Where to for Super Rugby?

[barbarian]

Isn't that Super rugby

I'd imagine the TT comp would be more popular with fans than Super. But I'm interested in this idea that we'd be somehow subservient. What do you mean by that? Like SANZAAR I'd imagine it's an equal partnership. I bloody hate SANZAAR, but I don't see how we're at all subservient in that agreement.

 

[barbarian]

And yes there will be quite a few amateur players running around, playing for not much. - I see this as a good thing and building our player base.

I can't see how this would work in reality. How is a team supposed to train and play to a professional standard if 30% of the squad are working 9-5?

So the pro guys can train, but they can't do full squad opposed work outside of certain times. The reserve hooker is at work so we can't do lineouts until he gets off shift at 4pm. That's no way to operate a top tier sport.

It just leads to lower standard of play, and more people reaching for the remote.

 

[Derpus]

I'd imagine the TT comp would be more popular with fans than Super. But I'm interested in this idea that we'd be somehow subservient. What do you mean by that? Like SANZAAR I'd imagine it's an equal partnership. I bloody hate SANZAAR, but I don't see how we're at all subservient in that agreement.

I suppose he means unofficially we have less leverage than, for example, South Africa because they supposedly pull in a lot of broadcasting money from Europe.

 

[Quick Hands]

RA need to sit down and work out the MOST ACHIEVABLE model that is in the best interests of Australia and try to navigate towards that. It will then come down to negotiation, just like every other commercial situation in the real world. If it can't be negotiated with NZ satisfactorily then fuck em, go it alone.

Depends on whether you're talking about short, medium or long term. The short term sugar hit to get through to BIL 25 is TT. The medium to long term is 100% domestic.

 

[Quick Hands]

But I question whether this is the best long term option for Australian rugby. Perhaps we are better off building a competition that is purely designed to grow rugby in the Australian market. 8-10 teams, cross town rivalries in our biggest markets, more afternoon games, state of origin etc. New teams would have to be funded by private investors, but this may be possible if they have actual control over the teams and the teams have control over the competition. Whatever amount of private investment and revenue such a competition could generate (plus whatever grants RA can afford to give it) would determine the salary cap and thus the playing level. RA could still top up a core group of Wallabies players in order to keep them in Australia, but maybe it's okay to select more of the squad from overseas.

This is what 100% domestic will deliver.

Much more difficult to sell private investment if all or part of the competition falls under the jurisdiction of RA and/or NZRU.

Governing bodies should be focussed on development at junior community level and the national team. Trying to run professional teams and/or professional leagues is best left to entrepreneurs.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I can't see how this would work in reality. How is a team supposed to train and play to a professional standard if 30% of the squad are working 9-5?

So the pro guys can train, but they can't do full squad opposed work outside of certain times. The reserve hooker is at work so we can't do lineouts until he gets off shift at 4pm. That's no way to operate a top tier sport.

It just leads to lower standard of play, and more people reaching for the remote.

Well that is all part of the the big RE-SET.

Perhaps we need to go backwards in order to go forward. Allan Jones Wallabies all had jobs, still played some good footy.

We need to live within our means. If there is actually no money, then no one can get paid until we get the fans back and the stands are full and the subscriptions are paid.

NRC is not Super Rugby it will be a different beast (still should be highly entertaining) But if we want fan engagement, teams that people associate with, regular matches in prime time that will always have an AUS winner, then this is the direction we need to go.

 

[Derpus]

Depends on whether you're talking about short, medium or long term. The short term sugar hit to get through to BIL 25 is TT. The medium to long term is 100% domestic.

I don't see how an Australia only comp will ever be viable - unless the NRL goes bust or some billionaire decides to throw a shitload of cash at founding a comp that would be very high risk at best.

 

[RedsHappy]

Super Rugby: Fox Sports 22 February 2020 (from our GAGR Crowd Nos thread):

Chiefs v Brumbies 56,000
Reds v Sunwolves 49,000
Rebels v Sharks 39,000

I find it interesting to compare the above with Friday's (5pm AEST) Super Rugby NZ:

Highlanders vs Chiefs 42,000

Whilst recognising there will of course be an element of Aussie rugby fans' pent-up demand in those June 12 numbers, I also suspect they show that Kiwi Aust expats are a material part of Foxtel's rugby clan and thus why, should Foxtel come back to support RA in 2021, they will be pushing hard for any new comp to have a NZ rugby component.

EDIT: btw, there's a lot of rugby-mad SA expats in Aust too. They will in part will be lost to Foxtel if SA goes from Super Rugby, but I would imagine they'd more likely hold on to Fox for a pro comp with NZ and Aust in it, than just Aust.

 

[barbarian]

Perhaps we need to go backwards in order to go forward.
.

I worry a domestic comp sends us so far backwards we end up in the sea before we can think about moving forwards.

 

[KOB1987]

Well that is all part of the the big RE-SET.

Perhaps we need to go backwards in order to go forward. Allan Jones Wallabies all had jobs, still played some good footy.

We need to live within our means. If there is actually no money, then no one can get paid until we get the fans back and the stands are full and the subscriptions are paid.

NRC is not Super Rugby it will be a different beast (still should be highly entertaining) But if we want fan engagement, teams that people associate with, regular matches in prime time that will always have an AUS winner, then this is the direction we need to go.

I don't think it's feasible that they would be amateur players. Semi-pro could work, where they have a job/traineeship etc with their employer who is also their sponsor. They might work say 3 days a week and train with the squad the other two. As they are only semi-pro they are more than likely to be the blokes left out of the 23, but called in due to short term injuries etc. There would be an agreement with their employer/sponsor that in these cases rugby takes precedent and they join the squad full time. It's entirely workable and many big corporations have arrangements like this with students, it's just a variant of that.

 

[RedsHappy]

I worry a domestic comp sends us so far backwards we end up in the sea before we can think about moving forwards.

Media income is CRITICAL for RA in 2021+ (please someone tell me why that is wrong). We are bankrupt without it. PE will not invest in any pro sports comp without a viable media $s component of some kind (be it traditional TV or streaming or both).

If a domestic only Aust pro comp was viable NOW (as distinct from 'by positive evolution in later years perhaps', which is a different topic), three things would need to be true:

1. The viewership and attendance at all-Aust Super games in 2019 and early 2020 would need to be really good and very, very markedly ahead of games with only 1 Australian team

2. At least 6+ Aust dom teams would be needed and at least 4 at a reasonable standard of entertaining and often-winning (by skill not just by default to an all-Aust teams bias) rugby (this year we had 1 more or less)

3. Media buyers would need to be absolutely convinced that the loss of Kiwis in local crowd and viewership would not represent a yet further serious step-down in viewership and, related, advertising budgets for rugby on Pay or FTA TV.

 

[Derpus]

None of those things will be the case. I don't see how 6 teams is enough for a comp, either. Not really. I'd have thought 10 was about the minimum.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Not opposed to this in concept, but QH does make a good point re the Qld and NSW sides. To have some tribalism they need to have some geographic identity - so Qld city would be the Brisbane Reds, and the other team needs to be Sunshine Coast, or Darling Downs or whatever is deemed most appropriate. Similarly NSW city would be the Sydney Waratahs and the other team Western Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast or whatever. However, I do think all the country zones should be affiliated with these second teams.

Yeah, I'm not too fussed at that level. Broad concept is split QLD & NSW both into 2 teams - call them what you like.

My preference would be stick to city and country. I'll support the 2nd NSW team, be it Country or Newcastle or Western Sydney or the Norther Beaches Buffalos

 

[The Honey Badger]

I don't see how any Australia only comp will ever be viable -

FIFY

 

[The Honey Badger]

I worry a domestic comp sends us so far backwards we end up in the sea before we can think about moving forwards.

If you hadn't noticed we already have wet feet, could be drowning

 

[The Honey Badger]

I don't think it's feasible that they would be amateur players. Semi-pro could work, where they have a job/traineeship etc with their employer who is also their sponsor. They might work say 3 days a week and train with the squad the other two. As they are only semi-pro they are more than likely to be the blokes left out of the 23, but called in due to short term injuries etc. There would be an agreement with their employer/sponsor that in these cases rugby takes precedent and they join the squad full time. It's entirely workable and many big corporations have arrangements like this with students, it's just a variant of that.

Agreed, that would be ideal

 

[RedsHappy]

None of those things will be the case. I don't see how 6 teams is enough for a comp, either. Not really. I'd have thought 10 was about the minimum.

I tend to agree mate. 6 the absolute min and I think in reality you are closer to the mark. And then we are back to manufacturing synthetic teams to make the numbers and, as I have said before, our history on that front makes such a ploy super high risk esp when the teams we do have today are, mostly, not playing a high standard of rugby.

 

[Pone's Mullet]

Well that is all part of the the big RE-SET.

Perhaps we need to go backwards in order to go forward. Allan Jones Wallabies all had jobs, still played some good footy.

We need to live within our means. If there is actually no money, then no one can get paid until we get the fans back and the stands are full and the subscriptions are paid.

NRC is not Super Rugby it will be a different beast (still should be highly entertaining) But if we want fan engagement, teams that people associate with, regular matches in prime time that will always have an AUS winner, then this is the direction we need to go.

Many of these threads are taking the current Aussie performance as an indicator of the future, The Junior Wallabies have been doing really well, if the Wallabies start winning the sponsorship money and fans will return.

re the question about living within our means - in the UK premiership, only 1 or 2 teams make a profit - there, the clubs are privately owned and often the clubs are used to grease the wheels of the owners other business interests.

I say get the PE money raise the salary cap, keep the best Aussie players here and accept that Aus Rugby will probably be loss making for 10+ years.

And buy many slots in the media to promote the sport as well!

But could be world champs!

 

[dru]

Many of these threads are taking the current Aussie performance as an indicator of the future, The Junior Wallabies have been doing really well, if the Wallabies start winning the sponsorship money and fans will return.

re the question about living within our means - in the UK premiership, only 1 or 2 teams make a profit - there, the clubs are privately owned and often the clubs are used to grease the wheels of the owners other business interests.

I say get the PE money raise the salary cap, keep the best Aussie players here and accept that Aus Rugby will probably be loss making for 10+ years.

And many slots in the media to promote the sport as well!

But could be world champs!

Agree entirely. Not only does have a great bunch coming through, the pipeline seems solid and it happened very quickly.

Get the ducks in a row and we have the same feeder ability that ABs and elsewhere do. It just needs continued similar support.

 

[Quick Hands]

None of those things will be the case. I don't see how 6 teams is enough for a comp, either. Not really. I'd have thought 10 was about the minimum.

8 would be the bare minimum, with 9 or 10 slightly better.

8 gives 14 rounds with 2 weeks of finals - 16 weeks. That might fit in quite well with the new global calendar if it goes ahead.