1. 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?

Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Quick Hands, Mar 5, 2017.

  1. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    They were always going to play hardball. SR to them isn't an end in itself (i.e. to win the competition), it's a means to produce the strongest possible All Blacks team. Always has been. They concentrate their best players into 5 teams (which is what they deem to be the optimal number) and get them playing at the highest possible level against the best teams. It's why they have never sought to increase the number of teams. Playing SA teams under SA conditions is part of this strategy - it prepares better All Blacks. Winning the SR competition is just a by-product of the strategy.
  2. drewprint Cyril Towers (30)

    Likes Received:
    Weird hey. It’s almost like as new information comes to light and situations evolve, so too do peoples opinions. So strange!
    Dismal Pillock likes this.
  3. The Honey Badger Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    It wont be anything like the NRC we know. Not good to compare it.

    It will be the second teir, it wont have Super Rugby above it robbing it of any chance to succeed. It will have all the best players playing it will have promotion and coverage. It will need time.

    Yes, The Newcastle Numbats could be a quasi country team and play games at Tamworth or Mudgee. Really doesn't matter where or the 2nd NSW team (& 2nd QLD team) are based or what they are called. My preference is to have City and Country. Country being inclusive of all regions where rugby is strong.
  4. Omar Comin' Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    Maybe that could work. But to me it just seems too complicated for anything other than a very short competition. Is there another professional sports team in the world that operates with several 'home' grounds scattered over massive distances? I think it's a big advantage having a consistent home base.

    If you prefer a team outside of Sydney then I think Newcastle (and branded Newcastle or Hunter) would be the best bet. But Western Sydney is the fastest growing region of Sydney, has a population over 2 million people and the new Parramatta stadium is perfect. And it's not like there aren't any rugby fans in the west. I'd guess there are more rugby fans in Western Sydney than there are in Melbourne for example.
  5. Mr Wobbly Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    If RA chose to not participate in this sham then where will the Kiwis get their extra three to five competitive teams?

    Assuming their hypothetical Pasifika team can be put together then I only count six.

    Call their bluff, Hamish!
    dru, kiap, qwerty51 and 1 other person like this.
  6. Rugbynutter39 Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
  7. The Honey Badger Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
  8. KOB1987 Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    In the early 1900s, much like now, there was enormous disillusionment concerning the administration of the game of rugby by the “establishment”.
    The old boys’ blazer brigade was not listening to the players or the public and the seeds of revolution took hold.
    The NSW Rugby League was formed and funded by Sydney businessman James J. Giltinan and supported by sporting legend Victor Trumper, who convinced Herbert Henry “Dally” Messenger to join the breakaway code that had first been established in England in 1895.

    The new code tweaked the laws to make the game faster, more entertaining and more enjoyable to play.
    It dropped the number of players on the ground to create more space.

    It eliminated rucks because they were causing too many injuries and were a blight on the spectacle.
    The new code, rugby league, listened to the players and supporters. All the leading Wallabies of the time followed Messenger and the game quickly established itself as the most popular winter sport in Queensland and NSW.
    It’s worth reflecting on our past so we can make good decisions about the future. Right now, Rugby Australia is at the crossroads.
    The disillusionment about the game would appear to be similar to that around the time of the rugby league revolution.
    I have been arguing, forever, that Rugby Australia must embrace urgent constitutional change.
    The administration is deaf. The rugby public want to be heard and it deserves a say in the running of the game.
    The most successful football club in the world, Barcelona FC, as I have said before, has 110,000 paid-up members who, among other things, get to vote for their club president every four years.
    If the president does a good job and the team is successful, the paying members have the power to reinstate the president.
    Putting the fans first does a number of things. Firstly, their $400 season membership fee raises more than $40m to be invested back into the game.

    Secondly, the fans are so engaged because they have influence. They attend more games. They buy more merchandise. They are proactive partners in the game.
    I suspect the reason members of the rugby establishment don’t want to empower the people is that they fear losing the very power they currently enjoy.
    Ask the rugby punter; he thinks the administrators are happy to keep their snouts in the trough at the expense of the growth of the game. I was supportive of new RA chairman Hamish McLennan’s elevation to the onerous responsibilities he now must discharge. But apart from talking about a World Cup in 2027, he has yet to outline what he believes to be the future of our code.
    Does he have a plan for the future, or is this rugby administration just more of the past?
    Who is telling New Zealand Rugby that there is no way we will be sending two teams to play in a new Kiwi-dominated trans-Tasman competition, as suggested by our friends across the ditch. We are not here to make up the numbers.
    I have said for years we have to, not should, opt out of Super Rugby altogether and build our own national competition, like soccer’s A-League.
    At least if we get it right, in 20 years we could be taking on the NRL again.
    And just on the A-League, I understand its broadcast deal is worth about $30m a season.
    That’s about half of what Rugby Australia was getting under the old broadcast agreement.
    But Raelene Castle knew better and was obviously supported by the discredited board.
    She looked the gift horse in the mouth and rejected the gift. Now what are we worth? Just $10m a year, if we are lucky.
    Yet the Australian Rugby Gold Membership program, that I have advocated, could easily generate enough income to make up for any broadcast shortfall and empower the lovers of the game at the same time.
    And when we tell the Kiwis that we don’t want any part of their lopsided trans-Tasman competition, we should also tell them we don’t want their involvement in our 2027 World Cup bid.
    Why would we want to revenue-share with New Zealand when we should assert ourselves, bid for the World Cup on our own and enjoy 100 per cent of any World Cup profits?
    We have the facilities. We know how to put on world-class events. Why share the spoils when money is said to be our game’s biggest problem?
    The 2003 World Cup put $45m into an Australian rugby war chest. Imagine what the 2027 World Cup could do for the game and our economy.
    The 2019 World Cup in Japan saw 245,000 visitors from 178 different countries who spent, on average, 17 days in Japan. And 90 per cent of those visitors said they would definitely visit Japan again.
    The economic impact for the nation and the game is so important it’s time for Scott Morrison to get involved.
    He says he loves the game. Well, come on Scott, prove it.
    It’s clear that New Zealand doesn’t respect our provincial rugby teams. You can’t blame them. We have rarely delivered, in recent times, a quality product.
    But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some self-respect and be prepared to go it alone and set up our own national club competition for the development of the game in Australia.
    Host the 2027 World Cup on our own and seize the opportunity to build a financial nest egg for the future of rugby in this country.
    But, until 2027, we will need to trim our costs and look for revenue opportunities.
    There are three ways to raise money now. McLennan, start sharpening your pencil.
    Firstly, embrace constitutional reform and drive a membership program with voting rights. Secondly, set up a national club competition and sell that to broadcasters. And thirdly, get Andrew Forrest to sponsor Australian rugby just as Gina Rinehart sponsors Australian swimming.
    But Forrest is not going to pay the money if he doesn’t have a say in how we get out of the current mess.
    Note this: nobody remembers the old farts in the establishment who held back the game more than 100 years ago, but everyone knows about Messenger and Giltinan, the reformers.
    It’s time for McLennan to decide whether he wants to be an establishment old fart or a game shaper and a visionary.
  9. WorkingClassRugger Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:

    That's sort of what I was alluding to. It would be a different beast. Properly professional as opposed to semi-pro/amateur status of the NRC.

    If we were to see a Newcastle/Hunter team I'd be inclined to designate them the whole northern third of the state as their exclusive territory in terms of establishing player pathways and development activities. The Tahs can have the centre including Sydney and the Illawarra and the Brumbies the southern third.
  10. WorkingClassRugger Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:

    I've said this on several occasions throughout my time on various platforms but if a professional team based out of Western Sydney were to be established I'd in all likelihood jump ship or at the very least split my allegiances.
  11. qwerty51 George Gregan (70)

    Likes Received:
    This is the whole crux of the issue isn't it? Their revenue model (the All Blacks) doesn't work for us and never will. The Wallabies just aren't the same brand.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  12. hoggy Jim Clark (26)

    Likes Received:
    Yep I posted this earlier today.

    Yes, I am very much in the domestic camp. He can be a right Tosser but A Jones article in the Australian today is not far off the mark in my opinion.

    "I want Kiwis in OZ watching Aus games and wanting our teams to lose", I hear ya, but what exactly have we been doing then for the last 20 years.

    Be interesting to hear the spin from NZRU this arvo, do we put our knee pads on and start asking for participation.
    The_Brown_Hornet likes this.
  13. zer0 Dick Tooth (41)

    Likes Received:

    TBF I'm amazed this thread has even made it to 200 pages with Straya's internet. Can only surmise that Phil Kearns' tears must provide one hell of a liquid coolant for the GAGR back end.

    Hopefully this shitpost will reach you all by Christmas 2020.
    Dismal Pillock likes this.
  14. Dismal Pillock Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
  15. Teh Other Dave Trevor Allan (34)

    Likes Received:
    Are the pages defined by number of posts, or by lines of text?
  16. molman John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    Hmm. not an entirely new idea as I believe The Force already had something a little similar, but I do like the idea of putting some weight behind people investing in the organisation with a voting share. It's definitely another avenue to explore where peoples investment is likely to be for different reasons than many classic private equity partners.

    Also as an aside, this PI team in NZ TT Comp that comes up with Fale's consortium etc.., I'm curious where this would even be located. I hear Hawaii, but that changes your timezones, COVID bubble challenges should that still be occurring next year. I also though US Rugby rejected a team there last time they tried to get one into GRR.
  17. WorkingClassRugger Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:

    It won't be based out of Hawaii. They appear to be planning on running two distinct squads. One in whatever NZ gets up and running and the other in Major League Rugby.
  18. The Honey Badger Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    I like that, The CENTRAL NSW WARATAHS
  19. hifflepiff Frank Nicholson (4)

    Likes Received:
    If Australia's looking to start up a 7-8 team domestic comp, RA should be looking to sell the teams involved to private owners. Not just to Twiggy, but to any person (or coalition of investors) willing to front up the cash.

    So long as Rugby AU retains a strong say in how this competition would be run, privately owned teams would be their best option as it would significantly diversify the risk and lower the costs. Would also help mitigate against the loss in broadcast revenue for the first few years.

    And perhaps most importantly, It would allow RA to focus its revenue towards grassroots development and retaining young up and comers before they get scooped up by league.

    Whilst they might not be able to do it by next year, with some funding from Twiggy and private equity, they could keep things running until they can find some willing partners. And with the reputed 'old boys network' of RA, I'm sure they could find some people willing to invest.
  20. ForceFan Colin Windon (37)

    Likes Received:
    Because NZ already have a broadcast agreement so they can bring $$s to the deal.
    They also bring a consistently good standard of rugby.
    What does RA bring to the mix?
    Poor rugby and no $$s, a union that is close to bankruptcy and 4 franchises that are nearly broke.
    Sounds like NZ is in a fairly good position.
    dru, Quick Hands and waiopehu oldboy like this.

Share This Page