Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

Reds, Due others.

Everyone keeps talking about money or capital investment and that RA nor the state unions have the money in the bank nor the revenue streams to support a National Domestic Competition.

The answer I keep banging on about is there. The more I think about I, it is so bleeding obvious.

Replace FIFA with IRB, and replace FFA with RA, for how to set it up, this is taken from a post about the A-League structure.

FIFA requires all leagues in Australia to be subordinate to the FFA and to comply with all FIFA, AFC and FFA statutes, regulations, decisions and instructions. They also give the FFA responsibility to run all national competitions but the FFA can delegate their authority to a league to run their competition. Thats normally done by a binding agreement being reached between the two parties governing how the league is to be operated etc.

So a new body is created by like minded people, so Twiggy and some others form a competition, with each team and the competition being. We need 8 to 10 people or groups willing to invest, we already have Twiggy and I dare say finding the other 9 will not be that hard.

For the love of the holy mother Mary, lets just copy how FFA does it under FIFA guidelines and then use the US competition model.

We need RA to admit they can’t do everything.

 

[wamberal]

Don't gloss over the hard bits, Half. What you have said is not so easy, my friend. World Rugby (formerly the IRB) might not want to copy FIFA. RA might not roll over. Finding 9 investors willing to throw their money away on what has become a niche sport is a lot easier said than done. And who says that Twiggy would? He seems to be quite happy doing his own thing. I suspect that he is a person who wants to exercise a fair bit of control over the spending of his money, like most very rich people.


Twiggy's Asian adventure will need to be played out. Maybe it will lead to something. I happen to believe otherwise, but stranger things have happened.

If his adventure does not succeed, maybe he will lose interest. Or he will concentrate on enjoying supporting the Western Force team in the new Trans-Tasman competition!!

 

[barbarian]

I've had a crack at proposing my Pacific Championship concept on the front page: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-future-of-super-rugby-the-pacific-model/

It's fairly light on detail but a good starting point for discussion.

 

[half]

I've had a crack at proposing my Pacific Championship concept on the front page: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-future-of-super-rugby-the-pacific-model/

It's fairly light on detail but a good starting point for discussion.

I like you idea, it has merit when you talk of the quality of players needed to create a watchable broadcast competition. I think WA needs a side.

I ask you to consider adding hhhmmmm nay changing your model hhhmmm nay a diifferent approach.

Consider your model 12 or 14 teams spread across, Australia, NZ & Japan. Because of player quality I am with you totally.

Consider now who funds, runs, markets, develops the competition.

For me lets get 12 to 14 interested people across Aust, NZ & Japan willing to invest their capital, knowledge, and business connections to run this for you.

I like your idea, you have convinced me re player quality and you convinced me on revenue from NZ & Japan to add to Australian revenue.

Now as I said consider the teams owned by 14 hard core rugby owmers.

The model sits in the USA, their competition model IMO is dead set how to set up a league. Of the USA models the MLS is the best as they have to allow for FIFA regulations and international matches as would any similar model in Australia.

 

[Rebels3]

The foundations of any league in the USA is the hugely successful college system, which means that an injection of talent happens on a yearly basis. This and their one team-one city model = success, unless you are an absolutely massive city like New York, which can sustain 2 teams.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I've had a crack at proposing my Pacific Championship concept on the front page: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-future-of-super-rugby-the-pacific-model/

It's fairly light on detail but a good starting point for discussion.

Wouldn't mind that but I'm not sure if it would be enough to draw interest back. Perhaps a compromise between Forrest model and this one could be achieved. By that I mean have two "divisions" running simultaneously featuring up to 8 teams each. One based around the 5 Kiwi sides with the Jaguares, a combined PI squad (the group that was looking to buy the NZ Warriors also expressed interest in running such a venture out of Honolulu. Hawaii is 22 hours behind NZ. Which means a 5:30 - 6:30 pm kick off in Honolulu would be a 7:30 - 8:30 pm kick off in NZ. Not too bad) and potentially a Fijian squad.

The second would be our 5 plus the Sunwolves. A team from Hong Kong and potentially Singapore. The key with the teams from Hong Kong and Singapore would be the mandate that they are to recruit with the purpose of being competitive. Same with the Sunwolves actually. They need to be as close to the full strength Japanese squad as possible. This should alleviate the depth issues.

Both divisions play a 14 week home and away season to determine seeding 1 - 8. At the end of this 14 week period it essentially transforms into a 16 team knockout format to determine the overall champion. The seeds would be important as a means to in theory ensuring an easier path to the final. All up 18 weeks.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

RN you speak to me like I am anti Twigg. Fuck me, I started the "where to Twigg" thread. I haven't been a Reds member for years, but here in 2018 I am a paid up Force member. AS a died in the wool Qld-er who lives in Sydney with no chance of getting to a game in Perth. But I'm happy to put my money into something that I think deserves support. I believe in supporting guys who are doing good things (and don't believe in supporting groups who are NOT doing good things).



I am however yet to see how Twigg fits into a changing pro rugby landscape in Aus. I get his desire to create a 'real" international comp for the Force. I don't yet get how this may lead the charge post Super. Where we desperately need a domestic comp. Twiggy so far offers a international comp with much of the same limitations as Super. But with commercial support. Major difference. Sure.



But not necessarily what we need. We'll see. So far my money is with Twigg. But he is determinedly WA-centric. He is no doubt the saviour of WA rugby. It doesn't translate necessarily to the saviour of Aus rugby.

Nah mate I know you are a big Twiggy involvement in rugby supporter as am I. Like you I feel Twiggy Ball as an Asian Pacific comp with just the force would be going down some of the same rabbit holes (problems) that super rugby faced. For me the real opportunity for Twiggy given how rapid Soup declined further this year is to combine a solution which includes the Force, other oz sides and other Asia Pacific sides. And heck if NZ agree to changes to create a more equal competition (read: players playing for any team does not stop them being eligible for national selection) then include NZ.

You are right Dru we are still really waiting to see Twiggy's teams plans and I would be gobsmacked if they have not changed somewhat given the rapid further decline in Super Rugby as of course WA fans would also like to see games against other oz sides then just asia pacific sides. That is obvious and only was not part of the original plans as there was thinking that was not an option - I would think now not only an option but a key bargaining chip for Twiggy now.

If RA and Twiggy's team can't work out a compromise I think we are completely screwed as rugby is in the biggest crisis but also has the biggest opportunity with one of our biggest billionaires prepared to invest millions in rugby in the region...whether that is just in WA and Asia or oz in Asia is the moot point but clearly unless WA rugby not the major beneficiary it won't happen - RA the ball is in your court.....but like I said I would be getting that red carpet out to Twiggy.....

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Wouldn't mind that but I'm not sure if it would be enough to draw interest back. Perhaps a compromise between Forrest model and this one could be achieved. By that I mean have two "divisions" running simultaneously featuring up to 8 teams each. One based around the 5 Kiwi sides with the Jaguares, a combined PI squad (the group that was looking to buy the NZ Warriors also expressed interest in running such a venture out of Honolulu. Hawaii is 22 hours behind NZ. Which means a 5:30 - 6:30 pm kick off in Honolulu would be a 7:30 - 8:30 pm kick off in NZ. Not too bad) and potentially a Fijian squad.



The second would be our 5 plus the Sunwolves. A team from Hong Kong and potentially Singapore. The key with the teams from Hong Kong and Singapore would be the mandate that they are to recruit with the purpose of being competitive. Same with the Sunwolves actually. They need to be as close to the full strength Japanese squad as possible. This should alleviate the depth issues.



Both divisions play a 14 week home and away season to determine seeding 1 - 8. At the end of this 14 week period it essentially transforms into a 16 team knockout format to determine the overall champion. The seeds would be important as a means to in theory ensuring an easier path to the final. All up 18 weeks.

No WCR don't give the Kiwi's the Pacific Island / Fiji team - they are what our conference needs as they add flair and would get more supporters to our game given large PI communities - yes of course NZ has that but they not the one with the crowd problems. In a crowded market place for football in this country you really think people would be interested in us just playing oz teams and sunwolves and HK and Singapore team.....rethink that one I suggest.

Ps Glad there is debate on this as I don't think anybody would be saying there is an easy answer but the reward if a better solution can be found is obviously rather large and hence worth the effort!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

No WCR don't give the Kiwi's the Pacific Island / Fiji team - they are what our conference needs as they add flair and would get more supporters to our game given large PI communities - yes of course NZ has that but they not the one with the crowd problems. In a crowded market place for football in this country you really think people would be interested in us just playing oz teams and sunwolves and HK and Singapore team...rethink that one I suggest.

Ps Glad there is debate on this as I don't think anybody would be saying there is an easy answer but the reward if a better solution can be found is obviously rather large and hence worth the effort!

There's another alternative. Two conferences of 7 like in the Pro 14. Our five plus the Sunwolves and Hong Kong. NZ five plus the Jaguares and the PI squad. Home and away in your own conference for 12 game then play each of the other 7 from the adjoining conference once for a total of 19 games. One table. Top 8 through to the finals. 24 weeks in all including byes.

 

[RedsHappy]

I like you idea, it has merit when you talk of the quality of players needed to create a watchable broadcast competition. I think WA needs a side.

I ask you to consider adding hhhmmmm nay changing your model hhhmmm nay a diifferent approach.

Consider your model 12 or 14 teams spread across, Australia, NZ & Japan. Because of player quality I am with you totally.

Consider now who funds, runs, markets, develops the competition.

For me lets get 12 to 14 interested people across Aust, NZ & Japan willing to invest their capital, knowledge, and business connections to run this for you.

I like your idea, you have convinced me re player quality and you convinced me on revenue from NZ & Japan to add to Australian revenue.

Now as I said consider the teams owned by 14 hard core rugby owmers.

The model sits in the USA, their competition model IMO is dead set how to set up a league. Of the USA models the MLS is the best as they have to allow for FIFA regulations and international matches as would any similar model in Australia.

A quick comment, not on the whole shooting match, but on this IMO _fundamentally important_ consideration:

Whatever format may be chosen or tested, for any configuration of Australian teams within such, we must only configure as many teams as we have (or can recruit overseas) high quality coaching teams/resources to marry to those playing teams the coaching skills and experience essential to improving the calibre of rugby skills and short-term player development within those teams.

The coaching skills capability and balanced allocation to player numbers overall is a vital component of any new format as current evidence within our dilapidated Super Rugby (and to a degree NRC as a designated feeder to Super Rugby) system amply demonstrates.

That is, whatever is the quantity of players and playing time and teams in a new system for rugby in Australia, that design must be aligned to the quality of support infrastructure available as essential to ensuring those teams can play a brand of dynamic, competitive, skilful rugby so there is real inter-team competition from Year One and some balanced uncertainty of outcomes more or less each match and certainly year-to-year as to who can win the newly structured Final.

I say this as the ARU made the _fatal_ mistake of expanding the national quantity of Super teams and related player numbers without a scintilla of a credible, serious plan to balance this expanded quantity with the in-depth coaching resources needed to ensure the right calibre of rugby be played to give those teams a real chance of success, and sustainable success.

This same point - re any new Australian rugby format - also relates to any new format's commencing all-up player numbers for similar reasons: we establish more teams than we have the right alignment of baseline players numbers of adequate starting quality along with ditto coaching capability and we are just designing in from Day One the next crisis of commercial non-viability for that system.

 

[joeyjohnz]

Times Pocock or Izzy's contract by 8 - that's how much we should be paying our 5 Head Coaches, Cheika and 2 Wallaby assistants.

A lot of these coaching problems are cultural though. Each franchise and it's board has had it's own world-wide search spanning the car park. If we don't pick the best man for the job we're just failing upwards.

Would our teams be so shit if they had Jones, Deans, Lancaster, White, Nucifora, Fisher & McKenzie on deck?

These are the blokes who should be helping formulate the national coaching plan, not Rod Kafer. We've just turned our back on every one of them.

 

[Aurelius]

You are right Dru we are still really waiting to see Twiggy's teams plans and I would be gobsmacked if they have not changed somewhat given the rapid further decline in Super Rugby as of course WA fans would also like to see games against other oz sides then just asia pacific sides. That is obvious and only was not part of the original plans as there was thinking that was not an option - I would think now not only an option but a key bargaining chip for Twiggy now.

Well, speaking as a WA fan I'd just like to have a side in a competition where I can have confidence that we won't get cut as soon as it becomes convenient for the rest of the country. A lot would have to change for that to be possible with other Australian teams being included in WSR, because frankly there's no deal Twiggy could make with RA that I as a fan would trust right now.

 

[dru]

Interesting article by Geoff Parkes over at the Roar.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/05/21/sanzaar-got-right-wrong/

He argues considerably differently to my own thinking, moreso has some gentle "put downs" against plans that loosely align to my thinking. But it behooves us to consider cogent counter arguments. Well done Geoff.

 

[kiap]

Interesting article by Geoff Parkes over at the Roar.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/05/21/sanzaar-got-right-wrong/

He argues considerably differently to my own thinking, moreso has some gentle "put downs" against plans that loosely align to my thinking. But it behooves us to consider cogent counter arguments. Well done Geoff.

Parkes seems to be saying SANZAAR is delivering on Test rugby, so Super Rugby shouldn't change much bar a few tweaks.

It's not a cogent argument. Even if you believe his premise on Test Rugby (which I do not) that conclusion does not follow.

Yes, he identifies the imperative for SANZAAR to generate revenue to keep its top players in the SH. I'm on board!

But he's ignoring that the current setup is already failing there for Australia and South Africa. And if you're a Kiwi—as Parkes is—don't be betting on New Zealand being immune (BTW, believing US rugby will be the saviour of SANZAAR is a pipe dream).

The status quo is eroding the financial position but this guy wants to hoe the same row in the hope of turning it around.

No. What's needed is the move that does least damage to the bottom line but allows room for the game to regenerate and grow that bottom line.

 

[hoggy]

Interesting article by Geoff Parkes over at the Roar.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/05/21/sanzaar-got-right-wrong/

He argues considerably differently to my own thinking, moreso has some gentle "put downs" against plans that loosely align to my thinking. But it behooves us to consider cogent counter arguments. Well done Geoff.

Geoff Parkes has a pretty good book out regards rugby and his article are well written, however he is a staunch RA supporter and Super rugby proponent, so just a small grain of salt is advised

 

[dru]

He also ignores the grassroots, integration through the Premier comps (especially SRU), connection to suburban clubs, the need for Australian content, consistency of home games to build support, games consistently in sensible predictable time slots. And a rational schedule.

I would ackowledge his point that Super has slowed the drain toEurope.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Parkes seems to be saying SANZAAR is delivering on Test rugby, so Super Rugby shouldn't change much bar a few tweaks.



It's not a cogent argument. Even if you believe his premise on Test Rugby (which I do not) that conclusion does not follow.



Yes, he identifies the imperative for SANZAAR to generate revenue to keep its top players in the SH. I'm on board!



But he's ignoring that the current setup is already failing there for Australia and South Africa. And if you're a Kiwi—as Parkes is—don't be betting on New Zealand being immune (BTW, believing US rugby will be the saviour of SANZAAR is a pipe dream).



The status quo is eroding the financial position but this guy wants to hoe the same row in the hope of turning it around.



No. What's needed is the move that does least damage to the bottom line but allows room for the game to regenerate and grow that bottom line.[/quotem]

No offence to Parkes but he is old school rugby not realising what modern day sports fans want / demand

I find his thinking dated.....and yeh I keep referring to Twiggy's team as got some people in there with cross code football experience who know how to build an entertainment product to compete with fans eyeballs who are more than ever spoilt for choice..

Parkes has a lovely understanding of the history of the game but it is just that the history - and we need others who can redefine our game as god knows it needs it if rugby is to survive in this country given how many own goals been made over recent years!!!

 

[hoggy]

Parkes seems to be saying SANZAAR is delivering on Test rugby, so Super Rugby shouldn't change much bar a few tweaks.

It's not a cogent argument. Even if you believe his premise on Test Rugby (which I do not) that conclusion does not follow.

Yes, he identifies the imperative for SANZAAR to generate revenue to keep its top players in the SH. I'm on board!

But he's ignoring that the current setup is already failing there for Australia and South Africa. And if you're a Kiwi—as Parkes is—don't be betting on New Zealand being immune (BTW, believing US rugby will be the saviour of SANZAAR is a pipe dream).

The status quo is eroding the financial position but this guy wants to hoe the same row in the hope of turning it around.

No. What's needed is the move that does least damage to the bottom line but allows room for the game to regenerate and grow that bottom line.

I agree with this, Parkes angle is to ultimately hang onto whatever structures enables the status quo, yet admitting the ship is slowly sinking. he is prepared to sacrifice anything to ensure test rugby remains the pinnacle. Even his observations that somehow Rugby internationals have more meaning than other codes is telling.

He is a harsh critic that decisions were not made 20 years ago to spread the game domestically, yet he advocates the exact same short term thinking now, yet sees no parallel.

How can you be an advocate for change by keeping things the same and then not expect when it is 2030 looking back and saying if only they had.

 

[kiap]

He also ignores the grassroots, integration through the Premier comps (especially SRU), connection to suburban clubs, the need for Australian content, consistency of home games to build support, games consistently in sensible predictable time slots. And a rational schedule.

Yeah

I would ackowledge his point that Super has slowed the drain toEurope.

It has done so in the past, Despite the known flaws, Super was once a functional (even successful) competition. The alternatives took a while to emerge.

Super got the jump on the NH with the change to pro rugby. For a number of years the SH was in the vanguard and did deliver enough cash to keep our best here.

That's the not the case now. Europe is in front and by a long way.

 

[Joe King]

Interesting article by Geoff Parkes over at the Roar.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/05/21/sanzaar-got-right-wrong/

He argues considerably differently to my own thinking, moreso has some gentle "put downs" against plans that loosely align to my thinking. But it behooves us to consider cogent counter arguments. Well done Geoff.

From what he says, I think he just honestly can't see a better way for Super Rugby (that is, a more financially secure way) than the current model - apart from tweaking it if possible to make it fairer for the strongest teams if they're in the same conference.

However, I think what kiap says above is the correct principle to apply:

"What's needed is the move that does least damage to the bottom line but allows room for the game to regenerate and grow that bottom line"