time to look to their third tiers as feeders into a champions league as in Europe and Soccer.

 

[kiap]

While Super Rugby is still my Plan A – with a few caveats – if the financials just aren't working then the time to exit is now, not in six-and-half years time.

This whole question depends on whether a pro domestic comp would generate more revenue than Super Rugby in the short-to-medium term. I actually suspect it could because having more games in the right time zones, the match day revenue for all games staying local, and millions less in travel costs would be enough to overtake the present arrangements.

The downside would be the reduced competition with NZ and SA teams (probably Tests and pre-season matches only), which could reduce the standard of play/players (not immediately but over several years).

But countering that, the upside (not immediately but over several years), is that the competition could eclipse the overall Super Rugby competition financially. That will retain and attract more players. Obviously other players will also still go to France — but that's going to happen anyway.

 

[Pfitzy]

I think the key thing to remember in South Africa and New Zealand is that they're effectively hosting almost two tiers within the one domestic competition - the Currie Cup has Premier and First Division within it, and the ITM cup has the Premiership and Championship. Both have relegation.

So, despite these two countries being rugby powerhouses, there is an admission within their domestic provincial ranks that they don't have enough teams for a full-blown national competition at an elite level. Some may blame Super Rugby for this situation, and they'd have a point because the winners usually come from a major (premier) team. But its a chicken and egg situation.

For the first few years, any Super Rugby replacement competition based purely around Australasia would involve the existing Super teams, plus at least one other New Zealand team, and an Islands side based either in South Auckland or Western Sydney to compete with Loig.

It certainly needs to be stronger than ITM Cup, and should have marquee player availability to help sell it overseas.

The big question: will it run in parallel with domestic competitions or as per the current situation? One thing that shits me about the ITM Cup is Auckland gets to be a big fish in both competitions.

 

[kiap]

For the first few years, any Super Rugby replacement competition based purely around Australasia would involve the existing Super teams, plus at least one other New Zealand team, and an Islands side based either in South Auckland or Western Sydney to compete with Loig.

It certainly needs to be stronger than ITM Cup, and should have marquee player availability to help sell it overseas.

I like those thoughts.

But do we have the balls to start it without NZ for the first 5+ years? . . . Assuming the financials are better for Oz than the S17/18, obviously.

I don't know the answer but I'm asking the question because that might be what it takes.

The big question: will it run in parallel with domestic competitions or as per the current situation? One thing that shits me about the ITM Cup is Auckland gets to be a big fish in both competitions.

Good question. I suppose (if it was the goal to get a TT comp, and I'm not saying it is) then it could either be a breakaway from Super Rugby (a quick cut in 2016), or be built underneath for 5 years or so to eventually take over in 2021 (a gradual changeover – conservative option).

 

[Braveheart81]

I think baby steps are what is required.

The focus is currently on getting the NRC off the ground and making sure it lasts more than one year.

The next focus is the 2016 TV rights deal and the hope that we can get a game a week on FTA.

Rugby in Australia is a precarious state financially but that means prudence is essential. Taking a massive punt might work out, but if it fails, the professional game could genuinely die in Australia in the space of a single year. The ARU as the main custodians of the game can't take that risk.

Absolutely nothing is going to attract huge swathes of NRL and AFL fans instantly. There aren't hundreds of thousands of NRL fans waiting for a better rugby competition so they can stop watching league. If the ratings for one crucial Aussie derby aren't spiking wildly above other games then having a whole competition of them isn't going to do that either.

You only need to compare the ratings for Super Rugby games against NRL and AFL games that are only on Foxtel to see that the gulf in supporter numbers is huge no matter what the medium.

 

[kiap]

I think baby steps are what is required.

The focus is currently on getting the NRC off the ground and making sure it lasts more than one year.

The next focus is the 2016 TV rights deal and the hope that we can get a game a week on FTA.

Rugby in Australia is a precarious state financially but that means prudence is essential. Taking a massive punt might work out, but if it fails, the professional game could genuinely die in Australia in the space of a single year. The ARU as the main custodians of the game can't take that risk.

Fair points.

Absolutely nothing is going to attract huge swathes of NRL and AFL fans instantly. There aren't hundreds of thousands of NRL fans waiting for a better rugby competition so they can stop watching league. If the ratings for one crucial Aussie derby aren't spiking wildly above other games then having a whole competition of them isn't going to do that either.

You only need to compare the ratings for Super Rugby games against NRL and AFL games that are only on Foxtel to see that the gulf in supporter numbers is huge no matter what the medium.

TBH, I don't think challenging the NRL/AFL is a serious goal for rugby.

It's more about maximising what we've got. Realistically, rugby union is a second-tier pro sport. Getting up to the levels of the A-League is more of a target.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think with the recent reports of interest from the likes of 10 and 7 the ARU should be shopping around a few different scenarios and options alongside them. One should be the status quo, another Trans-Tasman and the final one a completely independent professional NRC with full Wallaby involvement.

Test the waters on which the broadcasters find the most interesting and what they are willing to pay.

I tend to agree with Kiap's general thoughts about going it alone. If the right proposal was presented a network like Ten may find the opportunity to sign on to a national competition that would guarantee them content a potentially attractive option. Especially when it could guarantee the involvement of the best available players. We have to remember that Super Rugby only generates around $12 million annually out of Australia. It's not that huge of an amount to equal if not surpass. The Rugby Championship is where the real value in the SANZAR alliance sits and should be maintained.

I think we need to sit down and assess where we stand in terms of what we need to do for the game in Australia. We're at a point were if we stay in what is more and more a poison relationship in terms of Super Rugby, one that our partners seem more intent on controlling us while over looking the fact that within the alliance it is our market that holds the greatest potential for growth. Then it may be time to take the chance.

Soccer did this, I know in terms of base support both games are on completely different levels but as commercial professional entities Rugby is ahead and can build.

 

[BDA]

It's true. Growing rugby's share of the market in Australia is one thing, but reaching the levels of NRL and AFL is more about changing the culture of the sport in Australia, than it is about changing the competition. That starts in the schools. You'd need a major increase in accessibility to young kids in public schools. Ironically enough, the best way to set that cultural change in motion would be a world cup winning wallabies team. This really is a chicken and egg situation

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Fair points.


TBH, I don't think challenging the NRL/AFL is a serious goal for rugby.

It's more about maximising what we've got. Realistically, rugby union is a second-tier pro sport. Getting up to the levels of the A-League is more of a target.

At present or with going it alone. No. It shouldn't be the goal but down the line when its establishes itself then those goals and objectives need to be re-aligned. I think if it is done right, Rugby could certainly close the gap on those two and establish itself as a viable option alongside both competitions.

Regarding reaching the levels of the A-League. A TT competition would do this almost instantly. The games involving Aus/NZ teams are there now and I actually think a prioritized NRC given the right promotion and possible access to FTA would quickly catch and surpass it. Especially when you consider that on a number of occasions this season the ABC broadcast of the Shute Shield has fallen just shy of a few of the A-League fixtures on Fox.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It's true. Growing rugby's share of the market in Australia is one thing, but reaching the levels of NRL and AFL is more about changing the culture of the sport in Australia, than it is about changing the competition. That starts in the schools. You'd need a major increase in accessibility to young kids in public schools. Ironically enough, the best way to set that cultural change in motion would be a world cup winning wallabies team. This really is a chicken and egg situation

That's essentially been the strategy for the past 25 years. While it may be effective to an extent while everything is rosy and we're winning as we've witness over the past decade. That tends to reverse itself when things are a little lean. It's not sustainable.

If we decide to use the game as the primary development tool establishing either a TT or pro domestic competition is the only sustainable means of doing that.

Let's use the NRL as the primary example. Fans and in this case kids, tend to be attracted to the tribal nature of the competition as opposed to how well the Kangaroos are performing. While I do accept that international RL is a far shallower pool than that of Rugby (which is actually both a strength and weakness) they are more tied to their club in terms of their aspirations to play and watch the game.

 

[kiap]

Regarding reaching the levels of the A-League. A TT competition would do this almost instantly.

Just do it then. The revenue would eclipse the Super Rugby comp and they can pick the bones out of the Soup carcass (just leave a shorter annual SH Championship Cup in place instead).

 

[Braveheart81]

Let's use the NRL as the primary example. Fans and in this case kids, tend to be attracted to the tribal nature of the competition as opposed to how well the Kangaroos are performing. While I do accept that international RL is a far shallower pool than that of Rugby (which is actually both a strength and weakness) they are more tied to their club in terms of their aspirations to play and watch the game.

The Kangaroos are irrelevant to the success of rugby league.

Teams that struggle down the bottom of the ladder for long periods tend to struggle with fans attending and watching though.

It's a hard comparison. Super Rugby isn't directly comparable to the NRL because test rugby forms a far greater portion of our season than rugby league tests.

Our product will be Wallabies, Super Rugby, NRC compared against NRL, SoO, Kangaroos.