Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

Given what has transpired over the last couple of days, I think what he was inferring was that he's looking at this Big Bash imported players type approach as a solution to our lack of depth, not that he's looking at dumping a team.

I agree KOB, but was also saying he didn't really see Aus having the strength for 4-5 teams without buying in players. Unfortunately I am starting to agree, I would love the Aus teams to but in players, but if they not doing it by now they won't have it done by next year.

 

[Dan54]

The other thing I was wondering about, is when we talk about TV viewers etc and revenue, if in Aus rugby has such dismal viewing numbers as some seem to say, regardless of the population, what do they bring to the table in revenue. It's no good saying there a big market if the market not interested. Look at soccer, there viewing on TV is worse than rugby, and so they get less money, yet still soccer people watch the good quality games from EPL etc. I just trying to get my head around the idea of what we all get out of it. Look I not sure how many people would of watched the Reds/Rebels game last night, I wouldn't think a hell of a lot would of stayed watching that until 11-11.30, and vice versa how many will watch Crusaders/Blues in Aus today. I not arguing for anything, just trying to work out who gets the advantages in TT comp (which is my preferred comp).

 

[KOB1987]

I agree KOB, but was also saying he didn't really see Aus having the strength for 4-5 teams without buying in players. Unfortunately I am starting to agree, I would love the Aus teams to but in players, but if they not doing it by now they won't have it done by next year.

I think there’s plenty of time, most of them have nowhere to play. We wouldn’t be looking to buy Pieter Steph du Toit et al, probably players from within the second 30 ranked, plus some ex-Boks/Pumas. I’d say the first box to tick is locking in how to pay for them, that means a comp, some idea about broadcast money, and most likely some external capital.

 

[Wilson]

I think there’s plenty of time, most of them have nowhere to play. We wouldn’t be looking to buy Pieter Steph du Toit et al, probably players from within the second 30 ranked, plus some ex-Boks/Pumas. I’d say the first box to tick is locking in how to pay for them, that means a comp, some idea about broadcast money, and most likely some external capital.

100%. I think there's going to be heaps of that level player available next year, Jaguares have a very uncertain future, even if South Africa get the best possible deal going North they're going to start shedding players and the English premiership is undergoing salary cap contraction and seeing players consider their options elsewhere. With the upheaval the rugby world is going through I don't think there's going to be a lack of players available over the next 2 years.

Whether or not that will be sustainable or maintainable is another question, but it certainly doesn't look any worse than the the alternatives on that count.

 

[Quick Hands]

I just trying to get my head around the idea of what we all get out of it. Look I not sure how many people would of watched the Reds/Rebels game last night, I wouldn't think a hell of a lot would of stayed watching that until 11-11.30, and vice versa how many will watch Crusaders/Blues in Aus today. I not arguing for anything, just trying to work out who gets the advantages in TT comp (which is my preferred comp).

This is the essential issue with TT from a broadcast point of view.

There is actually no good option anywhere, there's just an array of bad to not so bad options. Regardless of what fans or even RA and NZRU want, in the end the market will decide because of the amount of money involved in player salaries etc.

How much more for example would Sky Sport NZ pay for 5 x 5 TT compared to what they would pay for an NZ dominated or NZ only competition? How many Kiwis will sit up to 11.30pm to watch two Aussie teams play?

Just to give an idea of the costs involved:

From RA annual report 2019
Wallabies team costs $9.6 million
Super Rugby/HPU $24.6 million
National 7s costs $5.3 million
Super Rugby team costs $7.3 million
Player payments $20.5 million
National HPU $9.2 million

SANZAR Office $1.6 million

From NSWRU annual report 2018
Expenditure (rugby only – doesn’t include administration, corporate etc)

Player payments $5,848.064
Team travel $101,355
Seam servicing $1,106,499
Staff costs $1,956,613

Other team $89,374

So $9,101,905 to run the Waratahs
(I'd assume that the other 3 Aussie Super Rugby teams would have similar cost structures)

Given that broadcast revenue is likely to fall significantly, sponsorship likely to fall to at least some degree (Qantas have reduced theirs already from $5m to $3m - BEFORE coronavirus hit) and gate takings for 2020 will be way down, it's a very difficult position.

 

[hoggy]

The further along we go, the more I think a domestic league is the answer (caveat) followed by champions league. We don't have the quality or depth for 5 teams against NZ, and hell last night wasn't exactly a promotion.

The only real option for TT is to go two 3 teams against NZ, this would give you maybe a reduced cost base and a competitive competition, theirs talk of a Pacific presence but who pays for that, and if done on the cheap, they just become cannon fodder.

But who do you drop especially after the Force debacle, in fact surely the RA need Twiggy more than ever. So do you say goodbye to the Rebels or merge them with the Brumbies, maybe hold out for 4 teams, make the 5th a Pacific team, but again who pays for what, as quick hands points out, there aren't any good options, and unless NZ come to the party, those 5 teams are just making up the numbers, how does that move the game forward here.

Just maybe the best option is domestic, which at least allows you to face some sort of economic reality. See if Twiggy would help finance a 6th team, this at least gives you a genuine product to work with.

 

[KOB1987]

^^^^^go and have a look at the RA thread

 

[rugboy]

The further along we go, the more I think a domestic league is the answer (caveat) followed by champions league. We don't have the quality or depth for 5 teams against NZ, and hell last night wasn't exactly a promotion.

The only real option for TT is to go two 3 teams against NZ, this would give you maybe a reduced cost base and a competitive competition, theirs talk of a Pacific presence but who pays for that, and if done on the cheap, they just become cannon fodder.

But who do you drop especially after the Force debacle, in fact surely the RA need Twiggy more than ever. So do you say goodbye to the Rebels or merge them with the Brumbies, maybe hold out for 4 teams, make the 5th a Pacific team, but again who pays for what, as quick hands points out, there aren't any good options, and unless NZ come to the party, those 5 teams are just making up the numbers, how does that move the game forward here.

Just maybe the best option is domestic, which at least allows you to face some sort of economic reality. See if Twiggy would help finance a 6th team, this at least gives you a genuine product to work with.

I still don't get how a domestic comp with a champions league moves the game forward here. I find it ironic that people think playing the kiwis in a TT comp which is justified by reasoning that we will apparently get smashed is so ludicrous, so instead lets add an extra team or 3, weaken our competition by spreading the top talent (which cant be forcibly done), become semi professional through a weaker broadcast deal, which sees the middle (and potentially emerging talent) of our market head OS and then play off against these same Kiwi teams in a Champions League style competition.

 

[hoggy]

I still don't get how a domestic comp with a champions league moves the game forward here. I find it ironic that people think playing the kiwis in a TT comp which is justified by reasoning that we will apparently get smashed is so ludicrous, so instead lets add an extra team or 3, weaken our competition by spreading the top talent (which cant be forcibly done), become semi professional through a weaker broadcast deal, which sees the middle (and potentially emerging talent) of our market head OS and then play off against these same Kiwi teams in a Champions League style competition.

Because long term the one thing the game needs here to survive is become more popular, which it needs to do domestically.

What evidence is there a TT is going to bring in more money especially long term NZ is already milking top $dollar so where is that extra money coming from if not Aus, if we go to 3 teams those players are going overseas anyway.
The point is long term a domestic competition has more chance of attracting a bigger local fan base, which in turn over time is the best development player wise.

It doesn't have to be semi professional if people like Twiggy are prepared to invest.

 

[hoggy]

^^^^^go and have a look at the RA thread

That reads very much as "get your sh--t together and then, maybe lets talk"

 

[rugboy]

Because long term the one thing the game needs here to survive is become more popular, which it needs to do domestically.

Who says a weakened product over 6 teams will make rugby more popular? That sounds crazy. You yourself cited last night's domestic game as a poor game. Why would reducing the quality further bring in more fans?

What evidence is there a TT is going to bring in more money especially long term

Mclennan has been quoted as saying broadcaster preference is for a TT comp.

It doesn't have to be semi professional if people like Twiggy are prepared to invest. ​

​

Twiggy hasn't made any mention of a willingness to invest in a domestic model. He has suggested his Investment arm may invest in rugby in some form if the conditions are right. This may be a TT or domestic, all conjecture at this stage.​

Still didn't really answer the post how will weakening the product and still playing the kiwis help to promote the game locally?​

 

[KOB1987]

That reads very much as "get your sh--t together and then, maybe lets talk"

It does. But it also reads like McLennan is going to get the shit together. Of course, the big query is what caveats Twiggy is going to put on things, and if they're actually workable within the bigger picture.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

This could be interesting in terms of PI involvement in any Super Rugby replacement comp(s): Kanaloa Hawaii, just confirmed as MLR's newest franchise, has an ownership list that includes names such as Jerome Kaino, John Afoa & Joe Rokococo. CEO Tracey Atiga just said in an interview on 1news tonight that the franchise will have a two home bases, one on Oahu & the other in South Auckland, and has been quoted on stuff saying they're looking at Super Rugby in addition to MLR.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...okocoko-among-owners-of--hawaiibased-pro-team

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

This could be interesting in terms of PI involvement in any Super Rugby replacement comp(s): Kanaloa Hawaii, just confirmed as MLR's newest franchise, has an ownership list that includes names such as Jerome Kaino, John Afoa & Joe Rokococo. CEO Tracey Atiga just said in an interview on 1news tonight that the franchise will have a two home bases, one on Oahu & the other in South Auckland, and has been quoted on stuff saying they're looking at Super Rugby in addition to MLR.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...okocoko-among-owners-of--hawaiibased-pro-team

Not confirmed as a franchise. Confirmed that they have entered the 90 day exclusivity period where they have to meet the select criteria set out by MLR including proving that among other things that they possess the minimum $10m USD required to cover the licence fee's and operational costs for the first 3 seasons of their operations.

Not to mention prove to the rest of the league that they can cover the logistical obstacles in regarding to flights and accommodations for visiting teams. Even then, that doesn't ensure admittance. They would still need the MLR board to vote them in. Not trying to put a damper on the news but that's the reality of their current situation. Personally, I hope they succeed.

As for it's effect. With a salary cap of only $500k USD while it certainly will draw some talent it likely will opt more toward drawing as many locals in first (of which there are a number in the MLR currently), developing locals (of which their are a couple of highly fancied in US circles) and then those from Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.

 

[Wilson]

I wonder how salary caps would effect their ability to participate in two different competitions. Would have to at least limit their ability to share players between the two.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I agree KOB, but was also saying he didn't really see Aus having the strength for 4-5 teams without buying in players. Unfortunately I am starting to agree, I would love the Aus teams to but in players, but if they not doing it by now they won't have it done by next year.

I think people are focusing too much on immediately arriving at a Super Rugby level competition. Where we should be looking at providing a competitive and entertaining competition with the goal of raising the standards over a period of seasons. Something akin to the Premiership to start. Which is achievable as contrary to some isn't at the level of Super Rugby. We have the basic format ready in the NRC. They can call it something different if they want. Take the current 5 and bring in Fiji. We only need to find 2 more. Recruit heavily from the PI and even some T2 alongside bringing in T1 foreign talent. We'd have a fairly solid league to start and grow.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I wonder how salary caps would effect their ability to participate in two different competitions. Would have to at least limit their ability to share players between the two.

I assume they mean they are looking at options of competing in either as contingency for not being admitted into one or the other. As from what I understand from the guys I have regular contact with who are directly involved with the league the league wouldn't be too pleased with split loyalties.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Is it possible for the MLR side of the business to be a feeder for the Super Rugby-next one? Send selected promising kids up to Hawaii & bring the ones who make the grade back South when they can no longer be accommodated within the salary cap?

 

[Wilson]

Is it possible for the MLR side of the business to be a feeder for the Super Rugby-next one? Send selected promising kids up to Hawaii & bring the ones who make the grade back South when they can no longer be accommodated within the salary cap?

I think you could do a loose partnership like the rebels have with kintetsu, but anything more would likely piss a lot of other clubs off. An arrangement like that begs so many questions around contracting and potential cap breaches it becomes pretty unworkable.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Is it possible for the MLR side of the business to be a feeder for the Super Rugby-next one? Send selected promising kids up to Hawaii & bring the ones who make the grade back South when they can no longer be accommodated within the salary cap?

Nope. Not if they want to keep their licence. The MLR doesn't want to become a feeder league for the likes of the Premiership/Top 14 or Super Rugby. It has every intent on becoming one of the premier Rugby competitions in the world. They've opted to operate within their means in order to get the league over the establishment phase but with the investors they have on board they wouldn't take kindly to such an arrangement. And if that's the Hawai'i ownership group's intent they are serious misreading the situation.