Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

My bad. Missed the link you posted at the end.

I think we are past just cutting a team or even teams to revive rugby in this country. Super rugby does not work for oz Rugby fans as for us super rugby provides only professional sides to follow below wallabies, and unlike other codes hard to follow as sa, Japan and Argentina games in bad time zones. I could see a trans tasman competition that maybe includes sunwolves with less restriction on players joining any teams in this competition as our salvation. But can't see it happening as I think nz sees oz as too risky to partner with given mess we have got ourselves into and less competent and highly political rugby administrative structures. Pity....As I.don't think we will get as much out of super rugby changes as nz and others.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

It is always to criticise decisions with the benefit of hindsight. When the Force were admitted, there was huge public interest and support in Perth for the venture, which is why they got it, and not the VRU.


The State government played its part with the new rectangular stadium, so it should have been all systems go.

Sadly, the Firepower scandal erupted. Who could have foreseen that? Firepower were also sponsoring the South Sydney Rabbitohs at the time, they looked okay.

Then the Rebels came in, financed by Australia's media king, Harold Mitchell. And the franchise has gone sideways ever since. Poor old Harold bailed out, who could blame him, he knew nothing about the game, but apparently was talked into it. Worth remembering that the Victorian Premier at the time was a very keen rugby supporter.


The real problem is not expansion per se, the real problem is that even if we go back to three franchises, the game itself is just not firing the public imagination the way it needs to.


2003 was the end. Not because of the ARU's profligacy but because that is when the popularity of the code as a spectacle started to wane.



Incidentally, a fair bit of the RWC windfall was eroded by poor financial investment decisions, not by extravagance.

 

[Omar Comin']

I'd be happy with the 3 * 6 team conferences model for now but I really think longer term the ARU have to fight for a tournament or regular season conference that's entirely in our time zone. If NZ isn't going to play ball with a Trans-Tasman comp then let them play in a ridiculous NZ/SA conference. I highly doubt the NZRU would go for that, and if they did that it would fail, but if they did we can live with it.

We could link up with the Sunwolves and perhaps another team from Japan (the Wild Knights are interested in Super Rugby apparently), maybe some other teams in Asia like the Asia-Pacific Dragons based in Singapore, or a pro team in HK, or Fiji, or a new team in Western Sydney - there are definitely potential options to get to 8-10 teams. Play home and away, and then the top teams can meet the best teams from the NZ/SA conference. Ultimately the NZ/SA conference would fail and we could have a pretty awesome Asia-Pacific tournament.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I'd be happy with the 3 * 6 team conferences model for now but I really think longer term the ARU have to fight for a tournament or regular season conference that's entirely in our time zone. If NZ isn't going to play ball with a Trans-Tasman comp then let them play in a ridiculous NZ/SA conference. I highly doubt the NZRU would go for that, and if they did that it would fail, but if they did we can live with it.

We could link up with the Sunwolves and perhaps another team from Japan (the Wild Knights are interested in Super Rugby apparently), maybe some other teams in Asia like the Asia-Pacific Dragons based in Singapore, or a pro team in HK, or Fiji, or a new team in Western Sydney - there are definitely potential options to get to 8-10 teams. Play home and away, and then the top teams can meet the best teams from the NZ/SA conference. Ultimately the NZ/SA conference would fail and we could have a pretty awesome Asia-Pacific tournament.

Yes please

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[mudskipper]

Scutter the SARU Super 18 rugby flag ship asap... Float a new super model... Question is will Pulver stand up for AUS rugby or is he already in his own IRB life raft...

SO what did we learn: Too many stakeholders makes it too difficult to deliver to your own teams and rugby fans...

 

[Twoilms]

I'd be happy with the 3 * 6 team conferences model for now but I really think longer term the ARU have to fight for a tournament or regular season conference that's entirely in our time zone. If NZ isn't going to play ball with a Trans-Tasman comp then let them play in a ridiculous NZ/SA conference. I highly doubt the NZRU would go for that, and if they did that it would fail, but if they did we can live with it.

We could link up with the Sunwolves and perhaps another team from Japan (the Wild Knights are interested in Super Rugby apparently), maybe some other teams in Asia like the Asia-Pacific Dragons based in Singapore, or a pro team in HK, or Fiji, or a new team in Western Sydney - there are definitely potential options to get to 8-10 teams. Play home and away, and then the top teams can meet the best teams from the NZ/SA conference. Ultimately the NZ/SA conference would fail and we could have a pretty awesome Asia-Pacific tournament.

How about South Africa & South America/ Australia & Southern Asia/ NZ & Polynesia

 

[Omar Comin']

How about South Africa & South America/ Australia & Southern Asia/ NZ & Polynesia

Yeah that'd be fine though I doubt NZ would want to be in a closed conference on their own (or with PI teams). There wouldn't be enough teams and the commercial markets are too small.

I think the aim should be for two separate Atlantic and Asia-Pacific tournaments that meet for playoffs, or in a separate champions league or knockout cup. The two tournaments or conferences wouldn't need to have the same number of teams or be structured in the same way, they'd just have to go for the same or similar length of time.

 

[Rugby Central]

I haven't gone through the entire thread but it seems everyone is still looking at this in a similar way. Everyone is in agreement that the teams should be based on country of origin.

Why? I admit to being inspired by Wayne Smith's article in the Australian this morning. But why should we be so limited in our thinking.

Why not dissolve Super Rugby as it stands and pursue and EPL model. Australia doesn't have the money to go alone but between NZ, Aus and Japan there is the market (and probably the money) to do it.

Stop restricting nationality of players and simply have the best players in the world playing each other. That's what people will pay to see. Between NZ, Japan to Perth you have 5 hours of continuous rugby. Across some of the most populated countries in the world.

The money generated from watching the worlds best players playing together would feed into the development of national sides of the countries involved in administering the competition.

Hell, if you wanted to be really picky, design the season to be ahead of the local competition and make it a proviso that they have to be available for NRC/NPC/Japan Top League to play for the national side.

Like EPL is for football/soccer, this competition would be almost on par with International rugby (so outside the "Tiers") which would allow NRC and Premier Rugby to elevate themselves as the place for domestic development.

Just a thought

 

[Twoilms]

^^^^
We could pursue that path be we don't end up being the EPL equivalent in Rugby. More likely, Europe ends up creating the EPL equivalent (if France havn't already) because they have significantly more money to throw at players.

NZ/Aus/SA would probably end up being the Rugby equivalent of South America. All the worlds best players, none of them playing at home.

Edit: Also, EPL and every European league have strict squad requirements. English teams are required to have a minimum of 8 players out of a squad of 25 that are considered 'Home-Grown' and 4 of those have to be homegrown at the club.

Other leagues have greater or lesser requirements. The Bundesliga, for example, only allows 3 players per squad from outside the Shengen zone.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'd be happy with the 3 * 6 team conferences model for now but I really think longer term the ARU have to fight for a tournament or regular season conference that's entirely in our time zone. If NZ isn't going to play ball with a Trans-Tasman comp then let them play in a ridiculous NZ/SA conference. I highly doubt the NZRU would go for that, and if they did that it would fail, but if they did we can live with it.

We could link up with the Sunwolves and perhaps another team from Japan (the Wild Knights are interested in Super Rugby apparently), maybe some other teams in Asia like the Asia-Pacific Dragons based in Singapore, or a pro team in HK, or Fiji, or a new team in Western Sydney - there are definitely potential options to get to 8-10 teams. Play home and away, and then the top teams can meet the best teams from the NZ/SA conference. Ultimately the NZ/SA conference would fail and we could have a pretty awesome Asia-Pacific tournament.

It's something I've thought about a few times since Alisports announced their investment in the game in China. Asia is a malor growth market for the game amd we are ideally situated to align our interests with that growth.

It would require a great deal of bravery but as you suggest. Are we better off sticking with Super Rugby in its current format or looking to re-align our perspectives. Linking up with the Japanese right off the bat provided us access to a larger and wealthier market than both NZ and SA combined. Looking at including Hong Kong and Singapore would provide toe holds across other markets in the region as well.

 

[wamberal]

We do have to do some lateral thinking, that is for sure and certain.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

We do have to do some lateral thinking, that is for sure and certain.

Evolve or die.

 

[mudskipper]

Waynes Smiths article is sketchy opinion journalism with no solution...

Pulver & Robinson don't have to apologies for recent AUS super rugby at the SANZAAR as Wayne Smith suggested... Really Wayne !!!

The issues is Super 18 venture is a failed platform and not AUSTRALIAN SUPER RUGBY, we here in AUS need to see teams play home and away matches to build fan bases and player stocks... especially against other AUS teams...

One japanese team and one Argentinean is pointless and costly leaving less local derbies due to scheduling...

The Super 18 concept was introduced to assist the SARU to appease their governments requests for more regional teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

It's something I've thought about a few times since Alisports announced their investment in the game in China. Asia is a malor growth market for the game amd we are ideally situated to align our interests with that growth.

It would require a great deal of bravery but as you suggest. Are we better off sticking with Super Rugby in its current format or looking to re-align our perspectives. Linking up with the Japanese right off the bat provided us access to a larger and wealthier market than both NZ and SA combined. Looking at including Hong Kong and Singapore would provide toe holds across other markets in the region as well.

It becomes less brave and more of a no brainer the further Super Rugby falls.

And especially when you consider the 2019 world cup is in Japan. What a springboard.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Super 18 concept was introduced to assist the SARU to appease their governments requests for more regional teams.

The sixth South African team was introduced for that reason but don't think that the Japanese and Argentinian expansion weren't Australia and New Zealand equally wanting to get in on more money being generated by a bigger tournament with the goal of growing it even more for the next broadcast deal.

 

[Rugby Central]

Waynes Smiths article is sketchy opinion journalism with no solution.

I did say, inspired by, not in slavish agreement with the article. It simply got me wondering about the way Super Rugby and Australian Rugby is very limited in its thinking.

I agree we need to see local derby's, by why limit the players involved to being from just one country?

By looking at Super Rugby as only an extension of National sides, as it is currently, scope for growth, marketing and development is incredibly limited. It also restricts any expansion to the dogs breakfast method we have seen Super Rugby evolve into its current form.

 

[mudskipper]

The sixth South African team was introduced for that reason but don't think that the Japanese and Argentinian expansion weren't Australia and New Zealand equally wanting to get in on more money being generated by a bigger tournament with the goal of growing it even more for the next broadcast deal.

Can't see the money... We just lost more opportunities to build rugby in our country... And what is the cost of that loss... Now we loose a team to dig out the SARU... Pitiful leadership... should step aside if they cant find a better away for the ARU super teams.

 

[dru]

The sixth South African team was introduced for that reason but don't think that the Japanese and Argentinian expansion weren't Australia and New Zealand equally wanting to get in on more money being generated by a bigger tournament with the goal of growing it even more for the next broadcast deal.

As always it gets murky. SARU wanted a guaranty of two home finals. The solution offered was the four conference/two group thing where even with 6 teams SA needed to boost the numbers. So it was part SA requirement and part taking opportunity (with the expansion that SANZAR wanted) to satisfy the SA requirements.

 

[Brumby Runner]

They should have two tiers starting with the two newest (sunwolves and Jags) sides knocked back into a second tier with a promotion and relegation set up. With the three existing conferences the top three sides from the second tier come up in the next year. It promotes growth etc in the southern hemisphere.

Teams in the second tier could include - Sunnies, Jags, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, China(Hong Kong), uruguay.

A second tier international competition just wouldn't work in SH rugby. Just consider, team X, being an Australian franchise, is relegated after year 1. In year 2, the three most successful sides are Fiji, Samoa and Aus team X. How do the promoted teams get allocated across the Super conferences. Does team X finish in either of the NZ or SA conferences - wouldn't work. Imagine again, after a couple of years two or more SA teams are relegated, but each is successful in the following year and are all to be promoted - which SA teams then play in the Aus and NZ conferences? Altogether an impractical situation.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't know what the solution is, but it's clear to me that the current setup isn't working. I like the fact that the Argentinian and Japanese teams are in there, but unfortunately it has made the competition too big and unwieldy.

I'm actually leaning towards culling it back to 15 franchises, but the obvious problem is which ones should go. It goes without saying that I would like one of the three not to be the Force, because if they are cut then it's curtains for me supporting rugby at anything other than local club level.