• 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.

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Lack of a trans Tasman tournament for next year is ridiculous, NZRU need to pull their head out and start working together with their partners..
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Lack of a trans Tasman tournament for next year is ridiculous, NZRU need to pull their head out and start working together with their partners..

Um I would love to see TT next year, but don't RA have to decide how many teams they can afford etc( well according to Hamish on TV)? I know NZ franchises have been getting stuck into NZR saying they need clarity on what is being played next year, for sponsors etc. NZR have made it clear that they want some kind of crossover with Aus if it can be worked. I not sure why you not going crook at RA for not having anything in place as yet.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Um I would love to see TT next year, but don't RA have to decide how many teams they can afford etc( well according to Hamish on TV)? I know NZ franchises have been getting stuck into NZR saying they need clarity on what is being played next year, for sponsors etc. NZR have made it clear that they want some kind of crossover with Aus if it can be worked. I not sure why you not going crook at RA for not having anything in place as yet.
I reckon the franchises just play hardball with player salaries. Cut the fuck out of them - accept you'll lose a chunk and work with what's left. No cutting any teams.

It would help if NZRU and RA could agree on a salary cap to be shared between the teams (and would be even better if players were free to move around - though this'll never happen), but not mandatory.

I was reading about how prior to the RWC Rassie took the SA model (which was what ours is now) and completely reshaped it. Cut local salaries, particularly to star players, and opened up selection from Europe (if Rugby keeps going down it's current path this is inevitable for both NZ and Aus anyway - maybe not for another 10 or 20 years, but eventually).

He basically said it's better to pay more players, that they can condition and coach, less individually than try and compete with European salaries (which are based on loss making private ownership models- anyway).

Just copy that.

Edit: or get this mythical PE involvement happening. Seems like a pipe dream to me though.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
I reckon the franchises just play hardball with player salaries. Cut the fuck out of them - accept you'll lose a chunk and work with what's left. No cutting any teams.

It would help if NZRU and RA could agree on a salary cap to be shared between the teams (and would be even better if players were free to move around - though this'll never happen), but not mandatory.

I was reading about how prior to the RWC Rassie took the SA model (which was what ours is now) and completely reshaped it. Cut local salaries, particularly to star players, and opened up selection from Europe (if Rugby keeps going down it's current path this is inevitable for both NZ and Aus anyway - maybe not for another 10 or 20 years, but eventually).

He basically said it's better to pay more players, that they can condition and coach, less individually than try and compete with European salaries (which are based on loss making private ownership models- anyway).

Just copy that.

Edit: or get this mythical PE involvement happening. Seems like a pipe dream to me though.


Reduce the salary cap to $3.5m per team and look to either bring in two new teams (I'd actually go for one based in North Sydney) or professionalise the Country squads while involving the Drua and run a professional NRC while opening up Wallabies eligibility to overseas based players.

No more Wallabies contracts. Move toward a purely match/training payment system. Domestically look to sign squads of 35 players focusing on youth and development with ideally everyone earning around the $100k make. We'd then have roughly 240 odd pros at any one time domestically. There may be a drop off in quality initially but not that much below what we saw this year in my opinion.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Um I would love to see TT next year, but don't RA have to decide how many teams they can afford etc( well according to Hamish on TV)? I know NZ franchises have been getting stuck into NZR saying they need clarity on what is being played next year, for sponsors etc. NZR have made it clear that they want some kind of crossover with Aus if it can be worked. I not sure why you not going crook at RA for not having anything in place as yet.

Nah It’s irrelevant, Australia will have 5 teams next year and both organisations can plan a for a Trans Tasman tournament post the domestic leg. That’s something they can take to the broadcasters right now and offer as a value add proposition to the broadcast agreement negotiations and re-negotiations.

Australia have said they’re happy to host all the kiwi teams to make it happen, and said they’re happy to work with New Zealand to make it happen, Hamish has said he doesn’t understand why it’s not getting discussed from NZRU further. It’s surely in the best interest of both unions.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/leagu...n-eyes-code-switch-to-fulfil-all-blacks-dream

The #1 reason, that if we do a TT we need more than 10 teams.

“I played club when I was 14 and, when I was 15, I picked rep league instead of rep rugby, I had to pick one. I got picked in the nationals there.
“Rugby is harder, you have to wait longer for your opportunity, whereas league I was 15 and got picked up.
“I know some of my [rugby] mates were the best in New Zealand and they still haven’t been given a crack and they are 20 or 21 and still waiting their turn.”

We're (NZ and Aus) losing players to league who'd prefer rugby.

Brown said the chance to travel the globe was another benefit of union.
“Just in terms of travelling, in the NRL you don’t get as much," he said. “Rugby is pretty cool. That’s one thing I enjoy most about rugby, it’s the teams they play against, like England and South Africa.
“When you play in South Africa you learn about South Africa, same with [other countries] … Doing the haka, all that stuff is awesome.
“[I’ll consider it] down the track. I’ve got three more years here. I just want to focus on that and when the time comes I’ll be ready [to make a decision].”
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^ Love to know who his best in NZ mates who're now 20/ 21 & still waiting their turn are, clearly the franchise academy not to mention national age group scouts have dropped the ball big-time.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
^ Love to know who his best in NZ mates who're now 20/ 21 & still waiting their turn are, clearly the franchise academy not to mention national age group scouts have dropped the ball big-time.

Yep and best in NZ according to who? Because his mates or their families think they the best doesn't make it so. I got a mate I work with who is convinced his 2 kids are best soccer players in Qld, seems they can't even get in age grade teams in better clubs, but he still convinced it politics and not their ability.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Nah It’s irrelevant, Australia will have 5 teams next year and both organisations can plan a for a Trans Tasman tournament post the domestic leg. That’s something they can take to the broadcasters right now and offer as a value add proposition to the broadcast agreement negotiations and re-negotiations.

Australia have said they’re happy to host all the kiwi teams to make it happen, and said they’re happy to work with New Zealand to make it happen, Hamish has said he doesn’t understand why it’s not getting discussed from NZRU further. It’s surely in the best interest of both unions.

Not irrelevant? Hamish (you know the chairman of RA) said last week Australia will have 5 teams IF THEY CAN AFFORD THEM. And of course he would say he happy to host all kiwi teams, but as I have said repeatedly Hamish is a public relations man, and says an awful lot that he knows is never going to happen. Hell he knows NZ teams have got no reason or desire to be hosted here, and if you read what's happening NZR have said after they announced the 5 team comp, and are working towards a post domestic comp, if travel allows (and RA wants). See I am sure Hamish knows all this, but he still can make statements that make it look like he only one working towards it and he find plenty believe him. It's a great trick, you ignore everything else being said and done and make statements that your supporters want, and presto, they don't always have to be completely right or true, if you make enough people will believe what they want and forget all the ones that haven't come true. We have a President in USA who does same thing and he knows it works too.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
Not irrelevant? Hamish (you know the chairman of RA) said last week Australia will have 5 teams IF THEY CAN AFFORD THEM. And of course he would say he happy to host all kiwi teams, but as I have said repeatedly Hamish is a public relations man, and says an awful lot that he knows is never going to happen. Hell he knows NZ teams have got no reason or desire to be hosted here, and if you read what's happening NZR have said after they announced the 5 team comp, and are working towards a post domestic comp, if travel allows (and RA wants). See I am sure Hamish knows all this, but he still can make statements that make it look like he only one working towards it and he find plenty believe him. It's a great trick, you ignore everything else being said and done and make statements that your supporters want, and presto, they don't always have to be completely right or true, if you make enough people will believe what they want and forget all the ones that haven't come true. We have a President in USA who does same thing and he knows it works too.

Not unlike some of the debating on here :cool:, but I can sort of understand the approach by NZR. The difference for NZ is they have a much better supported domestic market, why rush into a TT competition in such uncertain times, why rush when another year of Aotearoa will keep there audience happy, they also have the Mitre 10 and what will probably be a better international calendar.

I have done business in Fiji, and while i do believe a pacific team would be possible, it could very quickly turn into a black hole if not done properly.

The difference for the RA, is without Super rugby there presence in the sporting landscape here is pretty barren (now we can go into why after 20 yrs of Super rugby that is :(:() but I think from a NZR point of view organizing a competition to start from 2022 maybe it's wiser to do that from next year with clearer heads and hopefully with C0-Vid in the rear view mirror, freeing up potential investors, why rush into something that could then go belly up, they could be calling the RA's bluff, who have no money and no broadcast deal.
And one big problem for the RA they simply don't have the playing depth to support 5 teams, and buying a bunch of journeymen (with what) to fill up those rosters, well good luck with that. The RA may be a lot more desperate come 2021 to make a deal.

The game in Australia should have gone domestic a long time ago to suit the market here, now its just a bloody rock and a hard place.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
The Bledisloe is already pretty much irrelevant. Just a matter of time till SA join the 6 nations.

What do NZR gain by bringing RA to its knees? They need Australia strong just to have someone to play against.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
The Bledisloe is already pretty much irrelevant. Just a matter of time till SA join the 6 nations.

What do NZR gain by bringing RA to its knees? They need Australia strong just to have someone to play against.

Because I think NZR view Australian rugby as being strong with 3 well supported teams in a TT competition of there design.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
The Bledisloe is already pretty much irrelevant. Just a matter of time till SA join the 6 nations.

What do NZR gain by bringing RA to its knees? They need Australia strong just to have someone to play against.


You jokers really seem to live in a dream world sometimes, I will bet anything I got that NZR have absolutely no intention and never have of bringing RA to it's knees. They also have to protect NZ rugby, and signing up to whatever the next plan that comes along without knowing if RA has got the finance etc to actually do it would be beyond stupidity. It is in NZR's interest to have Australia as a vibrant and strong partner/competitor, but not at the risk of weakening NZ rugby, anymore than RA would want to weaken the game more than it is here.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Opportunity meaning starting spots in Super Rugby.

Opportunity for a 20-21yo is certainly in a super squad, and I like WOB can't understand how the so called best in NZ at this age are not in their academies etc, and at least playing ITM cup. Think maybe this boy may get a bit of a fright if he thinks he will go back to NZ and make ABs if he was never good enough.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
You jokers really seem to live in a dream world sometimes, I will bet anything I got that NZR have absolutely no intention and never have of bringing RA to it's knees. They also have to protect NZ rugby, and signing up to whatever the next plan that comes along without knowing if RA has got the finance etc to actually do it would be beyond stupidity. It is in NZR's interest to have Australia as a vibrant and strong partner/competitor, but not at the risk of weakening NZ rugby, anymore than RA would want to weaken the game more than it is here.
Rude.

I was merely pointing out that NZRU don't have much to gain by playing hardball.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Besides, are NZRU actually protecting New Zealand rugby? the whole proposal to go ahead with a domestic 'Super Rugby' with three rando teams does not look like a strong move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top