Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

And it doesn't have to be no TT games at all. But we now know it can't be Super Rugby TT again or a full season TT. Both would be bad for Australian rugby. But there are other options. A truncated champions league with the top Japanese teams involved for instance.

Yep go to plan B Or C...

Just sad plan A can’t be agreed but just need to accept nzru and RA will never align as just too far apart.

 

[Joe King]

Here's the plan Stan:

RA should stick with Super Rugby AU first and foremost as a non-negotiable. That implies NZ stick with Super Rugby Ao. Both with 6 teams each. That's 13 weeks with finals, a bye, and an Anzac Bledisloe. You'll get a packed house for each domestic final and the Anzac Bledisloe.

Then offer (a) a Super Bowl game between the winners of Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao. Boom! Another packed house.

And then (b) invite top 2 Japanese teams to join the top 2 AU teams and top 2 NZ teams in a Champions Cup over 5 weeks: play everyone not from your own domestic once, with a final. Boom! Another packed house.

At the same time, bottom 4 AU teams play bottom 4 NZ teams in Champions Sheild over 5 weeks. Again, play everyone not from your own domestic with a final.

Every team from NZ and AU gets a minimum of 7 home games and 7 away games each year. There's heaps of peak events through the season to capture the spectators.

I know, I know, NZR won't go for because of the intensity of Super Rugby Ao and Kiwi fans finding it boring.

So they will try to walk away with the two PI teams. And they might succeed. But a 7 team home and away Super Rugby Ao would take up the whole season, leaving Australia alone to do something with Japan after Super Rugby AU. NZR won't want to miss out on that, 'forcing' them to accept (a) and (b) above.

Sorry NZ, I've tried hard to think of models and formats to accommodate your interests as well, but there's just no other way.

Besides, Super Rugby Ao is not the worst thing for you! I'm absolutely befuddled that you don't like Super Rugby Ao. It was fantastic rugby! And look how good it's made your teams. They've never been better!

So this is the way it has to be. Australia can't afford to let go of Super Rugby AU or to play too much TT. The above model is goldilocks for us.

So no more whinging about the intensity of Super Rugby Ao or complaining that it's getting boring. Its only short.

And here's the bottom line: maintaining Super Rugby Ao will hurt you a lot less than losing Super Rugby AU or a full season TT will hurt us.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Here's the plan Stan:

RA should stick with Super Rugby AU first and foremost as a non-negotiable. That implies NZ stick with Super Rugby Ao. Both with 6 teams each. That's 13 weeks with finals, a bye, and an Anzac Bledisloe. You'll get a packed house for each domestic final and the Anzac Bledisloe.

Then offer (a) a Super Bowl game between the winners of Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao. Boom! Another packed house.

And then (b) invite top 2 Japanese teams to join the top 2 AU teams and top 2 NZ teams in a Champions Cup over 5 weeks: play everyone not from your own domestic once, with a final. Boom! Another packed house.

At the same time, bottom 4 AU teams play bottom 4 NZ teams in Champions Sheild over 5 weeks. Again, play everyone not from your own domestic with a final.

Every team from NZ and AU gets a minimum of 7 home games and 7 away games each year. There's heaps of peak events through the season to capture the spectators.

I know, I know, NZR won't go for because of the intensity of Super Rugby Ao and Kiwi fans finding it boring.

So they will try to walk away with the two PI teams. And they might succeed. But a 7 team home and away Super Rugby Ao would take up the whole season, leaving Australia alone to do something with Japan after Super Rugby AU. NZR won't want to miss out on that, 'forcing' them to accept (a) and (b) above.

Sorry NZ, I've tried hard to think of models and formats to accommodate your interests as well, but there's just no other way.

Besides, Super Rugby Ao is not the worst thing for you! I'm absolutely befuddled that you don't like Super Rugby Ao. It was fantastic rugby! And look how good it's made your teams. They've never been better!

So this is the way it has to be. Australia can't afford to let go of Super Rugby AU or to play too much TT. The above model is goldilocks for us.

So no more whinging about the intensity of Super Rugby Ao or complaining that it's getting boring. Its only short.

And here's the bottom line: maintaining Super Rugby Ao will hurt you a lot less than losing Super Rugby AU or a full season TT will hurt us.

Yeh we have been trying for a long time to work with nzru but there top down view ain’t going to change so now we know domestic super rugby can work i agree we look at champions league with them and Japan and invoking all teams something along the lines you suggested. We definitely want Japan in the mix as I think it will be easier to work with JRFU then NZRU and commercially they offer a lot more upside for RA.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

You prove my point. Playing in Super Rugby has seen us number 1 in the world and number 7 in the world. so the same cause gave us two very different effects. hence why I suggest its perhaps other factors.

Super Rugby has already watered down the playing standard. it has already driven down wages. it resulted in more players going overseas. What you are describing has been the reality for the past 10 years.

give me 30k at an Australian final every year vs a sold out sign once every decade.

You've just gone full nuff. In your previous post you've claimed that super rugby was the cause for Australia's decline. Nice try though.

I'd be intrigued to see your verbal gymnastics explain how having 8 or more domestic sides in this climate would somehow raise the salary cap, manage to attract overseas Australian players home, or somehow condense talent.

As for crowds, go and compare the crowds at this year's super rugby Au to previous super rugby tournaments. The super AU final didn't even fill Lang Park, and the attendences across the board were at best soft.

Super Au has been a great as a stop-gap measure during super rugby, but having a domestic comp as a permanent solution will not work. At least not until rugby in Australia greatly improves its financial position, media footprint, and talent pool.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

What was good for a golden age in a different era, might be less than good for the long term health of the game in the long run - and in a different era. Right?

What drives player wages is revenue. Were had better broadcast and following under the domestic than the TT. Higher quality does not necessarily lead to better wages and lessor quality not necessarily the opposite. Devil is in the detail.

Your in short summary, is I guess a valid opinion. Other opinions take a different conclusion.

So are you suggesting we stick to a 5 team, 8-round comp with finals? Or do we go with the dilution?

 

[Teh Other Dave]

You left out 'word salad', an integral part of this thread.

 

[dru]

So are you suggesting we stick to a 5 team, 8-round comp with finals? Or do we go with the dilution?

Dave, I'd run with dilution. And I doubt it'd "dilute" much.

But I'd prefer a system with the Kiwis if they have even a chance of working with us.

 

[Dan54]

Well we had acknowledgement from Hamish in the media that nzru and RA are poles apart on what they want from super rugby.I think that is the only conclusion we can all agree on was expected. Hey to say I told you so but does anybody really think they will ever be on the same page as just want different things (refer to page 883)

Well I just saw this, we also had acknowledgement from Hamish that RA is pretty well split too on where to go, so if RA doesn't know what they want at this stage you have to wonder when they will!!
From same article:
“The RA board is divided on the best competition structure and we need some time to think it through,” McLennan said. “[RA chief executive] Andy has some innovative ideas on a new, suitable competition.”
F*** me!! How are they going to agree with anyone if even they can't agree the dozy pricks!! Can someone send them a link to this thread, or maybe they been reading it and why they all sitting there unable to make up their minds!!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I st

Well I just saw this, we also had acknowledgement from Hamish that RA is pretty well split too on where to go, so if RA doesn't know what they want at this stage you have to wonder when they will!!
From same article:
“The RA board is divided on the best competition structure and we need some time to think it through,” McLennan said. “[RA chief executive] Andy has some innovative ideas on a new, suitable competition.”
F*** me!! How are they going to agree with anyone if even they can't agree the dozy pricks!! Can someone send them a link to this thread, or maybe they been reading it and why they all sitting there unable to make up their minds!!

At the very least someone should forward Joe's ideas. Easily the best formats I've seen suggested. Could even tweak them to form two concurrently running competitions. Domestic and TT. With points from both counting running across two ladders. One for SRAu/Au and a combined one for TT. Best of both worlds. We get our domestic champion and then we have a TT champion on top.

 

[Adam84]

Good on RA and McLennan for pushing back against the NZRU to gets what is best for Australia

 

[hoggy]

You've just gone full nuff. In your previous post you've claimed that super rugby was the cause for Australia's decline. Nice try though.

I'd be intrigued to see your verbal gymnastics explain how having 8 or more domestic sides in this climate would somehow raise the salary cap, manage to attract overseas Australian players home, or somehow condense talent.

As for crowds, go and compare the crowds at this year's super rugby Au to previous super rugby tournaments. The super AU final didn't even fill Lang Park, and the attendences across the board were at best soft.

Super Au has been a great as a stop-gap measure during super rugby, but having a domestic comp as a permanent solution will not work. At least not until rugby in Australia greatly improves its financial position, media footprint, and talent pool.

But that is the issue, signing upto a full TT ensures you will never have a better financial,media talent pool/footprint.

Because nobody has explained how the TT will be able to raise the salary cap, attract overseas players or condense talent either, because it has struggled to do that for the last 10 years.

The irony is after 20 years of Super rugby a tournament spanning 3 continents, 5 countries and all the promises of global domination, yet has left Australia in a postion that it supposedly now couldn't even cobble together some pissy little domestic competition.

Theres no doubt that say up until 2010 approx the competition had some appeal, but that is very much history now and yet the solution is to turn back the clock, when has that worked, and you can't compare crowds to something you have never really given a go.
Rugby seems like some desperate drug addict, with one more fix and then I promise to get my shit together.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

But that is the issue, signing upto a full TT ensures you will never have a better financial,media talent pool/footprint.

Because nobody has explained how the TT will be able to raise the salary cap, attract overseas players or condense talent either, because it has struggled to do that for the last 10 years.

The irony is after 20 years of Super rugby a tournament spanning 3 continents, 5 countries and all the promises of global domination, yet has left Australia in a postion that it supposedly now couldn't even cobble together some pissy little domestic competition.

Theres no doubt that say up until 2010 approx the competition had some appeal, but that is very much history now and yet the solution is to turn back the clock, when has that worked, and you can't compare crowds to something you have never really given a go.
Rugby seems like some desperate drug addict, with one more fix and then I promise to get my shit together.

So we're back to the same tired argument of Super Rugby is the cause of our woes, rather than the dismal failure to foster the game at grassroots outside of inner Sydney and Brisbane (still happening BTW, just ask anyone west of Petersham).

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Dave, I'd run with dilution. And I doubt it'd "dilute" much.

But I'd prefer a system with the Kiwis if they have even a chance of working with us.

I think the Kiwis have a choice: work with us, or go it alone. They can't really afford for the latter either.

 

[Wilson]

Centralise contracting.
NSW, Qld, ACT can only have Australian players.
Force and Rebels can have players from anywhere.
NZR to allow ABs to be picked from Force and Rebels.

Shoot me down gently. Something's got to give for any type of TT to work.

I generally agree with this, though I think you'd probably still want to limit the Force and Rebels to no more than 50% of players in the squad ineligible for Australia and something similar for the match day 23. I also doubt NZR would agree to let All Blacks play outside of New Zealand, but I'm not sure you'd be getting that many coming over anyway.

The goal would eventually to be reduce the foreign representation, but it's a decade plus long process that would come off the back of the NRC (or equivalent) and the associated investment in the local game in those cities.

 

[Oldschool]

I think the Kiwis have a choice: work with us, or go it alone. They can't really afford for the latter either.

They don't have a choice. They haven't the $$$ or the ability to generate the corporate sponsorship outside the AB's. Hence the reason for their top down approach as this is how they generate their income by playing at a sold out Twickenham keeping the global AB brand going. If they go it alone, even with private equity they would slowly wither on the vine and they know it.

The Wallabies are a different Beast. The corporate dollars are more so within Australia, so a pumping AU local comp will attract more sponsors over time and having some sort of champions league involving NZ and/or Japan

The only way a full TT competition would work IMO is to allow the AB's and Wallabies to be picked from any of the teams involved. This way allowing a cross pollination of Talent, but the Kiwi's would never go for this.

 

[Quick Hands]

So we're back to the same tired argument of Super Rugby is the cause of our woes, rather than the dismal failure to foster the game at grassroots outside of inner Sydney and Brisbane (still happening BTW, just ask anyone west of Petersham).

But you see Dave, these two issues are related. ARU and the RA put all their eggs in the Super Rugby basket and neglected to invest resources in fostering the grass roots. The fanatical devotion to Super Rugby in the face of declining crowds, TV audience and media coverage has made this even worse over the past decade. Even in McL's latest speech, he notes that domestic games in Australia draw higher crowds to games and higher TV audiences, and yet like some sort of devotee to a decaying cult he pines for Super Rugby in the same speech.

I understand that there is a solid core (small and decreasing) of Aust rugby supporters (particularly on these threads) who will stand at the barricades and defend the Super Rugby concept to the last breath. I suspect that most of these are rugby people who grew up during the Super Rugby golden age, and who thus have a somewhat romantic and nostalgic attachment to it. However, the weight of evidence shows that as a concept it has been in decline since about 2005, in steep decline since about 2011 and in a death spiral since 2016. It's unfixable, and it's to the detriment of the game in Australia that we continue to invest money, resources and people in it. TT can only work if NZ has double the number of teams that Aust does 5 x 10 or 2 x 5 and NZ will never agree to the former and RA will never agree to the latter - so why waste time and effort in pursuing it?

The Australian sporting public (as opposed to the rusted on) just aren't buying what rugby is selling. They've switched off their TVs and stopped going to games in 10s of thousands. What the Australian sporting public want (regardless of the sport) is a high quality domestic competition, with teams representing specific geographic areas - preferably with historical ties and long-standing brand recognition. It's much like Holden continuing to churn out Commodore sedans and wagons, while Toyota and Ford stopped production and switched to small, medium and large SUVs. People just stopped buying sedans and wagons and Holden is now gone from Australia, while Ford and Toyota have waiting lists to buy their SUVs.

And to you point about 'west of Petersham' - the clubs in Sydney are doing their bit to develop the grass roots. It's getting the kids to stay in the game beyond that is where there is an issue. Under Super Rugby there is one professional rugby pathway in Sydney (the hapless and hopeless Waratahs led by the NSWRU), while the NRL provide nine professional clubs in Sydney all with high performance academies for youth players (14-18). Kids just vote with their feet.

Recent NSW State Championship results show an even spread of talent with clubs "west of Petersham" winning 33% of the trophies.

12s - Warringah
13s - Parramatta (WSTB)
14s - Penrith
15s - Manly
16s - Gordon
18s - Randwick

 

[Teh Other Dave]

But you see Dave, these two issues are related. ARU and the RA put all their eggs in the Super Rugby basket and neglected to invest resources in fostering the grass roots. The fanatical devotion to Super Rugby in the face of declining crowds, TV audience and media coverage has made this even worse over the past decade. Even in McL's latest speech, he notes that domestic games in Australia draw higher crowds to games and higher TV audiences, and yet like some sort of devotee to a decaying cult he pines for Super Rugby in the same speech.

I understand that there is a solid core (small and decreasing) of Aust rugby supporters (particularly on these threads) who will stand at the barricades and defend the Super Rugby concept to the last breath. I suspect that most of these are rugby people who grew up during the Super Rugby golden age, and who thus have a somewhat romantic and nostalgic attachment to it. However, the weight of evidence shows that as a concept it has been in decline since about 2005, in steep decline since about 2011 and in a death spiral since 2016. It's unfixable, and it's to the detriment of the game in Australia that we continue to invest money, resources and people in it. TT can only work if NZ has double the number of teams that Aust does 5 x 10 or 2 x 5 and NZ will never agree to the former and RA will never agree to the latter - so why waste time and effort in pursuing it?

The Australian sporting public (as opposed to the rusted on) just aren't buying what rugby is selling. They've switched off their TVs and stopped going to games in 10s of thousands. What the Australian sporting public want (regardless of the sport) is a high quality domestic competition, with teams representing specific geographic areas - preferably with historical ties and long-standing brand recognition. It's much like Holden continuing to churn out Commodore sedans and wagons, while Toyota and Ford stopped production and switched to small, medium and large SUVs. People just stopped buying sedans and wagons and Holden is now gone from Australia, while Ford and Toyota have waiting lists to buy their SUVs.

And to you point about 'west of Petersham' - the clubs in Sydney are doing their bit to develop the grass roots. It's getting the kids to stay in the game beyond that is where there is an issue. Under Super Rugby there is one professional rugby pathway in Sydney (the hapless and hopeless Waratahs led by the NSWRU), while the NRL provide nine professional clubs in Sydney all with high performance academies for youth players (14-18). Kids just vote with their feet.

Recent NSW State Championship results show an even spread of talent with clubs "west of Petersham" winning 33% of the trophies.

12s - Warringah
13s - Parramatta (WSTB)
14s - Penrith
15s - Manly
16s - Gordon
18s - Randwick

Fuck we're at risk of running into a word salad, but here goes:

I think you're getting fanatical devotion to Super Rugby confused with fanatical devotion to money from News Ltd. Super Rugby and tests drove revenue for the game, but locked the game out for those without Foxtel subsciption. As a medium, terrestrial and satellite pay TV is in ICU awaiting a suitable transplant recipient, and I think that's more deserving of the Commodore and Falcon similes.

Your take on the decline of Super Rugby is a little bit Sydney-Centric, and you're getting a bit confused with the fortunes of the Tahs, who've never really been able to engage supporters like the Brumbies, and the Reds when their playing side aren't a shambles (Hello Theo Psaros!). 2011 was a bad example to use for the decline of Super Rugby, the Reds and Brumbies were still drawing supporters, the Reds were filling Lang Park from 2010 to 2012.

Maybe there is a subconscious bias towards the old days of super 12, but at least from myself it's more of a desire to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Super Rugby started to suck because it over-emphasised local derbys that were shit quality in Australia (let's be honest, we had too many sides), the format was confusing, and it rewarded mediocrity. It was an absolute dog's breakfast at the end - all because the competition was trying to give News Ltd a larger audience and more games. They didn't learn from the mistakes of one-day cricket.

I can accept that viewership numbers in TT dropped when it quickly became apparent that the Australian teams were not prepared for faster, more skilful rugby. Guess what will happen to the quality of our test side if we retreat into a mediocre domestic comp?

Interestingly, I don't think Australian crowds were down for TT (at least on perusal of available figures). The Reds actually had an uptick, while NSW and the Rebels had no hope drawing an audience in SRAu to begin with.

It's heartening to see some western Sydney district teams winning the state championships. I'll admit to ignorance, but is it club-based? If it's anything like Qld, most potential professional (leeg or yawnion) players don't play junior club in their teenage years, they've generally been snapped up by the GPS schools. As it is, when they get to seniors, the boys in Penrith, Parramatta, and now West Harbour cannot keep players at their clubs. There are also scarce Western Sydney subbies sides left, while the Brisbane Subbies comp is pretty much non-existent.

Similarly, Logan and Redlands have large junior clubs in Brisbane, but have been unable to retain these kids to play seniors. I suspect the issues are partly due to the general decline in adult male weekend sports due to family and work commitments as well as being drawn in by the inner Brisbane clubs.

I 100% agree with you regarding the mess that is the Waratahs setup. The Rebels is another career killing club. The Force's biggest trouble was retaining the Pococks and Biebers of the world, but they may yet transform that image with their current setup. I think this should be fixed before taking a major risk in shaking the competition up with new teams with no existing supporter base. Especially if we repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

They don't have a choice. They haven't the $$$ or the ability to generate the corporate sponsorship outside the AB's. Hence the reason for their top down approach as this is how they generate their income by playing at a sold out Twickenham keeping the global AB brand going. If they go it alone, even with private equity they would slowly wither on the vine and they know it.

The Wallabies are a different Beast. The corporate dollars are more so within Australia, so a pumping AU local comp will attract more sponsors over time and having some sort of champions league involving NZ and/or Japan

The only way a full TT competition would work IMO is to allow the AB's and Wallabies to be picked from any of the teams involved. This way allowing a cross pollination of Talent, but the Kiwi's would never go for this.

The NZRFU won't want to relinquish control over player development. I think this was always the case as the NZ super rugby sides were NZRFU-created regional sides based around five large provinces, but it was amplified in the wake of the 2007 RWC debacle.

 

[Quick Hands]

Your take on the decline of Super Rugby is a little bit Sydney-Centric, and you're getting a bit confused with the fortunes of the Tahs, who've never really been able to engage supporters like the Brumbies, and the Reds when their playing side aren't a shambles (Hello Theo Psaros!). 2011 was a bad example to use for the decline of Super Rugby, the Reds and Brumbies were still drawing supporters, the Reds were filling Lang Park from 2010 to 2012.

I'm talking trend lines, not one off up-ticks, so 2011 is actually the perfect example. I think you'll find that the statistics support what I have said. As the proponents of Super Rugby have decreased in number they've become more fanatical in their support of a concept which has had its time.

Obviously the Reds would have packed out Suncorp in 2011 as they had a great team and won. Likewise the Waratahs were just as popular in 2014 because they won. (and it wasn't till they made the finals that the crowds picked up)

Note the trends (average Super Rugby home crowds)

Reds (from 2005 all home games at Suncorp)
2003 - 18,425* (home games at Ballymore)
2004 - 19,730** (5 home games at Ballymore and 1 at Suncorp)
2005 - 18,130
2009 - 18,647
2010 - 22,826
2011 - 33,253
2012 - 34,479
2013 - 31,836
2014 - 28,489
2015 - 21,780
2016 - 16,605
2017 - 15,115
2018 - 12,101
2019 - 11,351

Brumbies (the consistently best performing Aust team - all games at Canberra/Bruce/GIO Stadium)
2003 - 21,536
2004 - 21,450
2005 22,895
2009 -17,160
2010 - 15,520
2011 - 13,303
2012 - 14,419
2013 - 14,247
2014 - 12,410
2015 - 12,445
2016 - 12,135
2017 - 9,886
2018 - 8,391
2019 - 8,798

Waratahs
2003 - 30,521
2004 - 34,500
2005 - 33,739
2009 - 22,430
2010 - 20,204
2011 - 20,493
2012 - 20,936
2013 - 16,949
2014 - 19,500
2015 - 22,415
2016 - 20,322
2017 - 14,499
2018 - 13,511
2019 - unavailable but anecdotally under 10,000 per game

 

[Quick Hands]