Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

Well this thread at 12, 000 posts needs some form of congrats to all who have posted, in the main I think the debate has been well meaning and balanced.

It’s by far for me anyway the thread I read the most and posted on.

For 12, 000 or thereabouts, I thought some reflection was needed.

My views pre WWII individual sports, boxing and running etc, where our main sports. tennis and cricket especially tennis was huge.

From the advent of TV, team sports started to become the more mainstream and in the early 60’s both 7 & 9 started limited coverage of league and AFL.

At about this time rugby was in NSW at least the winter sport in state schools and established competition formats like the Shute Shield were as big or bigger than what league had.

Decades of poor management decisions combined with the increasing revenue of league lead to an exodus of players from union.

By the late 80’s early 90’s we even had many NZ union players switching to league for money. Matthew Ridge is a perfect example as he joined Manly and left the AB’s.

After Packer & Murdoch called a draw in the Super League war, they both turned their attention to rugby.

In a blind panic after decades of being raided and the Super League War, rugby jumped at the Murdoch dollars and Super Rugby was born be it at first a Super 6, then Super 10, to Super 12, and so on.

Our issue IMHO has always been lack of leadership, lack of vision combined with a appalling lack of faith in the game.

Australian rugby leadership has always lacked drive, and an ability to unite the warring parties and lead a united game.

Australian management has always looked for others to do the heavy lifting.

For me the time has come when we face a nightmare, if we dither too much longer we may find it near impossible to drag people from other actives be they sporting or other forms of entertainment.

We need to have faith in the game and open up a national domestic competition. The running of the competition should be by independently privately owned teams who will fund and develop rugby.

They are there but to bring them into the tent, we must give them control as no one in their right mind who would invest millions to have the RA and State Union boards run the game. As Al Baxter said on the podcast you simply cannot fund and run a code on 12 test matches with 4 played overseas.

 

[wamberal]

Packer hated rugby from all accounts, even though he played in the First XV at Cranbrook.


Yes, a national domestic competition based on privately owned teams would be wonderful. Are you implying that the ten or twelve lucky rugby loving oligarchs who are jostling with each other to spend squillions on our sport would then be given the keys to the whole game here?

What would happen to the Wallabies? Owned? What about club rugby? Abandoned? Womens Rugby, and all the other stuff that, for all the criticism, RA is actually putting money into? Forgotten?

 

[half]

Packer hated rugby from all accounts, even though he played in the First XV at Cranbrook.


Yes, a national domestic competition based on privately owned teams would be wonderful. Are you implying that the ten or twelve lucky rugby loving oligarchs who are jostling with each other to spend squillions on our sport would then be given the keys to the whole game here?

What would happen to the Wallabies? Owned? What about club rugby? Abandoned? Womens Rugby, and all the other stuff that, for all the criticism, RA is actually putting money into? Forgotten?

Please be fair.

RA main income stream is the Wallabies. RA will still receive revenue from sponsorship, match day ticket sales, media, mechanise, governments paying for test matches. Meaning they will have more than they have know with no Super Rugby to support.

Also as a practical each new privately owned team as part of the licence agreement would need to run a womens team.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I thought wallabies for rugby was the cash cow for rugby Australia whilst super rugby was the cash burn.

Surely rugby Australia would happily give up super rugby if a more financially viable alternative could be found - oh hello twiggy! What is that you know some other rich Asian billionaires who might want to own some indo pacific teams we could play against - oh and what is that also exposing us to Asian broadcast dollars.

Sounds interesting twiggy - we must sit down and chat how we can find a way forward possibly leveraging your World Series concept with greater emphasis on domestic teams involvement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Half,

I thought that was what you were saying, when you said that the privateers should have control over the game??? That kind of works in the NRL, but in that sport the international dimension is just a little sideshow.

Rugbynutter,

Not sure that "giving up" the second tier in the game to a third party is something that RA would actually want to do. Nor do I think that it is something that most of the local unions would want to see.


If Twiggy is willing to accept the basic fact of rugby life, which is that the game belongs to us (the players, the supporters, the people who take out memberships, etc etc) and it is controlled by us, through the organisation structure that exists now (as imperfect as it might be) then maybe something good can happen. But if he believes that by spending a lot of money he will own the game, or even own just a slice of it, then I doubt that any good will come from that.

World Rugby owns the game globally. Rugby Australia is the titular head of the game here. Like them or loathe them, they are our leaders, duly elected and/or appointed. It would be a sad day if money could buy a sport like rugby.

 

[half]

Half,

I thought that was what you were saying, when you said that the privateers should have control over the game??? That kind of works in the NRL, but in that sport the international dimension is just a little sideshow.

Rugbynutter,

Not sure that "giving up" the second tier in the game to a third party is something that RA would actually want to do. Nor do I think that it is something that most of the local unions would want to see.


If Twiggy is willing to accept the basic fact of rugby life, which is that the game belongs to us (the players, the supporters, the people who take out memberships, etc etc) and it is controlled by us, through the organisation structure that exists now (as imperfect as it might be) then maybe something good can happen. But if he believes that by spending a lot of money he will own the game, or even own just a slice of it, then I doubt that any good will come from that.

World Rugby owns the game globally. Rugby Australia is the titular head of the game here. Like them or loathe them, they are our leaders, duly elected and/or appointed. It would be a sad day if money could buy a sport like rugby.

I posted this some pages back and post again to explain how it works. I will use FIFA and FFA to explain, interchange FIFA to IRB & FFA to RA.

FIFA control soccer world over, and FIFA issue to an organisation in a country the right to run a FIFA registered competitions within that country in Australians case FFA.

Its almost identical in rugby the IRB grants organisations in a country to run rugby competitions in that country, in Australia it's RA.

FFA then establish a set of criteria on what is required to run an independent competition. FFA set the rules and are the final judge in the event those running the competition can't agree on something. Essentially the running of the competition is licensed out to a third party who is required to run the competition within the criteria established by the local governing body.

In Australia's case RA are our local governing body, essentially RA establish a competition to be independently run and invite people willing to invest in it.

IMO the best models for these come out of the USA competitions, and the best model in the US is the MLS as they need to meet FIFA international requirements the same as any competition set up by RA would need to meet IRB requirements.

Hope this explains it better

 

[half]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wam

Further to the above, I have put this link up before as well, its mega long almost a small book.

What it does is explain how the MLS systems operates and IMO would be perfect for us to copy, take the best bits etc.

Have a look, this is what I am talking about, BTW most US sports are established along similar lines.

https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd

 

[cyclopath]

I thought wallabies for rugby was the cash cow for rugby Australia whilst super rugby was the cash burn.

Surely rugby Australia would happily give up super rugby if a more financially viable alternative could be found - oh hello twiggy! What is that you know some other rich Asian billionaires who might want to own some indo pacific teams we could play against - oh and what is that also exposing us to Asian broadcast dollars.

Sounds interesting twiggy - we must sit down and chat how we can find a way forward possibly leveraging your World Series concept with greater emphasis on domestic teams involvement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While it sounds appealing to have a funded Indo-Pacific Rugby Championship and potentially a lot of money from Asian plutocrats and viewing from Asian audiences, the concern for me is that, unless it becomes a predominantly Australian based competition with recognisable teams to support, it will struggle in Aus to get eyeballs, for some of the reasons Super Rugby is floundering. People won't care. How many average fans here will watch Singapore play Sri Lanka? Or more importantly, the Mid-Western NSW whatevers against whoever? My point is, that fans need some investment to a team to engage. One default is to say "base it on existing Club rugby teams", but that is flawed from several perspectives - level of play / disinterest outside that Club Rugby area etc.......... Existing Super Rugby geographical areas? Maybe, but my gut feel is State unions, with their entrenched self-interest won't jump in easily without "control" as they perceive they have now. We all know which Unions I refer to.
Before I get howled down, I am not against the idea in theory at all, but I have a nagging feeling there could be some massive hurdles.
Half's idea of private ownership sounds appealing, but I agree with Wamberal to a degree that I can't see where they will find enough of these Patrons. They need to see a business model with some runs on the board to jump in, and I doubt many would jump in on spec, even with someone as convincing as Andrew Forrest in their ear. I mean, below Wallaby level (with respect to revenue) Rugby is a dead cat. Hard to sell, and hard to see it bounce.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

yes cyclo we are on the same page - as WSR @ risk of same flaws of Super Rugby without decent (and I mean majority) domestic content and argued this point verbatim on force and where to twiggy threads.

But equally I could see success of "some" asia pacific sides included in expanded domestic / trans tasman comp (read: only if open borders policy across comp could this work for NZ involvement) in time friendly zones with basics of more entertainment oriented product twiggy creating plus other basics that sides listed by city names to create more identity etc.

I personally can't see a asia pacific WSR concept with just force and 7 Asian pacific sides succeeding long term and got to be working towards oz (and possible nz sides) involved. I can't believe they can't be discussing this as too many clever people from both sides of Twiggy and RA to not be having this discussion (at least I hope - more than anything).

I get twiggy forced into position that only can offer one oz side at present but somehow I hope something changes to allow at least another oz side in initial 6 team WSR concept (read: brumbies join as other choice is to go bankrupt staying for another 2 years in Super Rugby - I don't know what answer is but Twiggy committing to WSR comp in 2019 which to me reads tough gig with Super Rugby contracts limiting other oz team involvement despite many probably seeing as possible preference).

I can't wait to see what WSR Twiggy has planned for 2019 personally as do wonder if some behind the scenes stuff happening with RA that could yet surprise us (not withstanding Super Rugby contractural obligations).

P.s rugby struggling in oz but in other regions including asia - actually quite the opposite....

 

[cyclopath]

yes cyclo we are on the same page - as WSR @ risk of same flaws of Super Rugby without decent (and I mean majority) domestic content and argued this point verbatim on force and where to twiggy threads.

But equally I could see success of "some" asia pacific sides included in expanded domestic / trans tasman comp (read: only if open borders policy across comp could this work for NZ involvement) in time friendly zones with basics of more entertainment oriented product twiggy creating plus other basics that sides listed by city names to create more identity etc.

I personally can't see a asia pacific WSR concept with just force and 7 Asian pacific sides succeeding long term and got to be working towards oz (and possible nz sides) involved. I can't believe they can't be discussing this as too many clever people from both sides of Twiggy and RA to not be having this discussion (at least I hope - more than anything).

I get twiggy forced into position that only can offer one oz side at present but somehow I hope something changes to allow at least another oz side in initial 6 team WSR concept (read: brumbies join as other choice is to go bankrupt staying for another 2 years in Super Rugby - I don't know what answer is but Twiggy committing to WSR comp in 2019 which to me reads tough gig with Super Rugby contracts limiting other oz team involvement despite many probably seeing as possible preference).

I can't wait to see what WSR Twiggy has planned for 2019 personally as do wonder if some behind the scenes stuff happening with RA that could yet surprise us (not withstanding Super Rugby contractural obligations).

P.s rugby struggling in oz but in other regions including asia - actually quite the opposite..

Definitely a "watch this space" proposition, as it is embryonic days thus far.
I know Rugby is going well in many other markets.
But I don't really care about that, per se - it MUST capture the imagination and market here, or the code will slowly wither to extreme niche status.
I think it will need all parties at the same table. The tricky bit.

 

[hoggy]

While it sounds appealing to have a funded Indo-Pacific Rugby Championship and potentially a lot of money from Asian plutocrats and viewing from Asian audiences, the concern for me is that, unless it becomes a predominantly Australian based competition with recognisable teams to support, it will struggle in Aus to get eyeballs, for some of the reasons Super Rugby is floundering. People won't care. How many average fans here will watch Singapore play Sri Lanka? Or more importantly, the Mid-Western NSW whatevers against whoever? My point is, that fans need some investment to a team to engage. One default is to say "base it on existing Club rugby teams", but that is flawed from several perspectives - level of play / disinterest outside that Club Rugby area etc.... Existing Super Rugby geographical areas? Maybe, but my gut feel is State unions, with their entrenched self-interest won't jump in easily without "control" as they perceive they have now. We all know which Unions I refer to.
Before I get howled down, I am not against the idea in theory at all, but I have a nagging feeling there could be some massive hurdles.
Half's idea of private ownership sounds appealing, but I agree with Wamberal to a degree that I can't see where they will find enough of these Patrons. They need to see a business model with some runs on the board to jump in, and I doubt many would jump in on spec, even with someone as convincing as Andrew Forrest in their ear. I mean, below Wallaby level (with respect to revenue) Rugby is a dead cat. Hard to sell, and hard to see it bounce.

I think you highlight the catch 22 of the game here. Basically your right below the Wallabies Rugby is a dead cat. But without growth at that level how much longer or just as importantly how much more can be sacrificed for the Wallabies to continue earning that revenue.

 

[joeyjohnz]

I think it will need all parties at the same table. The tricky bit.

This is why a fair chunk of aus rugby followers would like to see RA go bankrupt.

It seems the only way this current crop of fatcats and beaurocrats of the state unions and RA will never cede control of the game.

 

[hoggy]

This is why a fair chunk of aus rugby followers would like to see RA go bankrupt.

It seems the only way this current crop of fatcats and beaurocrats of the state unions and RA will never cede control of the game.

And you only have to listen to interviews that Castle has done in the last couple of weeks which pretty much say no stone is being left upturned, but nothing is actually going to change

 

[Braveheart81]

This is why a fair chunk of aus rugby followers would like to see RA go bankrupt.

It seems the only way this current crop of fatcats and beaurocrats of the state unions and RA will never cede control of the game.

I just don't see how this is a logical take in any way shape or form.

The leather patch brigade/old school tie network/former Wallabies that people think are the biggest problem with running the game are precisely the ones who would increase their power if RA went broke and had to start again.

 

[cyclopath]

This is why a fair chunk of aus rugby followers would like to see RA go bankrupt.

It seems the only way this current crop of fatcats and beaurocrats of the state unions and RA will never cede control of the game.

I get what you're saying, but a bankrupt RA means any Wallaby contracts cannot be honoured, sponsorship deals would fold, players at that level would be gone and the game at the pro level would be effectively killed. Sure it might come back, but it just as likely might not. The dynamic that the Wallabies are the cash cow is not, and should not be the problem; in fact it needs to be nourished. NZRU is healthy because the ABs are such a global brand and command huge sponsorship. The RFU own Twickenham and all the revenue that generates, largely from Tests - big coin. Building the "lower levels" is vital, and this is where I think the potential massive benefit of IPRC might be seen, but it needs to be done well. I think wholesale change of structure / composition of boards is an aim, but I cannot see any upside to bankruptcy at the national level.

 

[wamberal]

I doubt that anybody knows what "a fair chunk" of rugby followers would like to see. Other than I am pretty sure they would all like to see the Wallabies win as often as humanly possible.


It would actually be good if there was a degree of uniformity in our thinking, which could lead to some form of widespread cooperation between all levels, and across the whole width, of the game.


Together we might survive. If we continue to bicker and fight, we might not survive as an elite sport in Australia.

 

[hoggy]

I doubt that anybody knows what "a fair chunk" of rugby followers would like to see. Other than I am pretty sure they would all like to see the Wallabies win as often as humanly possible.


It would actually be good if there was a degree of uniformity in our thinking, which could lead to some form of widespread cooperation between all levels, and across the whole width, of the game.


Together we might survive. If we continue to bicker and fight, we might not survive as an elite sport in Australia.

I think your right, but to be together the elephant in the room has to addressed, that is Super rugby, without addressing that, your never going to get everyone together.

 

[joeyjohnz]

Together we might survive. If we continue to bicker and fight, we might not survive as an elite sport in Australia.

Are we completely forgetting or conveniently ignoring what transpired with the Western Force last year?

If we wanted to survive together; we wouldn't have cut the Force when they were dangling a $50mil carrot.

 

[wamberal]

Are we completely forgetting or conveniently ignoring what transpired with the Western Force last year?

If we wanted to survive together; we wouldn't have cut the Force when they were dangling a $50mil carrot.

What possible benefit would there be in turning our backs on a $50 million carrot? Can you put forward a plausible reason? Maybe there were strings attached, eh? Or the decision was locked in by the SANZAAR consortium before the cheque was sent?


I find it very hard to believe that a sport fighting for survival would do something so apparently misguided.

 

[joeyjohnz]

I just don't see how this is a logical take in any way shape or form.

The leather patch brigade/old school tie network/former Wallabies that people think are the biggest problem with running the game are precisely the ones who would increase their power if RA went broke and had to start again.

I think we're all old enough here to remember the death of NSL and the birth of the A-League. They were plagued by very much the same problems Rugby Australia face today in dwindling finances & junior participation and fans turning away from the game in disgust (although for different reasons - racially fueled violence causing games to be played in closed stadiums, clubs separated along ethnic lines)

A controlled bankruptcy enabled Football Australia to rid themselves of "The leather patch brigade/old school tie network" who were hell bent on keeping the NSL in the 1980's 1920's.

Now they're in the position where there are upwards of 10 bids for A-league licenses being put forward. This is why bankruptcy is so appealing. Sure we lose players; but when we've got 100+ players playing overseas on salaries less than NRL level; one must ask themselves what the point is keeping the status quo?

If we get things right locally and manage to cut 1/3 of each of the NRL's and AFL's lunch; we'd nearly have more broadcast revenue than the Premiership & Top 14 combined....