Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

I really think that a Trans Tasman competition is the only reasonable path away from Super Rugby and that is of course dependent on New Zealand agreeing that it is the best way forward for them as well.

If the majority of our rugby was domestic only I think the revenue would be nowhere near enough to make the quality decent and the interest from overseas would be low as a result. I also don't think we could create enough teams to make a viable competition. 10 seems like a minimum.

I don't think we have the interest domestically to make it viable either through TV deals or crowd sizes.

So what happens if NZ don't agree?

If we went domestic, whatever tournament that was created would simply have to live within its means. But it'd be fully professional and I think there'd be enough money for it to be at least a higher level than the Currie Cup and M10 Cup. And I think we'd agree the rugby in these leagues is of a good standard. We've already got 5 teams, 1 from Fiji would seem likely, and then you'd allow bids for hopefully another 4 teams. Even the Pro Rugby in the US last year was able to sign some well-known players like Mils Muliaina, Timana Tahu and a handful of other former test players on not a lot of money, I think a full length pro league in Australia would offer better salaries than that.

The other thing to consider is that if we allowed Wallabies players to be picked from overseas, we'd still generate just as much revenue from the Wallabies, without having to pay the players as much. They could just get match fees. So more of that revenue could go into the grassroots and a domestic competition.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Can almost see how the 12-second meeting in Ireland re:2018 format will pan out.

NZ: Guys, we need to drop some of the shitty teams from this shitty competition and go back to a Super 12 or Super 15 round-robin format or some shit.
Arg: No.
Japan: No.
Aus: No.
SA: No.
NZ: Oh ok bye then.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I was merely trying to concentrate our talent and diffuse a bit of NZ's

I know. That's why I suggested adding 2 more NZ teams.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Can almost see how the 12-second meeting in Ireland re:2018 format will pan out.

NZ: Guys, we need to drop some of the shitty teams from this shitty competition and go back to a Super 12 or Super 15 round-robin format or some shit.
Arg: No.
Japan: No.
Aus: No.
SA: No.
NZ: Oh ok bye then.

Lol.........you don't actually think NZ has the balls to leave do you? Because their near pandering to the SARU's wants and needs over the past couple of deals seriously suggests that they don't.

 

[Omar Comin']

I wouldn't be so sure about Nth America not being a realistic options. There are a number of markets that could conceivably support a Super Rugby team on the West Coast. Which is better aligned with our interests. Vancouver is a hotbed as is San Francisco and San Diego. I think with the right planning and partners franchises in all three are doable.

Oh I think it's realistic, it just doesn't seem like SANZAAR have been trying to make this happen. I think SANZAR should have worked with interested parties in the US a number of years ago to set up a 'Super Rugby America' tournament that in time could have been added as a conference. Maybe this is still possible, but it seems like Pro 12 are more serious about North America at this stage, and that Super Rugby may die in the meantime.

 

[Braveheart81]

So what happens if NZ don't agree?

Then I think we persist with Super Rugby in whatever format it evolves into.

I think Australia is in the worst place out of SA, NZ and Australia to be able to go it alone.

We have both a problem with revenue and the quality of our teams. Damaging both at the same time doesn't seem like a way forward to me. It seems like the most likely cause of killing the professional game here altogether.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Oh I think it's realistic, it just doesn't seem like SANZAAR have been trying to make this happen. I think SANZAR should have worked with interested parties in the US a number of years ago to set up a 'Super Rugby America' tournament that in time could have been added as a conference. Maybe this is still possible, but it seems like Pro 12 are more serious about North America at this stage, and that Super Rugby may die in the meantime.

They seem to be but going from their suggested locations unless they are looking to alter their season they are likely to cock it up. Toronto in winter isn't cold. It's freezing to a ridiculous degree. The North East of the US is better but still suspectible to blizzards. Literally everyone I spoken to about their intentions have expressed the same thoughts. That without a shift invseason they'd be mad to make the jump.

 

[cyclopath]

Then I think we persist with Super Rugby in whatever format it evolves into.

I think Australia is in the worst place out of SA, NZ and Australia to be able to go it alone.

We have both a problem with revenue and the quality of our teams. Damaging both at the same time doesn't seem like a way forward to me. It seems like the most likely cause of killing the professional game here altogether.

The more I watch, the more I feel that the death (effectively) of the professional game here is inevitable. Sure, something will exist, but the talent, both coaching and player wise, will continue to diminish as money dries up. I honestly can't see a viable solution. We are a generation behind (almost) in coaching philosophies and structures.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Lol...you don't actually think NZ has the balls to leave do you?

no, no, "oh ok bye then" meant Tew would just get up and get back on the plane straight back to NZ, the meeting having accomplished nothing.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Then I think we persist with Super Rugby in whatever format it evolves into.

I think Australia is in the worst place out of SA, NZ and Australia to be able to go it alone.

We have both a problem with revenue and the quality of our teams. Damaging both at the same time doesn't seem like a way forward to me. It seems like the most likely cause of killing the professional game here altogether.

Are we though? Because I'm not so sure. I think there could be a case to do what Soccer did to a degree and look to refocus on something like the NRC than stay in a structure that is doubtful to get any better before it likely get much worse.

I know that the driving force behind competing in Super Rugby is maintaining overall competitiveness but it is hurting us domestically. Which does matter. Would going to our broadcast partners offering a fully upgraded NRC not potentially be worth more long term than sticking it out in Super Rugby?

I say this noting a couple of things. The greater spread of talent allows for a more open style to be employed in the NRC. It's fast, flowing and very entertaining Rugby. As much as being internationally competitive is important offering our market something that captures its attention is arguably more so.

It's a strength of the NRL believe it or not. While everyone out there on the pitch os a good footballer many are not great footballers. Most teams only truly have a handful of those. But that doesn't effect its popularity. In fact the disparity of talent allows for the games to flow. If the NRL had the same concentration of talent the we have I'd suggest it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining as it is to most people.

The 2nd major thing is, Australians love a winner. No one cares that the AFL isn't an international sport. They only care about who wins the flag in the end. It's similar in the NRL.

Wow. I'm really conflicted oncthis issue.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I really think that a Trans Tasman competition is the only reasonable path away from Super Rugby and that is of course dependent on New Zealand agreeing that it is the best way forward for them as well.

If the majority of our rugby was domestic only I think the revenue would be nowhere near enough to make the quality decent and the interest from overseas would be low as a result. I also don't think we could create enough teams to make a viable competition. 10 seems like a minimum.

I don't think we have the interest domestically to make it viable either through TV deals or crowd sizes.

Exactly BH. If we had 10 teams of required standard, they would be presently playing in the NRC. But 9 was too many and has dropped to 8.

And who's to say that a national competition wouldn't be sabotaged by some of the SS personalities just like is happening with Super Rugby and NRC right now?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think to make the most value of a Trans-Tasman comp NZ would have to be willing to allow some Kiwi players to play for Australian teams and remain eligible for the All Blacks. Even if it was just say 20 players on the fringes. The thing is NZ have better player depth, while Australia has the bigger commercial markets so they should be able to compromise on something.

NZ players probably wouldn't have the desired effect without the Aus coaches being willing to change up the game plans to reflect the style currently being played by NZ sides and not the 1990s style of English/South African sides currently in favour with the Aus coaches.

 

[Omar Comin']

Then I think we persist with Super Rugby in whatever format it evolves into.

I think Australia is in the worst place out of SA, NZ and Australia to be able to go it alone.

We have both a problem with revenue and the quality of our teams. Damaging both at the same time doesn't seem like a way forward to me. It seems like the most likely cause of killing the professional game here altogether.

You may be right, but the problem with persisting with Super Rugby in an inadequate form is that we're pretty much guaranteed to continue to go in the same direction we're going, which feels a little like slowly bleeding to death. We'd likely have to drop at least 1 team, lose thousands of their fans from the sport forever and set the grassroots development in that market way back, probably for little improvement in the quality of our remaining teams and for the Wallabies.

While I definitely prefer the Trans-Tasman option, I'm not convinced our 2nd best option is to stay on the same path we're on. One thing we do have is economic strength and a pretty decent sized market. I don't think we'd have much chance of actually killing the professional game here by going alone, it'd just be lower level professional. There are trade-offs either way, but maybe it's better to lose our test players to overseas clubs than to give up on entire regions of the country.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I know. That's why I suggested adding 2 more NZ teams.

WCR and Scrubber, the answer to our woes is not in trying to reduce the standard of the NZ sides. As far as I am aware, NZ has already made it clear that they can't contemplate one more franchise, let alone two or more, and secondly that their preferred outcome is to continue to play the Saffa sides.

Maybe the best support we could get from NZ would be for them to allow our NRC and their Mitre 10 comps to be amalgamated in some form?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Lol...you don't actually think NZ has the balls to leave do you? Because their near pandering to the SARU's wants and needs over the past couple of deals seriously suggests that they don't.

What if SARU said to them, "you leave and we'll come with you". I'd suggest NZ wouldn't have too many problems with that.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Exactly BH. If we had 10 teams of required standard, they would be presently playing in the NRC. But 9 was too many and has dropped to 8.

And who's to say that a national competition wouldn't be sabotaged by some of the SS personalities just like is happening with Super Rugby and NRC right now?

Would we really need 10 teams though? The current 8 plus Fiji would give each team 16 games over 17 weeks. Plus finals it would be 19-20 weeks.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

WCR and Scrubber, the answer to our woes is not in trying to reduce the standard of the NZ sides. As far as I am aware, NZ has already made it clear that they can't contemplate one more franchise, let alone two or more, and secondly that their preferred outcome is to continue to play the Saffa sides.

Maybe the best support we could get from NZ would be for them to allow our NRC and their Mitre 10 comps to be amalgamated in some form?

I was more positing it in jest than anything else.

 

[No4918]

The more I watch, the more I feel that the death (effectively) of the professional game here is inevitable. Sure, something will exist, but the talent, both coaching and player wise, will continue to diminish as money dries up. I honestly can't see a viable solution. We are a generation behind (almost) in coaching philosophies and structures.

So let's be bold then. Fuck Foxtel off. Sell it to the highest bidder on FTA and actually try something different. I would be very surprised if the money was so much less as to make a big difference and the upside makes up for that.

It was very interesting listening to Grandstand on the weekend discussing women's sports. Fantastic to finally be seeing some traction with getting them recognised. They do have many issues still and I don't want to take away from those but they seemed pretty unanimous that getting off Foxtel and onto FTA has been great for their exposure and comps. Damn shame to hear though that women's XV game isn't getting anywhere near the same support as the 7's.

Also, BP and his cronies are flying business class to Dublin so he can cave into NZRU and SARU demands. He may as well stay home and save us $50k.

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^ SS has to shell out something like 200,00 pa just to get FTA interested at a bare minimum level. Anyone thinking FTA is going to pick up a national rugby comp for big bikkies is just deluding themselves.

 

[Braveheart81]

While I definitely prefer the Trans-Tasman option, I'm not convinced our 2nd best option is to stay on the same path we're on. One thing we do have is economic strength and a pretty decent sized market. I don't think we'd have much chance of actually killing the professional game here by going alone, it'd just be lower level professional.

I just don't think that level can drop much without it becoming unviable as a commercial product.

I think there is more risk of losing the rugby audience we currently have who are members of Super Rugby sides and spend dollars on the game than we are to turn a whole lot of casual fans who don't currently watch much rugby union into bigger fans just through the structure of the competition.

I think you would need a huge capital injection into the game here to be able to take on the risk of a domestic only competition as the major league we are involved in otherwise the risk that everything goes broke prior to having the necessary time to establish it would be too high.