• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Highlander35

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
Upthenuts said:
id rather see players like luatua and fekitoa, possible future abs but not in the top selection spots playing for the sunwolves or even the dreadful tahs, that fucked off on the other side of the world. i think all the top abs would stay with nz, but just with the two i mentioned what aus team wouldnt take those two?
Click to expand...
While true, if you're not getting ABs duty (or even if you are like Cruden is), you're playing Rugby for the money.

The € & (at least for now) the £ is your biggest enemy in this regard, not New Zealand's very reasonable policies on player selection.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Upthenuts said:
id rather see players like luatua and fekitoa, possible future abs but not in the top selection spots playing for the sunwolves or even the dreadful tahs, that fucked off on the other side of the world. i think all the top abs would stay with nz, but just with the two i mentioned what aus team wouldnt take those two?
Click to expand...

Australian teams couldn't afford them, but perhaps if the NZRU agreed to still pay them part of a top up then an offer may be more competitive
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Sekope Kepu is really the only kiwi I can think of in recent history, most of the kiwi born players in Australia came over during the 2000's exodus to Oz as kids with their families.

There are others like Speight and Tupou, who were living in New Zealand prior to moving to Australia but aren't kiwis.
 
L

Leo86

Guest
So if Super rugby Aus conference becomes stronger with the kiwis playin and being eligible for ABs. How does the Wallabies get stronger? Am i missing something? i think this would just make the ABs even more stronger and weaken the Wallabies even more. let alone the fact if we are losing even more spots to offer to our young players, more will leave our shores for the NH
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
wamberal said:
Des Connor made it the other way!!!
Click to expand...

Was Steve Devine ever a serious candidate for a Wobs jersey? Also wouldn't be surprised if someone's been given the job of sounding out MAlaalatoa on the down-low plus there's ongoing speculation that NZ's trying to snare the Lomax kid.
 
Teh Other Dave

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
waiopehu oldboy said:
Was Steve Devine ever a serious candidate for a Wobs jersey? Also wouldn't be surprised if someone's been given the job of sounding out MAlaalatoa on the down-low plus there's ongoing speculation that NZ's trying to snare the Lomax kid.
Click to expand...

I think he was always going to face an uphill battle behind Whittaker and Gregan; maybe would have been handy to the Reds, who were toying with Johnstone, Cordingley, and Moncrieff at the time. I think he made the right call and went to NZ, where he was really up against Marshall and the Pitcairns' own Byron Kellaher.

It sounds like Cheika is trying to blood Lomax early to keep him off NZ's books, especially given his pedigree.
 
half

half

Alan Cameron (40)
Can't see that its been posted anywhere else. Sorry in advance if its been posted elsewhere.

Clyde hints he will resign if we do not go to four Super Rugby teams.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...f-super-rugby-cull-fails-20170721-gxg654.html

Australian Rugby Union chairman Cameron Clyne has indicated he will stand down from his position if the game's governing body cannot legally cut a Super Rugby team for next season.
Clyne was also unable to confirm whether the Melbourne Rebels' licence had been sold to the Victorian Rugby Union, an outcome that would make the ARU's task of chopping a team even more difficult.
Speaking at a Sydney University Football Club lunch, Clyne was asked for an update on how the ARU were going with the increasingly difficult task of removing either the Melbourne Rebels or Western Force from Super Rugby next season.
Clyne restated his position that Australian rugby was better off with four teams but hinted he would not be there for much longer if the impending legal process did not go the ARU's way.
We've made the tough decision and it is going to be difficult but the good thing is when we get through the process," he said. "If we end up with five teams, it'll be someone else's problem because I won't be around. If we get to four teams, of course, I think we'll have a really strong Super Rugby next year."
Fairfax Media approached Clyne afterwards to clarify what he had said.
"I just don't believe Australian rugby can support five teams," Clyne said. "At that point in time [if the ARU could not cut a team], I'd address it [my position] then."
Asked whether he could confirm speculation out of Melbourne that owner Andrew Cox had handed over his licence to the VRU, Clyne said he was "not aware that it's happened".
"I don't think it's happened because I don't know about it," he said.
Fairfax Media understands Cox has not addressed Rebels players yet, but some at the club are under the impression he has sold the licence.
Pressed on whether the Rebels' chances of survival would increase if the VRU acquired the licence, Clyne said: "It's hypothetical, so I don't know."
The ARU has said it will take no action before arbitration begins on July 31 between themselves and the Force to find out whether they have legal grounds to remove the West Australian franchise from the 2018 competition.
It has now been more than 100 days since Clyne famously said the ARU would make their minds up "within 48 to 72 hours", but the incumbent chairman has explained why that statement was made.
"We said we'd only cut a team if we could have the same broadcast revenue," Clyne said. "Up until that the teams had said, 'if you make the decision to cut a team, can you make the decisions very quickly?'
"We said, 'absolutely, we can do it within 48 to 72 hours'. Then we got the go-ahead we would get the same broadcast revenue. We said we'd do it quickly.
"Then the teams changed their mind and said, 'We'd like to take you to court'. I can understand that, but we're operating under the assumption that we can make a quick decision.
"It's out of our hands once it goes to the lawyers. We're happy to make a decision, but when you're bound up in a legal process, it's very difficult.
"I don't think they [clubs] actually believed we'd cut a team."
The ARU has copped its fair share of criticism this year, to the point that Clyne joked if he had to pick anyone to go out to lunch with, it would be his family because "they're the only people who are being nice to me".
Clyne spoke optimistically about the future of rugby, but made it clear "emotion doesn't pay the bills".
"The elephant in the room is performance," Clyne said. "The reality is rugby is professional. There's a straight-line correlation between on-field performance and when teams aren't performing, you're not getting money. Simple as that.
"We don't want to be in this situation and I fully understand why the teams who are under threat are fighting like buggery to stay in the competition, but the reality is that we simply do not have the ability to fund five teams or get the on-field performance necessary.
"South Africa has recognised that and cut two teams. As harsh as it is, it's the right thing."
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
Upthenuts said:
easy way is the abs would say you dont have to play super rugby for an nz team, just have to play in the super comp and also play for an npc team and you can be selected. i think they should have adopted this policy years ago
Click to expand...

Why would there need to be a restriction on the NRC/NPC level for players wanting to play at the national level? The Super Rugby (or whatevert it will be called in future) is the second tier, and the NRC/NPC essentially underpin and feed into Super, not directly to test level.
 
Highlander35

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
half said:
Can't see that its been posted anywhere else. Sorry in advance if its been posted elsewhere.

Clyde hints he will resign if we do not go to four Super Rugby teams.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...f-super-rugby-cull-fails-20170721-gxg654.html

Australian Rugby Union chairman Cameron Clyne has indicated he will stand down from his position if the game's governing body cannot legally cut a Super Rugby team for next season.
Clyne was also unable to confirm whether the Melbourne Rebels' licence had been sold to the Victorian Rugby Union, an outcome that would make the ARU's task of chopping a team even more difficult.
Speaking at a Sydney University Football Club lunch, Clyne was asked for an update on how the ARU were going with the increasingly difficult task of removing either the Melbourne Rebels or Western Force from Super Rugby next season.
Clyne restated his position that Australian rugby was better off with four teams but hinted he would not be there for much longer if the impending legal process did not go the ARU's way.
We've made the tough decision and it is going to be difficult but the good thing is when we get through the process," he said. "If we end up with five teams, it'll be someone else's problem because I won't be around. If we get to four teams, of course, I think we'll have a really strong Super Rugby next year."
Fairfax Media approached Clyne afterwards to clarify what he had said.
"I just don't believe Australian rugby can support five teams," Clyne said. "At that point in time [if the ARU could not cut a team], I'd address it [my position] then."
Asked whether he could confirm speculation out of Melbourne that owner Andrew Cox had handed over his licence to the VRU, Clyne said he was "not aware that it's happened".
"I don't think it's happened because I don't know about it," he said.
Fairfax Media understands Cox has not addressed Rebels players yet, but some at the club are under the impression he has sold the licence.
Pressed on whether the Rebels' chances of survival would increase if the VRU acquired the licence, Clyne said: "It's hypothetical, so I don't know."
The ARU has said it will take no action before arbitration begins on July 31 between themselves and the Force to find out whether they have legal grounds to remove the West Australian franchise from the 2018 competition.
It has now been more than 100 days since Clyne famously said the ARU would make their minds up "within 48 to 72 hours", but the incumbent chairman has explained why that statement was made.
"We said we'd only cut a team if we could have the same broadcast revenue," Clyne said. "Up until that the teams had said, 'if you make the decision to cut a team, can you make the decisions very quickly?'
"We said, 'absolutely, we can do it within 48 to 72 hours'. Then we got the go-ahead we would get the same broadcast revenue. We said we'd do it quickly.
"]
Click to expand...


Absolute fuckwittery at its finest

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
U

Upthenuts

Dave Cowper (27)
Brumby Runner said:
Why would there need to be a restriction on the NRC/NPC level for players wanting to play at the national level? The Super Rugby (or whatevert it will be called in future) is the second tier, and the NRC/NPC essentially underpin and feed into Super, not directly to test level.
Click to expand...
just need abs to play in nz, if they arent at super level then theyd have to at npc
 
RedsHappy

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Leo86 said:
So if Super rugby Aus conference becomes stronger with the kiwis playin and being eligible for ABs. How does the Wallabies get stronger? Am i missing something? i think this would just make the ABs even more stronger and weaken the Wallabies even more. let alone the fact if we are losing even more spots to offer to our young players, more will leave our shores for the NH
Click to expand...

As a kiwi I against that idea anyway, I think I much prefer ABs to be under the coaches we got in NZ;) Thanks for the offer anyway Leo :p
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
How hard can it be.....

We play in a international type league via super rugby against NZ sides and of course we can't be competitive as akin to Heineken cup where stronger rugby nations have more places but don't rely just on that for national pathway.

So we reduce number of teams in Super Rugby (I would reduce to 2 or 3) but also establish a national semi pro long form domestic competition (NRC extension) with say a Fiji added. Semi pro as clear as mud we can't at this point sustain a pro national domestic comp.

I totally agree we can't sustain 5 professional super rugby sides as flawed product and we could not sustain this either in Trans Tasman or Asian comp....

But we have to build something better at next level below that could grow into a better more Asian focussed league....hence the semi pro concept....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top