Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

I think this is what RA want, get rid of the liability.

If we stop and think for a moment, what a great outcome. RA run the Wallabies (which generate most of their money) and use that money to run the game and develop juniors, coaches and support the community game. While private money runs a pro-domestic league under licence from RA. The licence agreement sets out when the comp runs, players available for WR (World Rugby) test windows etc.

I think that history has shown us that RA and the state RUs aren't so good at running teams in pro-level competitions or the competitions themselves.

 

[Slim 293]

Is anyone able to share the content/gist of the latest Wayne Smith article in the Aus. Sounds from the title that it is about possiblity of Brumbies/Rebels merger as part of new TT comp.

I haven't been following much rugby news lately, but after scrolling through all the various rugby news sites this morning, KOB sums it up:

It was only Wayne speculation

Wayne Smith, for whatever reason, has a real hard on for this idea and was pushing for it three years ago, and has now found an opportunity to really flog it in every article he publishes in the hope that it might catch on.........

And as far as I can see he is the only journo talking about the "speculation" of a merger, which is based on his own opinion that the Kiwis won't want five Australian teams in a joint TT competition.

There doesn't seem to be any other reporting to support these claims.

And then you have GeeRob over at Nine reporting contradictory rumours.........

I read an article last week (on SMH from memory) that stated the Force might be more likely to end up in an NZ comp than the Eastern teams.

Just unsure of where they sit in this.
.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-over-trans-tasman-plans-20200612-p55235.html

Australian consensus seems to be that the strongest fan-centred and commercial model will lead to a trans-Tasman competition with the addition of Japanese and Pacific Islands teams, but strong rumours out of New Zealand suggest they favour a Kiwi-only competition with room for one PI team and potentially the Western Force, leaving Australia's eastern seaboard heartland out in the cold.

 

[hoggy]

I think this is what RA want, get rid of the liability.

Previously they've wanted the bills paid but never wanted to cede control. But when you start having private investment, those investors rightly want a say in how that money is spent and in Super rugby they ran smack into a brick wall.

The issue moving forward for the RA is a TT in collaboration with the Kiwis runs smack into the fact that NZ are still playing under the old rules of control.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-over-trans-tasman-plans-20200612-p55235.html

 

[KOB1987]

And then you have GeeRob over at Nine reporting contradictory rumours...



https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-over-trans-tasman-plans-20200612-p55235.html

My read on that is that the Kiwis are playing politics and saying they only want to work with financially viable entities in Australia. From a competition perspective it’s illogical that they would disregard the heartland but fly over them to play in WA. Similarly it’s illogical that given the choice WA would want to play in a NZ domestic comp rather than an Australian one. However, as it stands at the moment, given the Force are the only franchise that is financially self sufficient, if Reg is right and there isn’t a domestic pro tier, then it’s fathomable that the Force effectively becomes our only pro team. I don’t see it coming to that though, bring on the PE.

 

[VassMan]

If PE doesn't work out and only 3 teams continue in "Super" rugby, I imagine it will be the original 3. Then hopefully another billionaire funds the Rebels and continues them and they could play in GRR. And maybe a Western Sydney team starts up as well and then down the track when we go domestic we have 6 franchises ready. I'm supportive of PE full domestic competition though, just can't trust RA haha.

 

[Ignoto]

My read on that is that the Kiwis are playing politics and saying they only want to work with financially viable entities in Australia. From a competition perspective it’s illogical that they would disregard the heartland but fly over them to play in WA.

I don't see it as them playing politics or them being illogical. In fact, I think its quite astute of them.

Would you trust and tie your financial well being to an organisation (or organisations if you expand to the state bodies) who have shown time and time again, an inability to be financially stable, constant infighting and board members trying to push their own agendas.

Why would you readily jump back in bed with the Mossman crowd? What makes you think this bullshit won't happen again?

 

[RedsHappy]

Forget about Wayne Smith and the others: this 'Aust Super teams merger' speculation is arising from the laws of economics and what Aust pro comp sizing 2021+ is going to be financially even vaguely viable.

Namely:

Logic Path A

- 2021 pro rugby media income (if any comes) will be drastically cut from historical levels and Wallaby gate income has also been in inexorable decline as less and less punters go to games and the Wallabies win less and less (likely to continue as trend into 2021)
- This means, inter alia, that 2021 RA grants to the local RUs will also of necessity be very heavily cut pro-rata
- The 2019 profitability of the RUs was marginal at best and their $ gate income also gradually declining year on year; these RUs very clearly depend for solvency on RA drop-down revenue from RA media deals for Super and TRC
- RA used to gain materially from the SANZAAR 'media revenue sharing' averaging formulae that de facto favoured RA, this being one of the major reasons RA clung on to SANZAAR come what may, that is now almost certainly over for ever
- Aust RU's will have to heavily cut a mix of local overheads (like RA's, often bloated) and/or player salaries
- If 2021 player salaries across all 4 local RUs are cut pro-rata the total RA cut, the net effect will likely induce (a) some players simply finding pro rugby's salaries are too low for them and/or (b) the better players will surely attempt to leave Aust for the Nth Hem in some way, and asap. Imposed salary reductions = contracts cancelled by employer, employee is free from the prior contract.

Logic Path B

- Assessing Path A, any sensible analyst can see: Path A applied to the status quo of 4 teams may quickly mean all simultaneously become dangerously non-viable at a solvency and/or player-viability level, the whole structure may soon collapse and
- The only logical alternative is to close one of the RA's Super teams and force a merger with another so the cuts' effect is substantially lower as 3 overhead systems and 3 playing squads are very obviously more readily viable than 4, especially if there is a long overdue functional cost rationalisation over the whole RA overhead and management structure which aids the survival of what's left.

The above pathway to teams size shrinkage is clear and logical. It is not idle speculation. Please communicate an alternative financial universe for RA pro rugby than this one (bar the potential arrival of large chunks of PE money that will still not sit back and invest in something that is at core not financially viable. PE is intrinsically more commercially ruthless than RA will ever be).

The above is one reason I keep banging on about speculated 2021+ Aust pro rugby comps based on an imagined 6-8 Aust pro rugby teams - where is the _immediately available_ money and resourcing for all these extra teams coming from? The objective answer surely is: nowhere.

 

[RugbyReg]

the big question with the above is, where do those 3 teams play? What competition?

 

[The Honey Badger]

The above is one reason I keep banging on about speculated 2021+ Aust pro rugby comps based on an imagined 6-8 Aust pro rugby teams - where is the _immediately available_ money and resourcing for all these extra teams coming from? The objective answer surely is: nowhere.

The same place SS clubs fund themselves.

We will be back to Semi Pro. The Wallabies and a handful other players will still get paid big $$. The rest wont get paid much at all.

And when the stadiums fill and the subscriptions sell and the comp starts to generate some income, the player payments will increase.

Its the RE-SET that is needed to rebuild the game.


My interest in a 3 team pro comp with NZ is Zero. I didnt want to go from 5 to 4. A 5 team pro comp with PE may have merit.

 

[hoggy]

The same place SS clubs fund themselves.

We will be back to Semi Pro. The Wallabies and a handful other players will still get paid big $$. The rest wont get paid much at all.

And when the stadiums fill and the subscriptions sell and the comp starts to generate some income, the player payments will increase.

Its the RE-SET that is needed to rebuild the game.


My interest in a 3 team pro comp with NZ is Zero. I didnt want to go from 5 to 4. A 5 team pro comp with PE may have merit.

Me too, I have no interest in playing second fiddle to prop up NZ rugby or playing in a comp where your partner has your interests a long way down the list, but with very limited budgets we could surely cobble together a 6 team domestic comp for next year, start with one new team, look at 8/10 teams long term. Also it does not mean an end to games against overseas countries, obviously you would look at cross champion type competitions to enhance the appeal.

The budget, well that is whatever you can afford.

 

[KOB1987]

I don't see it as them playing politics or them being illogical. In fact, I think its quite astute of them.

Would you trust and tie your financial well being to an organisation (or organisations if you expand to the state bodies) who have shown time and time again, an inability to be financially stable, constant infighting and board members trying to push their own agendas.

Why would you readily jump back in bed with the Mossman crowd? What makes you think this bullshit won't happen again?

The Kiwis were the architects of the disastrous 18 team conference Super model according to the article. In fact that is what the article is mostly about, and to be wary about getting into bed with the Kiwis again as they will do what suits them at the expense of everyone else. So maybe it's someone at RA finally being the astute ones and the Kiwis are trying to get the unaligned Force outfit to join their comp because the (current) RA franchises won't.

 

[Rebels3]

There is a few things that will be weighed up. They will want a strong professional presence so they can justify the Lions series, as there is outside threats to either reduce the tour even more and the inclusion of other countries. It could potentially see the huge windfall it brings reduced if you can’t justify the competition offered to it (eg club sides, etc.) it could mean a shorter tour, therefore less government support as the touring mass is here for a shorter period or a worst case scenario of no tour. Remember Australia has only had its own tour since 1989, when the Lions thought we were sufficient enough strength to tour.

There is also the WC issue, there is no point stripping everything back if Australia aren’t going to be challengers for a WC title come 2027. The public wouldn’t accept anything other than having a side that contends, otherwise it wouldn’t build any momentum.

Stripping everything back could potentially harm these future windfalls, however obviously there is massive financial challenges between now and then. There is a balance that needs to be reached so we can get sufficient reform but also not jeopardize the things that can legitimately bring the game back from the depths.

 

[RedsHappy]

RH, your posts are always well thought through and carry a consistent message. If I might be so bold, I would characterise your positions as being Reds Happy and Aussie Rugby Unhappy. I wish you would be able to (1) see a little more positivity for rugby at the highest levels in this country. I interpret your comments above to mean (2) that to quickly improve the calibre of our pro teams, we will need to jettison another one or two of those teams to load up the remaining couple with the displaced players. I sincerely hope you are wrong, but am waiting on RA's decisions about where we go from 2021 with some trepidation.

I have to say that I am not so pessimistic. I don't think (3) our teams are so far inferior to the NZ sides to make a TT competition unsustainable, if that's the way they go. There will mostly be one or two of our sides who will be competitive, while there is usually one or two NZ sides who battle against the better sides. Unlike most comments so far about the two NZ games this weekend, I don't think they were such highly efficient performances as others make out. There were many errors by all teams, poor kicking displays both from hand and off the tee, missed tackles and more than enough penalties awarded to suggest the skills were somewhat deficient in some areas. What they did demonstrate was that they were very competitive on the scoreboards. There were also some outstanding individual performances, those by Reiko Ioane and Sututu being the best in my opinion.

(4) One last little thing that has bugged me for quite a while, too. You consistently misuse the word "whom" in your posts. Given the excellent writing otherwise, I don't know if it is intentional. "Who" is the subject and "whom" the predicate of the associated verb.

Reply:

(1) I am driven in all my thinking by facts and hard, observable outcomes. I love rugby as much as the next person here, but I am not here to provide uplifting sentimental and cheerleading-type motivation re Team A or 'Australian rugby', others here wish to and do perform that role and, understandably, enjoy the doing. I am motivated by, always have been, the analytical understanding as to how good or bad institutional systems and frameworks lead ultimately to successful, healthy and prosperous outcomes, or the opposite. Since 2010 here, inter alia I have been commenting upon my assessment of dangerous deficiencies in the holistic Aust rugby governance model and its directly related micro cultures. Often I was heavily attacked - sometimes very personally - on these fora for these perspectives, though much less so now. Others can judge if my assessments have, over time, proven valid and predictively accurate and useful.

Note please, I have routinely been at pains to highlight what I think needs to be done to enhance or change the positive functioning and financial viability of Aust rugby (eg, if you wish, please see my many recent posts on what an Aust rugby streaming media service run by RA should look like and why it is such a great idea, etc.). And when I see genuinely praiseworthy outcomes in Aust rugby, I note them (though their number has been in exponential decline sadly). McL's new 'committee' announced today to drive the securing of RWC 2027 looks an excellent initiative that encourages me as to his judgment - the question though heavily lingers as to what state Aust rugby will be in 7 years.

(2) I did not especially emphasise 'jettisoning' as such, though this is a logical alternative in the mix to fix Australian rugby's looming financial (and other) crises. I emphasised: raw financial viability and, IMO, too-low general standards of Aust rugby coaching, player skill development and sustained team competence competitively across our 4 Super teams. I am far, far from alone in these assessments. Just see eg EJ (Eddie Jones)'s recent considered comments re why Aust rugby has been and remains in decline. Further: look at the last 5-7 years' Super Rugby comp tables - of our 4/5 teams how often have we been in the final top 4, how good is our record in beating NZ teams? Is it objectively valid that our Super teams are getting better?

(3) Where you get this one re me, I have no idea. I have said IMO a TT pro comp IS the preferred 2021+ pro comp model and, subject to key changes, IS potentially sustainable. What I do not think is that a 6-8 Aust-only pro comp model is in any way feasible or sustainable from 2021.

(4) Well I guess if we had an Official GAGR Grammatical & Prose Construct Adjudicator here he or she would need the equivalent length of the entire Where to Super Rugby thread to keep up their reports and admonitions. But I will try better next time, though why you bother with such trivial personal stuff is beyond me, regardless it obviously gifts you some motivation in the doing so why not.

 

[dru]

the big question with the above is, where do those 3 teams play? What competition?

One of them.

When we had broadcast and revenue from 5 teams, we could afford 4.
Now we have had broadcast and revenue from 4 teams we can afford 3. (Something I voiced at the time but was not taken seriously).
Now we are offered broadcast and revenue from 3 teams, we will be able to afford - what? 3? When did that happen and what changed to arrange it? Nothing but shrinkage?

Look, perhaps we hit a natural and sustainable level within shrink to greatness at some point, and perhaps this is it. Let's hope so because the greater likelihood is less pleasant than the current unpleasantness.

If we are to head this way should leave it to the Kiwis to run and fund and stay out of it. PE a possible alternative, but either way stop propping it from RA. The comp can fund the comp. All of the teams in the comp.

 

[barbarian]

And when the stadiums fill and the subscriptions sell and the comp starts to generate some income, the player payments will increase.

But this is the assumption that underpins this whole local idea that I am so unsure about.

IMO there is a good chance the stadiums won't fill. The subscriptions won't sell. And so the Wallabies get worse, so they get paid less and less and inevitably go offshore.

And so we go back to the 1980s. Which would be fine if every other country did the same, but sadly for us they are going to be still in 2020.

Now we can argue if that's actually a bad thing, as Reg did on the front page a month or so ago.

But there needs to be an acknowledgement of that possibility in construction of the 'local only' model.

 

[Derpus]

But this is the assumption that underpins this whole local idea that I am so unsure about.

IMO there is a good chance the stadiums won't fill. The subscriptions won't sell. And so the Wallabies get worse, so they get paid less and less and inevitably go offshore.

And so we go back to the 1980s. Which would be fine if every other country did the same, but sadly for us they are going to be still in 2020.

Now we can argue if that's actually a bad thing, as Reg did on the front page a month or so ago.

But there needs to be an acknowledgement of that possibility in construction of the 'local only' model.

Exactly. Wouldn't it just be a reversion to the NRC? which hasn't exactly hit the ground running. Or to clubs, i guess.

 

[RedsHappy]

The Kiwis were the architects of the disastrous 18 team conference Super model according to the article. In fact that is what the article is mostly about, and to be wary about getting into bed with the Kiwis again as they will do what suits them at the expense of everyone else. So maybe it's someone at RA finally being the astute ones and the Kiwis are trying to get the unaligned Force outfit to join their comp because the (current) RA franchises won't.

And Aust rugby hasn't and doesn't? Come on now.

I have argued for years here, and still do - the systemic collapse of Aust rugby is not in NZRU's interest and they know it. Just playing themselves and borderline-viable Fiji and PI teams over time will degrade NZ rugby and its strategic interests, and they know that. SA and NZ only in some endless, vast long-distance flying comp is not commercially viable either and SA is increasingly likely to go Nth Hem, not Sth Hem as its strategic priority. NZ just endlessly playing themselves a la this latest comp will not over time generate enough aggregated media income off a population of 4.8m.

NZRU's interests lie in constructively agreeing some form of new, revitalised TT pro comp that also aids the resurgence and viability of Aust rugby and that is what I believe is the most likely scenario for 2021+.

 

[The Honey Badger]

But this is the assumption that underpins this whole local idea that I am so unsure about.

IMO there is a good chance the stadiums won't fill. The subscriptions won't sell. And so the Wallabies get worse, so they get paid less and less and inevitably go offshore.

And so we go back to the 1980s. Which would be fine if every other country did the same, but sadly for us they are going to be still in 2020.

Now we can argue if that's actually a bad thing, as Reg did on the front page a month or so ago.

But there needs to be an acknowledgement of that possibility in construction of the 'local only' model.

I am a little more optimistic than you. I think with some good marketing and some crowd engagement (ala GRR/Force), get the product right. In time it will sell.

If it doesn't then we need to look for another reset, which is probably going back to SS and Premier Rugby as the second tier.

 

[Raytah]

Must say that the appointment of Elizabeth Gaines to RWC 2027 advisory board, latest WF signing spree, and essential adoption of GRR rules in Super AU suggests to me that some conversations have been had behind closed doors and the force will be back in the top tier post 2020. Time will tell, but it would be good to see.

 

[Derpus]

I am a little more optimistic than you. I think with some good marketing and some crowd engagement (ala GRR/Force), get the product right. In time it will sell.

If it doesn't then we need to look for another reset, which is probably going back to SS and Premier Rugby as the second tier.

Thats not a reset, its death.