Where to for Super Rugby?

[Wilson]

Sunwolves set to be cut by the end of the week:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QqQIIOygBMAM&usg=AOvVaw2q3yJqo6jyb-0OF2byxATo

All to appease South Africa it seems. Just burn it all down and start again.

 

[Dctarget]

Jesus, what an absolute clusterfuck. SA need to be told to shove it. Hope the moonpuppies, who I've really started to like, go join GRR and have some success.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Sunwolves set to be cut by the end of the week:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QqQIIOygBMAM&usg=AOvVaw2q3yJqo6jyb-0OF2byxATo

All to appease South Africa it seems. Just burn it all down and start again.

Fuck me.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Jesus, what an absolute clusterfuck. SA need to be told to shove it. Hope the moonpuppies, who I've really started to like, go join GRR and have some success.

Yep. If I were GRR I'd be on the phone with them right now with an open invitation.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Okay. So with this shit show continuing all to appease external parties it's about time we looked to suit ourselves as well. We need to look at expanding our competitive offerings in my opinion. Stay in Super Rugby but also look at setting up something with GRR post both competitions involving our the current 4 Super Rugby franchises. The Force, Fiji, Samoan and if the Sunwolves move across to GRR the Sunwolves.

 

[wamberal]

Appeasing the external parties is necessary to preserve some of our revenue, unfortunately. It would be a brave chap who cut that particular umbilical cord.

 

[RebelYell]

Yep. If I were GRR I'd be on the phone with them right now with an open invitation.

And if I were the Brumbies, Reds, Rebels or Waratahs, I'd be on the phone to GRR exploring my options.

13 home games every two years, only 8 of which are against Trans-Tasman opposition, is not commercially viable.

 

[Rebels3]

Rugby is obviously in a state of evolution, the past couple of weeks might be concerning but it could also be revolutionary. In a strange way I think the concerns are creating the structure that is needed to be sustainable. It’ll take a another couple of years of bizarreness and strange decisions but it’ll get there, it’s just the decision makers aren’t seeing the obvious in front of them until it slaps them in the face.

Personally I think the next thing that will get the chop or diminish to an amateur level will be the national club comps. The NPC and NRC won’t be around in their current form in 10yrs time. The current rumors are suggesting a 13 game super season which means the Tahs for example will play less than 50% of the matches on offer than their European counterparts. There is no way that’s sustainable to be competitive in the market for players, or appealing enough to attract sponsors, hence why I think the domestic comps will eventually be sacrificed for a longer professional offering. Which could lead to possibly Aus and NZ going it alone and SAF moving either North or falling back into a Currie Cup offering only, with trying to push the larger piece of the pie they are offering into that instead of sharing it with others.

 

[Braveheart81]

Do the NPC and NRC have the opportunity to expand into a longer, more meaningful competition starting in July if Super Rugby is finishing for the new July test window?

It isn't feasible to run Super Rugby through the July tests and Rugby Championship because there aren't enough teams to spread the test players out. The squads would need to be way larger (uneconomic) or the drop off in standard would be too great if you continued without all the test squad as they do in the Northern Hemisphere.

Ultimately we may need to expand whatever competition the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels are playing in to a 20+ game season that does run through some of the test season.

 

[Rebels3]

And if I were the Brumbies, Reds, Rebels or Waratahs, I'd be on the phone to GRR exploring my options.

13 home games every two years, only 8 of which are against Trans-Tasman opposition, is not commercially viable.

As a paying member I would be very disappointed if my offering (which is already dramatically less than I can engage with with other sports) is reduced any more. It’s almost reaching exhibition level. I’d almost have more chances to see Nadal or Federer play a tennis match in Melbourne than the Rebels over the year.

 

[Jamie]

This is The Australian article, it mentions South African fans voting with their feet, well I am going to do exactly that. I much rather see the Sunwolves than the Jaguares so I'm not attending that game

It is understood SANZAAR has resolved to jettison Japanese team the Sunwolves from Super Rugby, but the implications for the four Australian franchises could also be dire.
No announcement has been made by SANZAAR, although Japanese sources are expecting the news to be delivered in a phone hook-up later this week.
Japan had been asked to provide a financial guarantee it would pay its way in Super Rugby but was not in a position to do so.
READ NEXT

• 
  
  Ferrari too dear? Try a Superkart
  JOHN CONNOLLY

A spokesperson for the Sunwolves said, while the club could commit to some of the clauses in the agreement, some it could not.
In particular, it objected to being asked to pay a Super Rugby participation fee, which is asked of no other franchise.
The decision to cull the Sunwolves is one South Africa has been openly advocating. It has made no secret its broadcaster does not want to put the Sunwolves to air, its teams do not want to travel to Tokyo, Singapore or Hong Kong to play them and South African fans have voted with their feet and stayed away from Sunwolves matches.
Australia, equally, has made no secret of the fact it supports the Sunwolves’ retention, which makes the SANZAAR decision another slap in the face for a country which once swayed not only SANZAAR but world rugby.
Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle is on a tour around the franchises alerting them of SANZAAR’s intentions regarding the Japanese side, but it is understood she has been met with a fairly cool reception.
Not only are the clubs openly questioning the long-term strategy of cutting Japan at a time when it is becoming increasingly significant from a rugby economics perspective, but there is the more pressing matter that reducing Super Rugby to a 14-team competition could jeopardise the survival of all Australian clubs.
While it will mean a return to a round robin competition, with every team playing every other side — which does restore financial integrity to Super Rugby — it also means each franchise will play only 13 regular home games over a two-year period, seven one season, six the next.
That’s a crippling blow to clubs that are barely surviving on the current diet of eight home matches per season and eight away.
The Queensland Reds last week indicated they will report a $1.09 million loss, admittedly attributable to a rogue sponsor, and the other franchises were taking the view that cutting back Super Rugby to just 13 matches in a regular season could be catastrophic.
Castle is believed to have told the Australian teams any shortfall in revenue can be made up by a bigger cut of a larger broadcast pie, which is a direct pointer to the fact Australia and SANZAAR believe World Rugby will succeed in its plans to get the Nations Championship up and running.
Whether that belief is misplaced will soon become evident, with the rugby world sitting patiently while the European nations decide by the end of the month if they will put their own wealth and prosperity ahead of salvation of the world game.
If the Six Nations members opt to sell 30 per cent of their competition to the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, it would be giving the metaphorical middle finger to every other rugby nation.
The major southern hemisphere powers would soldier on as always, playing the Rugby Championship, but what so far has not been explained is what the impact would be on tier two countries such as Japan and the Pacific island nations.
Without World Rugby funding, it would be a brave move for SANZAAR to push ahead with its plans to admit Japan and Fiji.
If the Six Nations effectively decide to go it alone, what becomes of plans to create a pathway for tier two and three nations to share the wealth through promotion and relegation?
While Australia and other SANZAAR nations are sifting through the wreckage of their bold 2016 plan to expand Super Rugby to 18 teams, Japan is still waiting on official word, though it has been preparing itself for several weeks.
Indications are SANZAAR delegates have eased their conscience over dropping the Sunwolves from Super Rugby by the World Rugby plan to promote Japan to the Rugby Championship and ultimately the Nations Championship.
However, it is bewildering the world body would stand by and allow a nation to achieve Test status and then simultaneously be robbed of the chance to be competitive by being dropped from the competition designed to prepare players for Test level rugby.

 

[Rebels3]

I think a better result would to do that with an SA game. It’s not the Arg’s that are trying to kick them out but on saying that the only loser in that scenario is the Aus teams

 

[Jamie]

Yeah I guess so, I'm just pissed off at the moment, I really like the Sunwolves - Love their fans and what they bring to the comp

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Appeasing the external parties is necessary to preserve some of our revenue, unfortunately. It would be a brave chap who cut that particular umbilical cord.

And that would be fine if it were a give and take situation. But it's been all give from us and take from them. We've already cut one team in the Force and now despite our objections it's likely the Sunwolves are heading for the scrapheap. It was ridiculous in 2017 now it's beyond a joke. I'd rather we at least tried something different and died on our feet than continue to take it up the jacksy and die on our knee's.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

And if I were the Brumbies, Reds, Rebels or Waratahs, I'd be on the phone to GRR exploring my options.

13 home games every two years, only 8 of which are against Trans-Tasman opposition, is not commercially viable.

Then there's that. Are the franchises bound to go with RA's position or are they capable of making their own decisions? I understand there's a funding model in place but RA are as vulnerable to them leaving and they are to staying at this point.

 

[Braveheart81]

And that would be fine if it were a give and take situation. But it's been all give from us and take from them. We've already cut one team in the Force and now despite our objections it's likely the Sunwolves are heading for the scrapheap. It was ridiculous in 2017 now it's beyond a joke. I'd rather we at least tried something different and died on our feet than continue to take it up the jacksy and die on our knee's.

Next year is the last year of the current deal. Presumably we are better off going with the flow next year whilst making our voice heard that we would have preferred to retain the Sunwolves than choosing that as our hill to die on.

Hopefully it puts us in a better bargaining position for whatever the potential outcomes from 2021 onwards are.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Next year is the last year of the current deal. Presumably we are better off going with the flow next year whilst making our voice heard that we would have preferred to retain the Sunwolves than choosing that as our hill to die on.

Hopefully it puts us in a better bargaining position for whatever the potential outcomes from 2021 onwards are.

What makes you think that will be the case? Even if we had something to bargain with we're dealing with two hostile partners who have no interest in hearing out our concerns on any issue.

 

[Rebels3]

I mentioned this a long time ago, but should we look back at having a Super Rugby competition (13 games + finals), then scrapping the NRC and having a 5/6 team (Tahs, Brums, Rebs, Reds, Force, Fiji) in a domestic 10 round competition after its finished.

There would be weeks where wallabies players wouldn’t be involved (so gives plenty of opportunity to youngsters like the NRC does) but it would allow a product with recognizable brands to sell to TV and the fans plus longer levels of visibility for brands to associate themselves with the Reds, Rebels etc. and clubs to sell more content to fans to get engaged with. Surely this would derive more cash from Fox or maybe even a product to put on FTA, than currently is on offer etc. ino id rather pay and watch another 4/5 games under the Rebels brand than a composite Rebels team under a completely different moniker

 

[Rebels3]

What makes you think that will be the case? Even if we had something to bargain with we're dealing with two hostile partners who have no interest in hearing out our concerns on any issue.

I think NZ and Aus ideals are becoming more aligned. There is plenty they don’t agree on but it’s just the impression I get that they are more aligned now with RA than this time last year.

Both have been some of the loudest supporters of the world league but SA has been very quiet (obviously they support it under SANZAAR), both vocal about retaining Sunwolves, both willingness to retain Bledisloe 2nd fixture over a second NZ/SA fixture, etc. I just think the wheel is slowly turning with collaboration between the two, a lot to still go to work it completely out together.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I mentioned this a long time ago, but should we look back at having a Super Rugby competition (13 games + finals), then scrapping the NRC and having a 5/6 team (Tahs, Brums, Rebs, Reds, Force, Fiji) in a domestic 10 round competition after its finished.

There would be weeks where wallabies players wouldn’t be involved (so gives plenty of opportunity to youngsters like the NRC does) but it would allow a product with recognizable brands to sell to TV and the fans plus longer levels of visibility for brands to associate themselves with the Reds, Rebels etc. and clubs to sell more content to fans to get engaged with. Surely this would derive more cash from Fox or maybe even a product to put on FTA, than currently is on offer etc. ino id rather pay and watch another 4/5 games under the Rebels brand than a composite Rebels team under a completely different moniker

I've been pushing something fairly similar. The 4 Super Rugby franchises combine with the Force, Fiji, Samoa and if the Sunwolves are cut and find their way to GRR them in a re-worked NRC. Either run it as a straight 7 weeks plus finals or a ten game schedule with teams playing three teams twice and the other four just once on a rotating schedule year on year plus a four team finals series.

It may not draw in as much as Super Rugby regarding dollars but we've seen that so far this season the games involving Aus teams (and I'm including the Sunwolves in this) have drawn far above that of other games.