Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

isn't there an issue attracting support for new, made up teams?

Sometimes yes.

Sometimes no.

On balance, I would say no.

I'm imagining a comp with the best four (or so) from the shute shield, the best 3 (or so) from the brisbane comp, the force, the rising and the vikings.

Rising: 2014
Force: 2006
Vikings: 1999

When does a new team stop being new - is it five years?

 

[Lorenzo]

I was really thinking about trying to engage the fans of the established Sydney and Brisbane clubs. Clearly, Melbourne doesn't have as many competitive long-established clubs and the same goes for Perth.

The Rams were supposed to represent the sport in the supposed growth area in our most populated city, and they don't exist anymore, so I am going to assume they had some difficulty attracting interest/support.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I was really thinking about trying to engage the fans of the established Sydney and Brisbane clubs. Clearly, Melbourne doesn't have as many competitive long-established clubs and the same goes for Perth.

The Rams were supposed to represent the sport in the supposed growth area in our most populated city, and they don't exist anymore, so I am going to assume they had some difficulty attracting interest/support.

I'm not as familiar with Sydney, but I reckon you're over rating the support base of the Queensland clubs

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

The Rams were supposed to represent the sport in the supposed growth area in our most populated city, and they don't exist anymore, so I am going to assume they had some difficulty attracting interest/support.

I would question a few things about this statement.

I guess my post was really about how to generate interest in a comp that sits below the comp in which the tahs, brumbies, reds and rebels participate. I.e how to create an NRC in which people are genuinely interested.

Probably best to find an NRC thread. They're short of posters and posts!

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/co...nwards-and-upwards.16186/page-59#post-1030579

I will add one comment: The topic is at least 5 years old, if not 12, … or 25 … and has just about moved on from Shute clubs playing nationally.

Just about (although not quite).

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would think that last weekend's NRC showed a quality and entertainment level that meets those key criteria. Noting that this is without the involvement of the Wallaby squad. You would also hope that over time the quality actually increases.

Dru, the Vikings, Qld Country and Rising teams all had a largish sprinkling of professional Super Rugby players. It is the likelihood that a large portion of those players will move to greener pastures overseas, as there will be less money available to pay so many contracts, that works against the domestic only competition remaining at an acceptable standard.

 

[dru]

Dru, the Vikings, Qld Country and Rising teams all had a largish sprinkling of professional Super Rugby players. It is the likelihood that a large portion of those players will move to greener pastures overseas, as there will be less money available to pay so many contracts, that works against the domestic only competition remaining at an acceptable standard.

What makes them more likely to leave with a domestic comp over the current debacle? Nor do I think it necessary for the earnings to be lessened. Comp income opportunities are expanded, c/f the natural shrinkage where we head.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Well, that's where our opinions differ. IMO a fully domestic comp will not attract the sponsorship or tv dollars that the ARU presently get. And not by a long shot again imo. So I'd expect the number of players on contract will diminish substantially and those contracts will contract in value significantly, so I really expect a whole lot of Super Rugby players who are facing loss of income and who don't see themselves in the Wallabies straight away, will be heading overseas. And. longer term, with fewer quality players available, the Wallabies will continue to slide down the rankings and that will itself reduce the income they derive for the ARU through reduced sponsorship and smaller crowds.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What makes them more likely to leave with a domestic comp over the current debacle? Nor do I think it necessary for the earnings to be lessened. Comp income opportunities are expanded, c/f the natural shrinkage where we head.

Earnings have to increase - there are more.players to pay

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

Earnings have to increase - there are more.players to pay

Depends on the model of the comp.

Well, that's where our opinions differ. IMO a fully domestic comp will not attract the sponsorship or tv dollars that the ARU presently get.

What sponsorship is there now?

 

[dru]

Depends on the model of the comp.


What sponsorship is there now?

Yep.

Strewth, the only given is that under Super earnings will be on a decline. Firstly look to Super and how they will gain income. It just doesn't stack up.

In order to attract broadcast $ (and fans) we need more content. That is content in Aus prime times. The $ from the Wallabies are the largest earner for now, but perhaps we can gain more opportunity through our main comp. It's not being offered in Super.

AND you should have savings from dropping the tour around the world thing that is Super Rugby.

 

[Gnostic]

Is it not the case that Super Rugby is at best a break even prospect and it is propped up by the RC. If that is then the case the RC can prop up the domestic competition whatever that maybe.

Whatever it is the contracted players simply must play more and up and coming players also play more against them so that skills truly develop. That means for me that the current NRC system must be dumped for a real competition that has a decent season length to be a true development competition. At the same time a women's competition should be played at the same time with as many double headers as possible to develop that playing base as well.

 

[Dan54]

Have just finished reading a very very good article on ROAR by Geoff Parkes on how he think ARU should go forward, found it probably the best and most interesting ideas etc so far. Well worth a read, though I suspect a few may just ignore it because they have rightly made up their minds that they have the answer.

 

[hoggy]

Have just finished reading a very very good article on ROAR by Geoff Parkes on how he think ARU should go forward, found it probably the best and most interesting ideas etc so far. Well worth a read, though I suspect a few may just ignore it because they have rightly made up their minds that they have the answer.

Geoff Parkes made up his mind along time ago, he advocates no change he is the ultimate RA apologist. He is the one that will happily ignore any alternatives.

Read the article, exactly what does he advocate, apart from acceptance of the current top down structure and for the lower levels to stop complaining, some amalgamation and a bit of marketing wish list.

 

[dru]

Have just finished reading a very very good article on ROAR by Geoff Parkes on how he think ARU should go forward, found it probably the best and most interesting ideas etc so far. Well worth a read, though I suspect a few may just ignore it because they have rightly made up their minds that they have the answer.

I make a habit of reading alternative view points, there can very much be quality thinking from doing this.

But critical thinking does not cease just because the writing is well done and the writer respected.

If it elects to, Australia can drop out of the rugby arms race and operate a domestic competition on a quasi-professional basis. The cost for doing so would be an exodus of all leading playing talent and IP overseas, going to where they can be paid market value.

When you set a starting premise in an argument you'd normally back up the thinking in order to attempt to reach a common ground between dipoles in the argument. He doesn't. It's just a repeat of a POV. Little is likely to be contributed from this point.

‘does NZ Rugby agree that a trans-Tasman solution works for them?’

Now this is a fundamental question, but for Australian rugby is this quite the question that should be asked? Currently the SANZAR scenario seems to be increasingly addressing Kiwi concerns - which is a good thing if it is balanced with the requirements of the others. Let's start with the basic question does the Super Rugby offered by SANZAR suit Australia?

This discussion must start there. Kiwis can ask there own questions. What we have right now is not working for Australia. Agreement on this seems close enough to accurately call it ubiquitous. RA need to be asking this question loudly within SANZAR and for the discussion to have any merit there must be a logical B Plan under development.

I look forward to the B Plan, which unfortunately (depending on your POV) has largely been taken out of RA hands by Twiggy Forrest. And then let's see the detail in the next Super Rugby plan along with its broadcast and funding arrangements.

But be ready to dust off that B Plan. Few are feeling positive in the likely outcome from SANZAR. I'll take it on it;s merits when it comes.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

So some possibilities

WSR with 8 teams which includes Western Force and Western Sydney Team with heavy Samoa / Tonga representation (PI team possibly based out of Western Sydney)

Super Rugby with 4 oz teams (but would not surprise me if drop down to 3 teams at next deal and one team joins WSR). Major rebranding of Super Rugby (name Super Rugby should be dropped as tarnished brand) and include round robin format of where each team plays each other once.

As much as I accept Super Rugby tarnished I also accept that the short to medium term we almost have to do a South Africa model of having a foot in both camps. Who knows maybe longer term WSR/super rugby can merge into some sort of conference system with Champions League format attached.

Both competitions played over 14 weeks. Teams involve then morph off / involved in other competitions. For NZ mitre 10, SA Currie Cup and Japan Top league and other oz / Asia Pacific Sides NRC. Argentina - ok what about them - maybe join MLR teams.....who cares.

Is this the model RA and Twiggy trying to move to....you would have to think something like this....sure the above unlikely to be the perfect new model but perhaps looking for something like this?

Anyhow eagerly awaiting to see developments unfold as we will see some changes but we all just don't know how co-ordinated they will be (e.g. WSR, Super Rugby, NRC etc)

 

[sunnyboys]

Yes Parkes is a believer that only the current competitions can maintain the current revenue provided by broadcast deals. He strongly believes there is no other option.

Its very hard to argue a way forward once that 'truth' has been stated.

 

[ForceFan]

Clearly, Melbourne doesn't have as many competitive long-established clubs and the same goes for Perth.

Re Perth's long-established clubs:
Cottesloe 1893
Perth 1906
UWA 1929
Wests 1930
Palmyra 1933
Nedlands 1934
Associates 1948
Rockingham 1971
Kalamuda 1973
Waneroo 1981

 

[hoggy]

Yes Parkes is a believer that only the current competitions can maintain the current revenue provided by broadcast deals. He strongly believes there is no other option.

Its very hard to argue a way forward once that 'truth' has been stated.

Invariably Parkes always starts his articles with the behemoth that is Northern Hemisphere rugby, a mention of whatever French or English club with the biggest budget and the highest $ figure he can find.

As for Australia he immediately implies that the game here will never, ever, ever be able to go it alone and it is not much more than some backyard amateur get together. It may choose to, if it just wants to be some homeless vagabond walking the streets.

Once the reader accepts this truth and that no other options will ever, ever, be available. He then adopts the middle man sensible lets all get together don't rock the, work together, everything can change but nothing will pied piper approach.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

So some possibilities

WSR with 8 teams which includes Western Force and Western Sydney Team with heavy Samoa / Tonga representation (PI team possibly based out of Western Sydney)

Super Rugby with 4 oz teams (but would not surprise me if drop down to 3 teams at next deal and one team joins WSR). Major rebranding of Super Rugby (name Super Rugby should be dropped as tarnished brand) and include round robin format of where each team plays each other once.

As much as I accept Super Rugby tarnished I also accept that the short to medium term we almost have to do a South Africa model of having a foot in both camps. Who knows maybe longer term WSR/super rugby can merge into some sort of conference system with Champions League format attached.

Both competitions played over 14 weeks. Teams involve then morph off / involved in other competitions. For NZ mitre 10, SA Currie Cup and Japan Top league and other oz / Asia Pacific Sides NRC. Argentina - ok what about them - maybe join MLR teams...who cares.

Is this the model RA and Twiggy trying to move to..you would have to think something like this..sure the above unlikely to be the perfect new model but perhaps looking for something like this?

Anyhow eagerly awaiting to see developments unfold as we will see some changes but we all just don't know how co-ordinated they will be (e.g. WSR, Super Rugby, NRC etc)

It would really all come down to what Sth Africa does in the short to medium term. I know the Pro 14 want more SA teams and SA are interested in supplying them. They keep saying it could be in the form of the Griquas and Pumas but I have a hard time seeing Pro 14 being all that willing to accept anything less than the Super Rugby franchises. The Sharks are already known to be keen on the move.

Personally, I'd actually prefer the Super Rugby/WSR split with 8 teams a piece and some kind of knockout Championship format mixed in. Open borders in terms of recruitment between the two. Heaps more content. All in friendly time zones. The biggest issue is Argentina but they will have the LSR to develop talent (they'll have two teams themselves and are expected to bolster a number of the other franchises) and it could be argued that they could look to join Pro 14 themselves or return to actively selecting from European based teams. I should note that the LSR isn't being set up as a purely developmental competition. Those behind it have every intent in developing it into a fully fledged professional league in time.

 

[sunnyboys]

my news is that Fox has no appetite to offer more money for the next broadcast deal. and that this is similar for SA and NZ.

Viewing numbers in Oz really declined over the 5 years of the current deal. I cant see why Fox would feel obliged to up the ante on money offered.

internationally we are see a real peak in terms of deal sizes for TV rights. the predicted influx of streaming platforms and large digital corporations like youtube, facebook, etc hasnt really materialised yet.
however, it has been the growth in the international rights sold by SANZAAR that has increased revenue in the most recent TV deals. It will be interesting to see if that trend continues.

But coming back to Super Rugby. the biggest problem with debating what the future of Super Rugby could be, is the lack of transparency of how the broadcast deals are split between Tests and Super Rugby. There are only rare comments made by executives over the years to go on.

As stated a few posts back, the talk has always been that it was Test rugby that delivered to bulk of the value to broadcasters.

If this is true, it means 2 things. firstly, why would RA bother thinking too hard about getting Super Rugby right if its Tests that actually bring the dollars in door. its just wasted energy for no financial reward. secondly, if Super Rugby doesn't provide value (only content) then RA should feel free to explore new ideas (not something we always see from them).

If the first point is true, you can see why RA looks at Super Rugby purely as a vehicle to get our players ready for Tests. There is a tipping point here when Super Rugby is no longer producing Test ready players to support that Test derived revenue.

On the second point, I think there is a tipping point when Super Rugby fan engagement will start to spread and impact Test fan engagement. That is the critical point when RA will need to act. If Super Rugby is seen to be losing fans from both Super Rugby AND Tests, then they will be forced to act, as the bulk of the broadcast deal will now be at risk.

Some would argue both of those points have already been reached. Some believe any change would just take us well past those tipping points with no hope of reversing trends in fan engagement or player performance.

I guess we will know in November what RA's thoughts on all this are....