Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

It can still be run by an independent board in the current format. Together while separate. Work to achieve common goals and synergies between the two domestic competitions allowing for more seamless transition to the TT components.

 

[Joe King]

I think we would be better off with both super rugby AU competition AND TT if the latter can be designed appropriately. To me that design would be having teams able to select players from other TT comp countries involved and still able to represent their national team. Latter does not seem likely so let’s just see how we go with what is proposed.

Yep. I think something like that should be a condition RA attaches to any full season Super Rugby TT. Otherwise, keep Super Rugby AU.

But I think from NZR's point of view, they'd want to keep their current Super Rugby team setup, with a full season 12-team TT for the following reasons:

1. Keeping control of their players within their own system has served the AB's so well. They won't want to risk upsetting that.

2. Super Rugby Ao is very good rugby, but it doesn't serve their purposes as well as a 12 team TT would. There's been a few interviews with NZ players saying they'd prefer a 12 team TT to give them a break from such competitive games against the other NZ teams. To me, that's a reason NOT to have a full-season TT. But I can understand that it is a serious issue for NZR because increased injuries from Super Rugby Ao will obviously affect the AB's.

3. They don't need a domestic Super Rugby comp because they have their traditional NPC filling that void. This is something a NRC could never hope to emulate without it being the main comp in Australia.

 

[Joe King]

We need to remember that the mistake of the old ARU was going for an increased revenue deal rather than a structure and competition that captured the Australian public's attention. I'm not talking about what people on this site prefer. I'm talking about the casual sports fan in Australia who might prefer a different code, but would happily watch rugby as well if he/she felt compelled to do so (much like rugby fans watching a good league game).

So go for a structure and competition that captures the Australian public's attention first, and the revenue will take care of itself longer term.

Super Rugby AU is only in its second season and already it is capturing the public's attention with fairy tale endings. It still has a lot of potential. I think it would be a big risk to remove the one competition that is breathing life into rugby in Australia again.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I know the idea of an Aus only comp sounds attractive, but you need more than 5 teams to make it work. There is no way Australian teams will not win games in a full comp, and the idea of saying we need to guarantee a winner from Aus or NZ is like I said the same reasoning that in kid's sports where you give out medals to everyone. It means more when it harder to win.

To the players, maybe not so much to the fans.

 

[Derpus]

We need to remember that the mistake of the old ARU was going for an increased revenue deal rather than a structure and competition that captured the Australian public's attention. I'm not talking about what people on this site prefer. I'm talking about the casual sports fan in Australia who might prefer a different code, but would happily watch rugby as well if he/she felt compelled to do so (much like rugby fans watching a good league game).

So go for a structure and competition that captures the Australian public's attention first, and the revenue will take care of itself longer term.

Super Rugby AU is only in its second season and already it is capturing the public's attention with fairy tale endings. It still has a lot of potential. I think it would be a big risk to remove the one competition that is breathing life into rugby in Australia again.

We should be trying to get the Drua in to make it 3 games a weekend and keeping TT as an add on.

 

[hifflepiff]

We need to remember that the mistake of the old ARU was going for an increased revenue deal rather than a structure and competition that captured the Australian public's attention. I'm not talking about what people on this site prefer. I'm talking about the casual sports fan in Australia who might prefer a different code, but would happily watch rugby as well if he/she felt compelled to do so (much like rugby fans watching a good league game).

So go for a structure and competition that captures the Australian public's attention first, and the revenue will take care of itself longer term.

Super Rugby AU is only in its second season and already it is capturing the public's attention with fairy tale endings. It still has a lot of potential. I think it would be a big risk to remove the one competition that is breathing life into rugby in Australia again.

This. The #1 question for any future competiton is what will capture the interest the broader Australian public.

Not whats best for the die-hard fans
Not whats best for the All Blacks/Wallabies
Not whats best for the NZRU
Not whats best for short term revenue raising

This is maybe a controversial statement, but domestic competition is your meat and potatoes, international is your gravy. Domestic should always come first.

Too often RA have weakened our domestic professional competition for the supposed benefit of the Wallabies. We've all seen how that's worked out.

 

[Adam84]

This. The #1 question for any future competiton is what will capture interest the broader Australian public.

Not whats best for the die-hard fans
Not whats best for the All Blacks/Wallabies
Not whats best for the NZRU
Not whats best for short term revenue raising

This is maybe a controversial statement, but domestic competition is your meat and potatoes, international is your gravy. Domestic should always come first.

I’d argue what is most likely to capture Australia public imagination is likely to be best for All Blacks/Wallabies and NZRU. What it may not provide is the short term revenue injection though as some of these may take time to reach maturity

 

[Rebels3]

The data coming in is looking more convincing that the domestic focus model works for both diehards and casual viewers.

 

[hoggy]

This. The #1 question for any future competiton is what will capture the interest the broader Australian public.

Not whats best for the die-hard fans
Not whats best for the All Blacks/Wallabies
Not whats best for the NZRU
Not whats best for short term revenue raising

This is maybe a controversial statement, but domestic competition is your meat and potatoes, international is your gravy. Domestic should always come first.

Too often RA have weakened our domestic professional competition for the supposed benefit of the Wallabies. We've all seen how that's worked out.

Bingo.

 

[sendit]

The data coming in is looking more convincing that the domestic focus model works for both diehards and casual viewers.

To be fair we can’t really say that until the TT competition has finished

 

[dru]

I’d argue what is most likely to capture Australia public imagination is likely to be best for All Blacks/Wallabies and NZRU. What it may not provide is the short term revenue injection though as some of these may take time to reach maturity

No I don't think so. At least what is best for ABs and NZRU, or at least what they think is best for ABs and NZRU has proven not to be most likely to capture the public imagination in Aus. We need too step out of NZ hem skirts and start directing the game for Australia.

 

[Adam84]

No I don't think so. At least what is best for ABs and NZRU, or at least what they think is best for ABs and NZRU has proven not to be most likely to capture the public imagination in Aus. We need too step out of NZ hem skirts and start directing the game for Australia.

I don’t disagree but that’s not what I was alluding to.
What I meant is having rugby union strong in Australia is a positive for New Zealand.
But it won’t provide the short term revenue hits

 

[hoggy]

I don’t disagree but that’s not what I was alluding to.
What I meant is having rugby union strong in Australia is a positive for New Zealand.
But it won’t provide the short term revenue hits

I think the counter argument to that is we've been living off short term revenue hits for 20 years now.

The thing is can the game survive the structural damage done to it by the sacrifices of another short term financial hit that we always have to have.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think the counter argument to that is we've been living off short term revenue hits for 20 years now.

The thing is can the game survive the structural damage done to it by the sacrifices of another short term financial hit that we always have to have.

Wasn’t the Stan / nine deal a case of RA going for long term view vs short term revenue hit as I understand news /Foxtel offered more cash then Stan / nine (where part of nine / Stan deal had contra advertising included I think). Taking that view proved valuable given with ratings they are achieving would be expected able to leverage this for improved deal next time round. But short term lower broadcast rights meant RA had to cut its cloth to accomodate. Private equity investment may give some more breathing room to continue to take long term view as against short term revenue focus.

 

[Adam84]

I think the counter argument to that is we've been living off short term revenue hits for 20 years now.

The thing is can the game survive the structural damage done to it by the sacrifices of another short term financial hit that we always have to have.

It’s not a counter argument, it’s literally the argument I was making lol.

What is best for Australian Rugby long term, I.e. a domestic tournament which engages the community, probably won’t provide the short term sugar hit that partners like NZRU want from a fully fledged TT.

Long term, having a strong game in Australia is also good for New Zealand, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to do anything to support that, as evidenced with the Aratipu review last year.

 

[Set piece magic]

Can we all take a moment to enjoy that this is the first week in probably 7 years we've had a bigger weekend than the NRL. In fact, Rugby League is in danger of shooting itself in the foot, with blowout scorlines from new rules (only 4 teams look likely to win the Comp), as well as an expansion plan that looks incredibly ambitious and could end up like Super Rugby if its not careful.

Have nothing against NRL, but its good to notch up a singular win against them

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Wasn’t the Stan / nine deal a case of RA going for long term view vs short term revenue hit as I understand news /Foxtel offered more cash then Stan / nine (where part of nine / Stan deal had contra advertising included I think). Taking that view proved valuable given with ratings they are achieving would be expected able to leverage this for improved deal next time round. But short term lower broadcast rights meant RA had to cut its cloth to accomodate. Private equity investment may give some more breathing room to continue to take long term view as against short term revenue focus.

Sure, except that private equity will ensure that the equity-holder will have a long-term stake in rugby, with voting rights. So instead of being run for the elite game, which is where our adminsitrators went so spectacularly wrong for about 20 years, it will be run with a profit motive - arguably a lot worse for those of us who occupt its grassroots.

 

[Derpus]

Sure, except that private equity will ensure that the equity-holder will have a long-term stake in rugby, with voting rights. So instead of being run for the elite game, which is where our adminsitrators went so spectacularly wrong for about 20 years, it will be run with a profit motive - arguably a lot worse for those of us who occupt its grassroots.

It's obvious that the grassroots needs to be the focus for Rugby to thrive again. I don't see this as being mutually exclusive to a profitable investment and development plan.

If grass roots are strong, the Super teams are strong and the Wallabies are strong. That equals growth and returns. Just have to pitch it right. It's not even a 'long term' strategy. Raelene put a bit of cash into junior retention and it reaped near immediate benefits.

Private investment is inherently risky, particularly so in sport. For every success there is an abject failure. But as McLellan says, we don't have many options.

 

[Dan54]

Can we all take a moment to enjoy that this is the first week in probably 7 years we've had a bigger weekend than the NRL. In fact, Rugby League is in danger of shooting itself in the foot, with blowout scorlines from new rules (only 4 teams look likely to win the Comp), as well as an expansion plan that looks incredibly ambitious and could end up like Super Rugby if its not careful.

Have nothing against NRL, but its good to notch up a singular win against them

AMEN!!!

 

[Ignoto]

We should be trying to get the Drua in to make it 3 games a weekend and keeping TT as an add on.

The only problem I've found with the current Super Rugby AU (an AO) is, because there's only 5 teams in each competition, I get fatigue from watching the same teams week in week out.

I wouldn't mind trying something like;
1 entire round of Super Rugby AU and AO separately
1 round of AU vs AO
1 entire round of Super Rugby AU and AO Separately

AU and AO Finals

AU Winner vs AO Winner.

That breaks the season up with new teams and gives your team an opportunity to play against new opposition and ways of defending/attacking before you re-play your local teams.

We now have a break between the competition winners and the top two TT teams playing each other.