• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jamie

Watty Friend (18)
Indeed,

I started watching a Big Little Lies on Foxtel with my wife, but she has so many options now Hayou (?) Stan, Netflix etc, so she is not to bothered if we cut it off, even YouTube has some good shows. But Rugby? nowhere to go but Foxtel/Kayo and they would know this, I love Super Rugby but you also get the internationals, Premierships, Top 14, NRC, Currie and NPC. Lots of value.

Again if there is a another options our $$ will go there, we know that the days of big sport broadcasting contracts are coming to an end, it started in the US a couple of years ago with networks paying way too much for sport and commentators (Ex NBA players for instance), there was quite an interesting article about this last year, I'll see if I can find the link.
 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
I've taken out a Kayo sub for the rugby alone and love it. There are a couple of other matches that I'll stream opportunistically, but if rugby wasn't there fox wouldn't be getting a cent

I only subscribe for the rugby.

I've got a deal with Telstra nbn for $44 and includes drama. Only got to episode 2 of GOT though. The brother sister thing put me off it.

Currently watching Chernobyl. That is a high quality production, just riveting.
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
^^^^

Hoggy, on the issue of looking at the options. I understand some don’t like me doing this, but but but tis important to at least understand what others are doing and this is a small collection. I do understand all these things will fail and we rugby folk can point out the folly of these codes for doing what they are doing. Tis work a gander tho…

A couple of days ago, Basketball announced it was in serious talks with the Tasmania government about putting a team in Tasmania. Further buying or taking a long term lease on the Derwent Entertainment Centre.

Just on Basketball they are also recruiting a number of players from USA High school that would have gone on to college to the Australian league.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-18/purchase-of-the-dec-to-get-tasmanian-nbl-team/11222566

Peter Beatie, is talking about a new team in Brisbane

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...3/news-story/49d6f8f23179bc0dabb15ac8447b2747

Soccer has issued a detailed white paper on over time creating a second division, with promotion and regulation and expanding the A-League. More importantly is the promotion and regulation will start below the A-League first opens up the entire country. Yes it will take years to be fully operational but they plan to start by 2021.
https://www.ffa.com.au/news/australian-football-working-towards-national-second-division-2021


 

ForceFan

Chilla Wilson (44)
Super Rugby:
Time for RA to go it alone (On-line version)
Super Rugby has had its time; Australia's feuture is specifically in the Pacific (Weekend Australian version)
Wayne Smith - The Australia - 22 June 2019
(Wayne appears to have rediscovered his mojo)​
Christmas did not come early for Rugby Australia. In fact, at the risk of going biblical, it’s about
to embark on the season of Lent, and it may last considerably longer than the customary 40
days.
Had World Rugby been able to deliver on its promised Nations Championship, there would
have been presents under the tree for everyone. In years to come, one wonders how history
will record the actions of Italy, Ireland and Scotland. Did they save the credibility of the Six
Nations championships by vetoing the mooted $9.2 billion Nations tournament or did they set
back the game’s global development a decade or more by opposing the idea of promotionrelegation?
No doubt, they had only the best in mind for rugby when they made their decision.
It’s only natural when a good idea gets shot down in flames for everyone to give all the reasons
why it wouldn’t have flown in the first place.
The truth is that RA, while comprehensively behind it in a general sense, did have
reservations. It’s all very well bringing Japan and Fiji into The Rugby Championship but when
it means one fewer Test and Japan and Fiji taking the place of return internationals against the
All Blacks and Springboks, one can appreciate why RA had concerns.
At some point in time, however, SANZAAR had to pluck up the courage to open the door to
Tier Two nations and certainly this seemed the perfect vehicle to drive that specific change —
especially if the payback was several million dollars extra every year.
Now, of course, it is coming to the surface that the northern hemisphere wanted the larger
share of the pie, so the intention from very near the start was that the southern hemisphere
would get screwed. And then World Rugby was in such a haste to get the project approved
that it attempted to bulldoze real negotiations around the table.
So, naturally, everyone is now saying “See, I told you it wouldn’t work”, and washing their
hands of the whole thing. The media has picked up the chant that, without these untold —
and as it happens, unseen — millions, Australian rugby is doomed, doomed, doomed.
The only trouble is that nothing has changed. RA is in precisely the same position now as it
was before Gus Pichot, the World Rugby deputy chairman, came up with the idea in the first
place. Its financial position is precisely where it was before the mooted tournament, which is
to say dire.
Then again, that’s been the position of the governing body in this sport ever since the days
when the dogmatic doctor, Mark Loane, was offering free on-field medical treatment to any of
his teammates who happened to suffer a dislocated finger.
It was surprising how many fled to the sideline rather than submit themselves to Loane’s
tender mercies. “This is going to hurt you far more than it’s going to hurt me,” he would say,
just before snapping the offending finger back into position.
Still, one wonders whether now is the time for RA to stand its ground and take some pain to
get its competitive season back into working order.
RA boss Raelene Castle insists that Super Rugby is the way to go. It’s not. At least not in the
guise of the present 15-a-side competition in which each side bypasses a match against one
team in each of the two other conferences. What difference would it have made, for instance,
if these matches hadn’t been skipped — Brumbies: Sharks (who finished sixth) and
Highlanders (8th); the Rebels: Jaguares (3rd), Blues (13th); the Tahs: Stormers (10th) and Chiefs
(7th); the Reds: Lions (9th) and the Hurricanes (2nd)?
Even when they do away with the conference system in 2021 and revert to a round-robin
competition, it won’t solve all problems because it means that one year a franchise will play
seven home games but only six in the next, compared to the current 8-8. If people think that
the loss of home matches won’t hurt the bottom lines of their four franchises, they haven’t
been paying attention.
No doubt the calendar can be filled, with a State of Origin series between NSW and
Queensland capable of attracting a lot of spectators tired of watching homegrown footballers
playing for someone else, but still a lot of promotion would have to go into the concept.
Speaking of which, that’s one thing RA and the various states don’t do anymore — pre-match
entertainment. Even something as modest as the Samoan dancers appearing before the
Western Force-Kagifa Samoa Global Rapid Rugby match at Ballymore last Saturday caught the
eye because it has become so unusual. But merely tarting up the same old program yet playing
matches at 1.30am against the team from Pretoria — who are they again? — has little appeal.
It may be that Super Rugby has had its moment in history. In the years following South Africa’s
return to international competition — the Nelson Mandela era — South Africa was unknown,
unfamiliar but exciting. Sadly, today, South African teams are still unknown but no longer
exciting, even if they do play more enterprising rugby.
What would have happened, one wonders, had the game gone professional at a time when
South Africa was still banned? What format would Super Rugby have followed then?
Almost certainly the pre-existing Super Six — comprising NSW, Queensland, Canterbury,
Auckland, Wellington and Fiji — would have been expanded. The Brumbies would probably
have been added, so too Southland-Otago and Waikato and perhaps Tonga and Samoa. In
other words, the same time-zone friendly, trans-Tasman competition that is being mooted
today.
SANZAAR talks about biting the bullet in terms of bringing Japan and Fiji into The Rugby
Championship.
No doubt it would take a financial hit to do that, at least until Japanese broadcasting rights
cotton on to the fact they’re playing in a regular Tier One competition and start paying
accordingly. Well, SANZAAR may need to take a hit with Super Rugby as well.
Send South Africa on its way to Europe — how long before the Springboks join the Six
Nations, anyway? — budget for the hit in broadcast revenue following SA’s withdrawal and
ramp up the trans-Tasman rivalry.
It seems inevitable. And it can’t wait until the end of another five-year broadcast deal.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Super Rugby:
Time for RA to go it alone (On-line version)
Super Rugby has had its time; Australia's feuture is specifically in the Pacific (Weekend Australian version)
Wayne Smith - The Australia - 22 June 2019
(Wayne appears to have rediscovered his mojo)​
Christmas did not come early for Rugby Australia. In fact, at the risk of going biblical, it’s about
to embark on the season of Lent, and it may last considerably longer than the customary 40
days.
Had World Rugby been able to deliver on its promised Nations Championship, there would
have been presents under the tree for everyone. In years to come, one wonders how history
will record the actions of Italy, Ireland and Scotland. Did they save the credibility of the Six
Nations championships by vetoing the mooted $9.2 billion Nations tournament or did they set
back the game’s global development a decade or more by opposing the idea of promotionrelegation?
No doubt, they had only the best in mind for rugby when they made their decision.
It’s only natural when a good idea gets shot down in flames for everyone to give all the reasons
why it wouldn’t have flown in the first place.
The truth is that RA, while comprehensively behind it in a general sense, did have
reservations. It’s all very well bringing Japan and Fiji into The Rugby Championship but when
it means one fewer Test and Japan and Fiji taking the place of return internationals against the
All Blacks and Springboks, one can appreciate why RA had concerns.
At some point in time, however, SANZAAR had to pluck up the courage to open the door to
Tier Two nations and certainly this seemed the perfect vehicle to drive that specific change —
especially if the payback was several million dollars extra every year.
Now, of course, it is coming to the surface that the northern hemisphere wanted the larger
share of the pie, so the intention from very near the start was that the southern hemisphere
would get screwed. And then World Rugby was in such a haste to get the project approved
that it attempted to bulldoze real negotiations around the table.
So, naturally, everyone is now saying “See, I told you it wouldn’t work”, and washing their
hands of the whole thing. The media has picked up the chant that, without these untold —
and as it happens, unseen — millions, Australian rugby is doomed, doomed, doomed.
The only trouble is that nothing has changed. RA is in precisely the same position now as it
was before Gus Pichot, the World Rugby deputy chairman, came up with the idea in the first
place. Its financial position is precisely where it was before the mooted tournament, which is
to say dire.
Then again, that’s been the position of the governing body in this sport ever since the days
when the dogmatic doctor, Mark Loane, was offering free on-field medical treatment to any of
his teammates who happened to suffer a dislocated finger.
It was surprising how many fled to the sideline rather than submit themselves to Loane’s
tender mercies. “This is going to hurt you far more than it’s going to hurt me,” he would say,
just before snapping the offending finger back into position.
Still, one wonders whether now is the time for RA to stand its ground and take some pain to
get its competitive season back into working order.
RA boss Raelene Castle insists that Super Rugby is the way to go. It’s not. At least not in the
guise of the present 15-a-side competition in which each side bypasses a match against one
team in each of the two other conferences. What difference would it have made, for instance,
if these matches hadn’t been skipped — Brumbies: Sharks (who finished sixth) and
Highlanders (8th); the Rebels: Jaguares (3rd), Blues (13th); the Tahs: Stormers (10th) and Chiefs
(7th); the Reds: Lions (9th) and the Hurricanes (2nd)?
Even when they do away with the conference system in 2021 and revert to a round-robin
competition, it won’t solve all problems because it means that one year a franchise will play
seven home games but only six in the next, compared to the current 8-8. If people think that
the loss of home matches won’t hurt the bottom lines of their four franchises, they haven’t
been paying attention.
No doubt the calendar can be filled, with a State of Origin series between NSW and
Queensland capable of attracting a lot of spectators tired of watching homegrown footballers
playing for someone else, but still a lot of promotion would have to go into the concept.
Speaking of which, that’s one thing RA and the various states don’t do anymore — pre-match
entertainment. Even something as modest as the Samoan dancers appearing before the
Western Force-Kagifa Samoa Global Rapid Rugby match at Ballymore last Saturday caught the
eye because it has become so unusual. But merely tarting up the same old program yet playing
matches at 1.30am against the team from Pretoria — who are they again? — has little appeal.
It may be that Super Rugby has had its moment in history. In the years following South Africa’s
return to international competition — the Nelson Mandela era — South Africa was unknown,
unfamiliar but exciting. Sadly, today, South African teams are still unknown but no longer
exciting, even if they do play more enterprising rugby.
What would have happened, one wonders, had the game gone professional at a time when
South Africa was still banned? What format would Super Rugby have followed then?
Almost certainly the pre-existing Super Six — comprising NSW, Queensland, Canterbury,
Auckland, Wellington and Fiji — would have been expanded. The Brumbies would probably
have been added, so too Southland-Otago and Waikato and perhaps Tonga and Samoa. In
other words, the same time-zone friendly, trans-Tasman competition that is being mooted
today.
SANZAAR talks about biting the bullet in terms of bringing Japan and Fiji into The Rugby
Championship.
No doubt it would take a financial hit to do that, at least until Japanese broadcasting rights
cotton on to the fact they’re playing in a regular Tier One competition and start paying
accordingly. Well, SANZAAR may need to take a hit with Super Rugby as well.
Send South Africa on its way to Europe — how long before the Springboks join the Six
Nations, anyway? — budget for the hit in broadcast revenue following SA’s withdrawal and
ramp up the trans-Tasman rivalry.
It seems inevitable. And it can’t wait until the end of another five-year broadcast deal.

The ratings would suggest that this would be the better option. Even with just the 9 teams in Super Rugby it would work out better. Home and away for 16 games. If they were able to go to 10 - 12 we could get between 18 - 22 games which would be a big improvement.
 
S

Show-n-go

Guest
It’s a no brainer

Tahs
Reds
Brums
Rebels
Force

Saders
Blues
Chiefs
Canes
Landers

Sunwolves
Possibly another Japanese team

Some sort of island involvement whether it be a Fijian and Samoan side or a mixed islands team

I’d probably only do ones round of games to begin with, with a greater emphasis on domestic competitions afterwards IE NRC and Mitre10
 

Benaud

Tom Lawton (22)
I'm a bit out of step with the consensus here. My position before the recent 3 team cull was that it wasn't nearly enough and they needed to cull 6 teams and revert to the Super 12 model that provided the basis for their success and subsequent misguided expansion. The downfall of Australia's domestic teams and the Wallabies can be traced pretty accurately to that first expansion blunder, and exacerbated enormously by the 2nd. And when the teams are hopeless, eventually no one shows up to watch them and everyone loses interest, which means less players coming through, and the situation feeds on itself.

The Jags success is throwing a bit of a spanner in the works on that front but no one watches their games - the time zones were tough enough without them let alone with them. I think ultimately them and the Rebels will have to make way and we'll be back with the same Super 12 lineup that was so successful for a decade in the 90s/2000s. Whether it can return to the success of those days is uncertain but it will increase the competitiveness of the Aussie sides and make for a more even competition, which can't hurt. And it's the only model that has worked in the past.

It may be that Super Rugby has just run its course, but if I was having one last crack at reviving it, that would be my plan. South Africa remain the financial behemoth that keep the thing operational so I can't see excluding them. Australia suffer from a lack of competitive sides and we know from experience that 3 is optimal to rectify that. And the Kiwis don't need to change anything. It's just a shame we ever messed with it in the first place - hopefully the damage isn't irreconcilable.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
^^^ “It may be that Super Rugby has just run it’s course.”

This bit is a commonality for us B. My “answer” is to look to alternate plans forward, which include a domestic comp, and to make sure any decisions create no further issues for those options. It gives a very different answer to cutting more teams in Aus right now. Just don’t do it.

BTW I don’t think there is much consensus beyond “Houston, we have a problem.”
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
I'm a bit out of step with the consensus here. My position before the recent 3 team cull was that it wasn't nearly enough and they needed to cull 6 teams and revert to the Super 12 model that provided the basis for their success and subsequent misguided expansion. The downfall of Australia's domestic teams and the Wallabies can be traced pretty accurately to that first expansion blunder, and exacerbated enormously by the 2nd. And when the teams are hopeless, eventually no one shows up to watch them and everyone loses interest, which means less players coming through, and the situation feeds on itself.

The Jags success is throwing a bit of a spanner in the works on that front but no one watches their games - the time zones were tough enough without them let alone with them. I think ultimately them and the Rebels will have to make way and we'll be back with the same Super 12 lineup that was so successful for a decade in the 90s/2000s. Whether it can return to the success of those days is uncertain but it will increase the competitiveness of the Aussie sides and make for a more even competition, which can't hurt. And it's the only model that has worked in the past.

It may be that Super Rugby has just run its course, but if I was having one last crack at reviving it, that would be my plan. South Africa remain the financial behemoth that keep the thing operational so I can't see excluding them. Australia suffer from a lack of competitive sides and we know from experience that 3 is optimal to rectify that. And the Kiwis don't need to change anything. It's just a shame we ever messed with it in the first place - hopefully the damage isn't irreconcilable.


I've been thinking about something similar. Encourage the SARU to send another team north (there are three who have expressed interest in doing so.) reducing their numbers in Super Rugby to 3. We cut the Rebels as they are a bit of a financial black hole in a market for anything outside the bigger events I cannot see coming to fruition. That would leave both us and SA with 3 a piece while NZ could keep their 5. The Jags could remain to bring it to 12.

From there push for a double round robin format for a total of 22 games plus a 6 team finals series. This would provide us with 33 games in Australia and 48 in friendly time zones. For the record, at present we have 32 (8 homes games each) which will be reduced to 27 under the proposed reversion to to 14 team single round robin.

A 12 team 22 round Super Rugby would actually provide us with increased competitiveness and content.

This would be coupled with an increased centralisation of everything beyond the HP bases in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Below this I would suggest that RA puts forth EOI's for a 10-12 national club competition that will feature a Melbourne based academy squad. Part of the money saved cutting the Rebels would be redirected to help run this squad who will be joined by clubs that fit RA's criteria to compete. The extra funds plus those saved from the centralisation of operations would then be used to contract 10 - 15 full time professionals (ideally something like $50k a contract) that would form the spine of the 10 - 12 teams at that level. These contracts would be season by season and performance based. Providing an extra 100 - 180 professionals underpinning the now 3 Super Rugby squads.

This would provide a higher level of competition than the individual club competitions and would allow for the best U20s, EPS and established club players to develop in more professional environments.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
I've been thinking about something similar. Encourage the SARU to send another team north (there are three who have expressed interest in doing so.) reducing their numbers in Super Rugby to 3. We cut the Rebels as they are a bit of a financial black hole in a market for anything outside the bigger events I cannot see coming to fruition. That would leave both us and SA with 3 a piece while NZ could keep their 5. The Jags could remain to bring it to 12.

From there push for a double round robin format for a total of 22 games plus a 6 team finals series. This would provide us with 33 games in Australia and 48 in friendly time zones. For the record, at present we have 32 (8 homes games each) which will be reduced to 27 under the proposed reversion to to 14 team single round robin.

A 12 team 22 round Super Rugby would actually provide us with increased competitiveness and content.

This would be coupled with an increased centralisation of everything beyond the HP bases in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Below this I would suggest that RA puts forth EOI's for a 10-12 national club competition that will feature a Melbourne based academy squad. Part of the money saved cutting the Rebels would be redirected to help run this squad who will be joined by clubs that fit RA's criteria to compete. The extra funds plus those saved from the centralisation of operations would then be used to contract 10 - 15 full time professionals (ideally something like $50k a contract) that would form the spine of the 10 - 12 teams at that level. These contracts would be season by season and performance based. Providing an extra 100 - 180 professionals underpinning the now 3 Super Rugby squads.

This would provide a higher level of competition than the individual club competitions and would allow for the best U20s, EPS and established club players to develop in more professional environments.

You could push that agenda further and reduce Australia to two teams NSW & QLD, look at a say Super 8, this would then give you the ability to run a domestic competition below this level.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
You could push that agenda further and reduce Australia to two teams NSW & QLD, look at a say Super 8, this would then give you the ability to run a domestic competition below this level.


I was only thinking out loud in regards to what Benaud had put up. I don't actually expect that to ever be a real option. RA have invested too much in the Rebels and won't want to admit defeat. I'd actually prefer we went down the 9 team TT route which could then sort out some kind of post season Cup competition with GRR and the Top League.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
I was only thinking out loud in regards to what Benaud had put up. I don't actually expect that to ever be a real option. RA have invested too much in the Rebels and won't want to admit defeat.

I just wonder whether the RA will have an option, the fact is will the money be there for any of the current Super teams, I was thinking they cobble together a Super 8 version, say 4 NZ 2 SA 2 Aus.(if SA go for that).

This would allow each country to run a genuine domestic competition under this level, while keeping say a core of internationals in each country.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
I just wonder whether the RA will have an option, the fact is will the money be there for any of the current Super teams, I was thinking they cobble together a Super 8 version, say 4 NZ 2 SA 2 Aus.(if SA go for that).

This would allow each country to run a genuine domestic competition under this level, while keeping say a core of internationals in each country.


That's a real possibility. Not having the finances to continue with 4.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
I just wonder whether the RA will have an option, the fact is will the money be there for any of the current Super teams, I was thinking they cobble together a Super 8 version, say 4 NZ 2 SA 2 Aus.(if SA go for that).

This would allow each country to run a genuine domestic competition under this level, while keeping say a core of internationals in each country.

I've been thinking something like this may be inevitable, and could be a reasonable compromise for maintaining elite level rugby in each country, while also adding greater focus on domestic competitions built on tribalism and connection to the grass roots. But I think the Jaguares are more likely to stay involved at least in the short to medium term (if the new South American professional competition takes off this could change).
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
I've been thinking something like this may be inevitable, and could be a reasonable compromise for maintaining elite level rugby in each country, while also adding greater focus on domestic competitions built on tribalism and connection to the grass roots. But I think the Jaguares are more likely to stay involved at least in the short to medium term (if the new South American professional competition takes off this could change).


Could go to 3 teams from SA, NZ and Aus plus the Jaguares. Two pools of 5 home and away for 8 games winner of each pool in the final. Domestic competitions in the first half of the season. Move the RC back and run Super Rugby after the July window. The RC leading into the November window.

Could even include the PI nations in a 12 team competition split into two pools of 6 with everyone playing each other once for 5 games with the top 2 from each pool playing in the final.

Save money from not running these teams as franchises and divert those funds to a national club competition featuring 4 NSW teams, 3/4 QLD, a team from the ACT, and potentially WA dependent on the Force's plans. Instead have these games and Test matches be match payment based.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Would have loved to be a fly on the wall in Raelene castles conversations with twiggy’ team on collaboration between GRR and super rugby and SANZAAR - the rugby landscape needs to change and our future is Asia pacific - what and how not sure to many but the why is definitely clear.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Could go to 3 teams from SA, NZ and Aus plus the Jaguares. Two pools of 5 home and away for 8 games winner of each pool in the final. Domestic competitions in the first half of the season. Move the RC back and run Super Rugby after the July window. The RC leading into the November window.

Could even include the PI nations in a 12 team competition split into two pools of 6 with everyone playing each other once for 5 games with the top 2 from each pool playing in the final.

Save money from not running these teams as franchises and divert those funds to a national club competition featuring 4 NSW teams, 3/4 QLD, a team from the ACT, and potentially WA dependent on the Force's plans. Instead have these games and Test matches be match payment based.


Could be structured with SA focusing more on the Currie Cup and NZ on the ITM Cup with the top 3 from both qualifying or something like that.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Any change will be driven by the broadcasters. RA have shown, once again, that they will go with what is the status quo with a bit of fiddling around the edges. There's no hope whatsoever of RA driving any strategic change. Change will be forced upon them by reality.

As I've pointed out a number a times a sensible approach by RA would be to go to the broadcasters at the start of the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top