Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

Because none of us (I assume) work for RA

Ofc people who work for RA would post here. A lot I guess. They would at least be rugby fans where else do they comment? PR maybe not, you have here and Roar basically. Or Twitter verse fb etc.

Certainly there are plenty of well connected posters - sort of makes the place even if some pro RA stuff seems quite determined.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Ofc people who work for RA would post here. A lot I guess. They would at least be rugby fans where else do they comment? PR maybe not, you have here and Roar basically. Or Twitter verse fb etc.



Certainly there are plenty of well connected posters - sort of makes the place even if some pro RA stuff seems quite determined.

I actually hope RA people do post here - even if under anonymity - and end of the day I support differnt views and right of RA to defend its position.

Change ain't easy and won't be easy - but change is necessary.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

In case you haven't noticed, the community aren't watching.







Nor is there one major sporting competition in the world which involves international travel across 4 continents and multiple time zones.



In fact, almost all professional sporting competitions around the world are purely domestic leagues. The NHL in North America is about the only one that I can think of that isn't. Any club-based multi-national competitions around the world are champions league type ones. No one has copied the super rugby model and nobody will.



NZ won't agree to a Trans-Tasman competition, so it's off the table.



The only thing that prevents it from being more than 10 weeks is that there isn't the player base at the moment to go much beyond 6 teams - you could stretch it to 8 using the NRC groupings, but expansion beyond that is long term.



With the greatest respect, you've fallen into the trap of thinking in the short term only. Australian rugby needs to do what every other major sport in Australia does and stand on our own two feet with a domestic league. 12,000 spectators (many of whom were kiwi expats) at a quarter final in a city of almost 5,000,000 people. If this isn't an illustration that the concept of super rugby is a failure, then nothing will convince you.

"12,000 spectators (many of whom were kiwi expats) at a quarter final in a city of almost 5,000,000 people. If this isn't an illustration that the concept of super rugby is a failure, then nothing will convince you. "​

Yes Quick Hands this for me sums up so abjectly how Super Rugby is a failure - please lets stop ignoring the reality that successful football codes in Australia are ones that have established domestic leagues. Think about it....if you take away the free tickets and kiwi expats attending it is likely big local shute shield derbies would draw just as big...if not bigger crowd...while the shute shield final definitely would. Why do you think Foxtel now televising Shute Shield and QLD premiership rugby...? Wake up and pls smell the roses or more the dogshit that is super rugby that other people keep avoiding but RA wants to try and repaint a turd with current SANZAAR discussions.

We don't want Super Rugby - so yes RA stop trying to negotiate with SANZAAR partners minor cosmetic changes for what will be Super Rugby Mark 2 for changes largely driven by what NZ wants and suits there needs (e.g. round robin format) which will do bugger all to stop the continued decline in interest in professional rugby in this country. So either RA needs to step up or step aside and let a new organisation try to recover the situation..similar to what happened with soccer in this country with the collapse of NSL and its replacement with A-league.

 

[RugbyReg]

Ofc people who work for RA would post here. A lot I guess. They would at least be rugby fans where else do they comment? PR maybe not, you have here and Roar basically. Or Twitter verse fb etc.

Certainly there are plenty of well connected posters - sort of makes the place even if some pro RA stuff seems quite determined.

I know there are RA staff who at least read here. Whether they actually post here is another issue.

 

[dru]

I actually hope RA people do post here - even if under anonymity - and end of the day I support differnt views and right of RA to defend its position.

Change ain't easy and won't be easy - but change is necessary.

I hope so too. In fact I'd be baffled if some at least didn't. And anonymity is part and parcel of a forum. You'd expect though that it is a personal view being expressed - and I don't doubt that people working at the RA can have (may even likely have) views that match RA position.

When I first joined GGR I quickly learned that the community was "expert". By which I mean many who are actually involved. (and I note that this will include involved naysayers as well as apologists). Makes the place special.

 

[hoggy]

"12,000 spectators (many of whom were kiwi expats) at a quarter final in a city of almost 5,000,000 people. If this isn't an illustration that the concept of super rugby is a failure, then nothing will convince you. "​

Yes Quick Hands this for me sums up so abjectly how Super Rugby is a failure - please lets stop ignoring the reality that successful football codes in Australia are ones that have established domestic leagues. Think about it..if you take away the free tickets and kiwi expats attending it is likely big local shute shield derbies would draw just as big.if not bigger crowd.while the shute shield final definitely would. Why do you think Foxtel now televising Shute Shield and QLD premiership rugby.? Wake up and pls smell the roses or more the dogshit that is super rugby that other people keep avoiding but RA wants to try and repaint a turd with current SANZAAR discussions.

We don't want Super Rugby - so yes RA stop trying to negotiate with SANZAAR partners minor cosmetic changes for what will be Super Rugby Mark 2 for changes largely driven by what NZ wants and suits there needs (e.g. round robin format) which will do bugger all to stop the continued decline in interest in professional rugby in this country. So either RA needs to step up or step aside and let a new organisation try to recover the situation..similar to what happened with soccer in this country with the collapse of NSL and its replacement with A-league.

The problem lies in the fact that the RA (basically the Wallaby brand) don't want change. the whole funding set up diverts 99% of the money to that level, for change to happen the powers to be have to accept sharing some of those powers, and they won't do that even as the ship sinks. That's why they're already signing up for more Super rugby post 2020.

 

[Quick Hands]

The problem lies in the fact that the RA (basically the Wallaby brand) don't want change. the whole funding set up diverts 99% of the money to that level, for change to happen the powers to be have to accept sharing some of those powers, and they won't do that even as the ship sinks. That's why they're already signing up for more Super rugby post 2020.

As happens so often in life, those with vested interests in the status quo will do anything to preserve their position. Human nature dictates that many of those who rise to positions of power and privilege will do almost anything to stay there. Most people with a voice in the running of rugby have significant vested interest in staying in super rugby. Their mediocrity means that they will need to be blown out.

 

[Quick Hands]

O
Certainly there are plenty of well connected posters - sort of makes the place even if some pro RA stuff seems quite determined.

Yes, as someone who is often been on the wrong end of the pro RA stuff, I've noticed the tenacity of the apologists.

Must be great to have such little self-doubt that they can continue to argue a position which by any metric is failing miserably.

 

[dru]

Yes, as someone who is often been on the wrong end of the pro RA stuff, I've noticed the tenacity of the apologists.

Must be great to have such little self-doubt that they can continue to argue a position which by any metric is failing miserably.

Absolutely QH. It baffles me as to what must happen within Super Rugby to get some of the "steady hands at the tiller" brigade to waiver. The argument has become a polemic - "yes, RA is a colour of (even dark) grey, but if you can't show squeaky white - well it's just not worth the risk".

The way we are going RA/SANZAR/NZ is going to kill Aus pro rugby. Simple statement. To me the only real question is "how far dead are we already". The longer it takes for us to act the more comatose the patient.

Hell, now we are even casting aspersions against people who are "negative". You know, it's not the problems that are the issue, just that some outrageous people are talking about them.

Sheesh.

 

[barbarian]

As happens so often in life, those with vested interests in the status quo will do anything to preserve their position. Human nature dictates that many of those who rise to positions of power and privilege will do almost anything to stay there. Most people with a voice in the running of rugby have significant vested interest in staying in super rugby. Their mediocrity means that they will need to be blown out.

How do they have a vested interest in staying in Super Rugby exactly? Surely their 'vested interest' is in the success of the game?

If the game succeeds, they do. If the game dies, then they die too.

Painting people in one corner or another here helps nobody. We all have our different views, and that's what makes this place enjoyable. We can disagree and argue but at the end of the day it's all just a game.

My oft-repeated issue with this thread is it looks at a lot of complex problems but as yet (to me) has not been able to find an appealing alternative to the current mess we have now.
.

 

[wamberal]

Nah, Barbarian. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.


100 years of history can be swept away just by cleaning out all the game's current administrators, and replacing them with new administrators.

 

[Quick Hands]

Nah, Barbarian. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.


100 years of history can be swept away just by cleaning out all the game's current administrators, and replacing them with new administrators.

Changing the administrators without changing the structure of the game's administration is pointless.

 

[Quick Hands]

How do they have a vested interest in staying in Super Rugby exactly?
.

$$$$$

 

[Quick Hands]

Painting people in one corner or another here helps nobody. We all have our different views, and that's what makes this place enjoyable. We can disagree and argue but at the end of the day it's all just a game.

.

I'm more interested in people discussing different options that getting bogged down on another to and fro about the adminstration.

I'd honestly be interested in any suggestion that you could make. You're one of the more reasonable people around here.

 

[eastman]

Would the NZRU really be against a trans- tasman competition where there were no restrictions on player nationality between teams ala NRL? While this might result in 70% of all players coming from NZ and the PIs surely it would result in the strongest competition and best product. There would probably initial decline in the strength of the Wallabies but would likely lead to a more sustainable competition.

 

[hoggy]

How do they have a vested interest in staying in Super Rugby exactly? Surely their 'vested interest' is in the success of the game?

If the game succeeds, they do. If the game dies, then they die too.

Painting people in one corner or another here helps nobody. We all have our different views, and that's what makes this place enjoyable. We can disagree and argue but at the end of the day it's all just a game.

My oft-repeated issue with this thread is it looks at a lot of complex problems but as yet (to me) has not been able to find an appealing alternative to the current mess we have now.
.

This highlights the dilemma moving forward, no ones saying these people do not want the game to succeed however, most of these people are reliant on the current structure for there income, and the pays not bad.

But it is that same structure that holds the game back from gaining more popularity in Australia. But those vested interests will always hold out, no ones going to make themselves redundant.

Much of the issue is funding, we don't want to accept that someone else is essentially subsidizing the game here. Take away much of that SA broadcasting money and all of a sudden were running Sausage Sizzles.

And how can you develop a domestic market when half your season is dedicated to Test rugby.

But ultimately one day(like it or not) that SA broadcast money will go, and then rugby here will have two stand on its own feet, it may even surprise itself and figure out that it can walk all by itself.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Nah, Barbarian. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.


100 years of history can be swept away just by cleaning out all the game's current administrators, and replacing them with new administrators.

Have the current administrators really been there for 100 years Wamb? If so, then no confusion about why the game is in trouble at the second/third tier level. If not, then why would you think a new broom would sweep all that tradition away when their primary aim would presumably be at the Super Rugby level which is only 23 years old but showing signs of being near death?

 

[Lindommer]

I well remember attending a meeting of the Sydney Chapter of the RBN at the Royal Automobile Club in mid-2015 when the structure for Super Rugby the following year was revealed by the competitions wallah from the ARU: two conferences (let's refer to them as east and west), not of equal numbers, further divided into two groupings in each conference. MMMmmm. The labyrinthine maze of the match schedule within our group/our other conference group/one group from the other conference quite made my head hurt. My immediate thought was "this won't work". And it was confirmed when Kafe tried to explain the match schedule to Marto as "six/five/four", it all sounded much, much worse when broadcast on television. The 2016 iteration of Super Rugby was a dog's breakfast; the 2018 one is only marginally better.

At the time, and many times on here since, I've questioned Japan's involvement in Super Rugby. On their merits on the paddock it isn't working: half the squad aren't Japanese (so improving Japanese rugby at the top level isn't happening) while the Sunwolves continue to get flogged (so improving Japanese rugby at the top level isn't happening). The money flowing from a Japanese team's involvement must be attractive as is their friendly time zone for us in Oz. But, developing top level professional rugby in north and east Asia isn't SANZAAR's remit, it's for the iRB/WR (World Rugby) to organise some sort of competition.

However, the prospect of some sort of Pacific/east Asian competition along the lines of Twiggy's suggestion is attractive and intriguing. The big, big issues we must consider for any future competition structure are travel and timing. I'll be staying up to watch my beloved Tahs play in Jo'burg on Saturday night (I always do) but I know of few others as dedicated as me. And I never watch other Oz and NZ teams play in SAf or Argentina. These unfriendly times must be affecting TV revenue, a Pacific/east Asian competition alleviates most of those travel and timing issues.

As well as where and when we play our top-level pro rugby how teams are grouped together is vitally important. The Europeans seem to've got this down pat (while noting the two European structures were blatantly copied from soccer). Distances between teams and the attendant time differences for television viewing might lead to some sort of tighter structures and more local derbies.

That's as far as I'm going to go suggesting a structure for the future: that job's well above my pay grade.

 

[Bandar]

My oft-repeated issue with this thread is it looks at a lot of complex problems but as yet (to me) has not been able to find an appealing alternative to the current mess we have now.
.

I disagree, I think more appealing alternatives (for the Australian market) have been discussed here several times over. We want to be able to dedicate the bulk of the season to matches that are in our time zones and have a international component to make sure we are competitive with NZ, SA and the rest.

Run a domestic comp followed by a champions and challenge cup with qualifiers from Aus/Fiji (and maybe Tonga & Samoa), NZ, SA maybe include Japanese clubs & the proposed South American comp also in the lower division.

We need more clubs and that is the issue, RA have control now and don't want to give it up, but if they would then more players would be playing in Australia, eligible for the Wallabies and not costing RA $$$. Player wages are their biggest expense, yet the primary role of RA is to ensure everyone who wants to can play rugby in Australia, not look after the 150 pro players at the expense of the other 100,000 people who enjoy the game.

So in a round about way yes the structures are all wrong and don't look like being changed anytime soon due to self interest, there are credible alternatives out there that have been put forward on this thread but without the people who have the real figures and can negotiate with broadcasters we can not come up with a alternative fully costed as some seem to demand.

 

[barbarian]

I'm more interested in people discussing different options that getting bogged down on another to and fro about the adminstration.

I'd honestly be interested in any suggestion that you could make. You're one of the more reasonable people around here.

I've been thinking about it a lot, and there is no easy answer. The solution I'm drawing more towards is a rebranded Super Rugby with a few tweaks to make it more accessible and easier to understand ('back to the roots'). I can see the merits in the conference/Champions Cup model too, though it's by no means perfect.

I stick by my recent article that the best case scenario is the Pacific Model (http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-future-of-super-rugby-the-pacific-model/), although that relies on South Africa migrating north which seems very unlikely and certainly out of our control.

I'd love to see a successful local competition as we all would. I'm just not sure we could survive all the hits we would have to take to get there. Reduced TV and crowd revenue would see us lose our top players, and I just don't think we could survive that and come out the other side with anything sustainable.

I disagree with those who say we need to copy the A-League, NRL and AFL, and say that local is the only answer. I actually think the international nature of rugby and Super Rugby can be used to our advantage - indeed that's what set it apart at it's peak, it's why people flocked to it. This wasn't just the best in Australia, it was the best in the Southern Hemisphere.

It would be lovely to control our own destiny though, and SANZAAR is a bastard of an organisation to be tied in to, for sure.

There are just so many moving parts.

While I don't trust RA to negoitate us out of this particular mess, I don't think that they have some vested interest in remaining in Super Rugby, financial or otherwise. They themselves don't get a cut of TV revenue, or any other revenue. I simply think they are in a really tough spot, and faced with a number of options of varying appeal. I very much doubt they are keen to take any major risks with the future of the game, and will likely side with the devil they know, rather than the one they do not.
.