• 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.
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
hoggy said:
So the last 20 years must be some sort of aberration then.
Click to expand...


If the depth or appetite for a professional domestic only competition existed it could have happened at some point in the last 20 years.

The reality is it has never been a viable option because the size of the game is too small here. If the standard didn't matter there would be far greater interest in club rugby and the NRC.
 
KiwiM

KiwiM

Trevor Allan (34)
I get the sense Steve Tew moving on from NZR has been the catalyst for some change and new thinking. Mark Robinson seems far more open to new ideas.

Tew was in the job a very long time and whilst from an All Black point of view was very successful - from a Super Rugby standpoint not so much.
 
hoggy

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
Braveheart81 said:
If the depth or appetite for a professional domestic only competition existed it could have happened at some point in the last 20 years.

The reality is it has never been a viable option because the size of the game is too small here. If the standard didn't matter there would be far greater interest in club rugby and the NRC.
Click to expand...

If the size of the game here is so small then why do we calculate success by a world ranking of 1 or 2 or world cup wins. We've never tried a domestic structure because of the vested interest associated with those involved with the professional set up.

Look Rennie may be more than genuine about this, but theirs nothing stopping Aus playing NZ in a champions league after a domestic component.
TT may be the way forward and it may be the best way forward, but only when we start discussing after 20 years of Super rugby why the game here remains so small that no other options can be considered.
 
dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Braveheart81 said:
If the depth or appetite for a professional domestic only competition existed it could have happened at some point in the last 20 years.

The reality is it has never been a viable option because the size of the game is too small here. If the standard didn't matter there would be far greater interest in club rugby and the NRC.
Click to expand...

The appetite was there. It was actively hosed down by successive RA execs who have driven the game at a professional level into the ground.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
dru said:
I guess that is an opinion. More broadly though this policy as implemented via Super has done little for Aus in the immediate and arguably great damage in the mid to longer term.
Click to expand...


You're either comparing it to something that has never existed and no one has ever seriously pushed as a viable option (a professional domestic comp) or you could ask what has club rugby done to push professionalism and grow financially in the professional era?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
dru said:
The appetite was there. It was actively hosed down by successive RA execs who have driven the game at a professional level into the ground.
Click to expand...


Where has this appetite been?

Ultimately the players go where the money is so if there was ever the potential for something else then it could have been pitched to broadcasters and players. If the money on offer wasn't good enough to lure the top players but the appetite was there at a lower level there are plenty of other players who'd sign a contract.

Super Rugby started because someone arrived with a bunch of money and signed up players to play in it backed by a broadcast deal. There's never been a better option on the table for those teams or those players.

There's never been a better offer on the table for RA or NZRU.
 
dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Braveheart81 said:
You're either comparing it to something that has never existed and no one has ever seriously pushed as a viable option (a professional domestic comp) or you could ask what has club rugby done to push professionalism and grow financially in the professional era?
Click to expand...

That’s not what I said, BH. What Super did was to aim for a National game, but allow the Super developments to pretty much destroy the opportunity resulting ultimately in the shrink to greatness policy that is yet to fully sheet home.

You compare a “dream” against a successful Super. Super being successful for Australia pro rugby is the only thing that has actually failed.

At any rate, if we are to actively pursue continued shrink, surely you have no issue to insist that comp is self funded by the comp itself?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
dru said:
That’s not what I said, BH. What Super did was to aim for a National game, but allow the Super developments to pretty much destroy the opportunity resulting ultimately in the shrink to greatness policy that is yet to fully sheet home.
Click to expand...


Clearly mistakes were made. The Super 18 expansion was a disaster.

Australia did try and grow the size of the professional game here. We went from 3 teams to eventually have 5 teams. We couldn't sustain 5 teams partly because the competition as a whole didn't grow financially as we needed it to and partly because we couldn't sustain that number of teams in terms of revenue and quality of players.

dru said:
At any rate, if we are to actively pursue continued shrink, surely you have no issue to insist that comp is self funded by the comp itself?
Click to expand...


By this do you mean that the Wallabies can't effectively subsidise teams and players below it?

The reality is that this is never likely to change because you are investing in the broader player base beyond what you need on matchday to try and ensure you have a decent pool of players to select from. This happens at all levels in every sport.
 
hoggy

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
Yes Super 18 was a disaster, but so many on here were demanding expansion to take over the world so we all got rich and rugby in Australia GROW, are there any lessons, no let sweep that baby under the carpet.

We expanded to 5 teams in markets that were barely above sausage sizzle clubs, yet no review of gee that didn't work.

Will the Wallabies subsidize tier 2, is it really wise for a single team in a market so small to subsidize your domestic level, is that smart moving forward.

Why if SA have been funding Super rugby is it then smart to jump into bed with NZ a market with minimal growth potential.

Who pays for what.

Are we happy to tell twiggy or the Rebels to f__k off to keep the Kiwis happy, is it worth it.

Have we seen the financials, all I see is someone ready to jump in head first to a muddy swimming hole.???

Look TT may very well be the best option for the game in Australia, but all i see is us blindly accepting this is the only option that will ever be available moving forward and accepting whatever conditions are blindly put on the table.

Why are we constantly bargaining on our knees.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
sunnyboys said:
Am I allowed to link to a whole article?
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...rd-ball-over-super-rugby-20200708-p55aap.html

So VERY interesting stuff in this G.Robinson article.

Half NZ board only want 2 Oz teams in an 8 team comp that NZ would control.

RA comfortable with domestic only comp.

Surprising details
Click to expand...

Not really surprising that NZ only want 2-3 Aust teams. Predicted and predictable.

EDIT: Surprising though that RA have considered the possibility of domestic
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
sunnyboys

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
Some further detail from the article :

“Rugby Australia would not countenance a three-team proposal floated earlier this year so would reject out of hand a format with room for even fewer Australian teams.

The other half of the nine-person NZR board favoured a 10-team trans-Tasman model with a degree of open borders policy on player movement, sources told the Herald.

But if the conservative faction of the board were to win out, Australia would have no choice but to go it alone, building out a six- or eight-team domestic competition and opening up squads to South African and Argentinian players, in a riff on the international flavour of cricket's Big Bash League. Reaching out to Japan would also be an option, sources said.“
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
sunnyboys said:
Am I allowed to link to a whole article?
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...rd-ball-over-super-rugby-20200708-p55aap.html

So VERY interesting stuff in this G.Robinson article.

Half NZ board only want 2 Oz teams in an 8 team comp that NZ would control.

RA comfortable with domestic only comp.

Surprising details
Click to expand...
Are they paid money to do their jobs? how on earth do they think we would come to the table for two teams? how the fuck do they think the competition will be viable with only two Australian teams?

Jesus, maybe NZRU has fallen assbackwards into good management decisions the same way the Australian economy has fallen assbackwards into a mineshaft these past 50 years.

Fuck me ded boys. Looks like between the lot of us we have about 5 brain cells to rub together.
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Quick Hands said:
Not really surprising that NZ only want 2-3 Aust teams. Predicted and predictable.
Click to expand...
As I said here months ago, NZ ain't our friend. If it takes several hammer blows to the head of RA to realise this, it's probably worthwhile.

That said, there will still be room for some kind of NZ deal, and can still be cross-border games. But Aus rugby needs to sort its own game first and foremost. There has been scant leadership for decades and it's time to find some.
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
sunnyboys said:
Am I allowed to link to a whole article?
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...rd-ball-over-super-rugby-20200708-p55aap.html

So VERY interesting stuff in this G.Robinson article.

Half NZ board only want 2 Oz teams in an 8 team comp that NZ would control.

RA comfortable with domestic only comp.

Surprising details
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this isn't surprising, and the inability to fill out 5 teams in Australian cant be ignored, New Zealand were always going to push for 3 Aussie teams or less


New Zealand's concerns appear to centre on Australia's capacity to field five teams of sufficient strength.
Click to expand...
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top