Where to for Super Rugby?

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

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.

I'm not sure it's 'us' jokers in a dream world either.... what is apparent is that there are dreamers and jokers on both sides of the Tasman. My take is that NZR are both dreamers and jokers.

 

[qwerty51]

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.

Who’s says they’re not? Here’s the comparison:

A young kid gets an NRL squad offer and likely to play first grade that year and likely on at least 100k.

In rugby they’re offered a wider squad or academy spot for 40-50k with no chance to play Super Rugby that year only academy games and Mitre10.

Which one do you take?

There’s 5x the pro contracts in NRL.

 

[Derpus]

If i was a potential pro-rugby player i'd play NRL from 18-22 then look to jump. Prove myself from 22-26 or 27 in Rugby, maybe nab a few international appearances and then retire to Japan to play kiddies rugby for 10 years on a high end NRL salary.

Start with the high impact stuff and work your way down.

 

[Dan54]

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.

Once again, I ask what rando teams you talk about? Not what is written in press, they have not accepted any teams, they may of has EOIs from them, but the suggestion they are going ahead with 3 random teams is ridiculous.

 

[Derpus]

Once again, I ask what rando teams you talk about? Not what is written in press, they have not accepted any teams, they may of has EOIs from them, but the suggestion they are going ahead with 3 random teams is ridiculous.

Didn't we already agree that they had officially committed to adding three teams from those who have submitted EOI's? there was a quote from the NZRU guy somewhere. Maybe im making that up.

 

[Rebels3]

If the teams aren’t coming from Aus, they will have to be new entities.

 

[Dan54]

Rude.

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

And I agree and wasn't trying to be rude mate, just replying to comments that seem to indicate that some you seem to think NZR want to bring Australia to it's knees, it surely doesn't, and aren't both supposedly playing hardball? Isn't this why we have a Hamish fan club , because he supposedly playing hard ball?

 

[Dan54]

Didn't we already agree that they had officially committed to adding three teams from those who have submitted EOI's? there was a quote from the NZRU guy somewhere. Maybe im making that up.

No but adding teams or attempting to is hardly the same as adding random teams, isn't the complaint at moment because they not adding random teams, but wanting good sound ones?

 

[Dan54]

If i was a potential pro-rugby player i'd play NRL from 18-22 then look to jump. Prove myself from 22-26 or 27 in Rugby, maybe nab a few international appearances and then retire to Japan to play kiddies rugby for 10 years on a high end NRL salary.

Start with the high impact stuff and work your way down.

Sound scheme mate, if only we good enough to do it, though perhaps to really crack rugby swap back at 20 at latest Just out of interest, if you really are good enough there seems to be a few 20-21 yos in All Blacks ,Vai, Sotutu, Clarke etc

 

[Derpus]

No but adding teams or attempting to is hardly the same as adding random teams, isn't the complaint at moment because they not adding random teams, but wanting good sound ones?

Whilst appearing unwillingly to countenance 5 Australian teams - yes.

If you choice was 5 Aus teams with 1-2 not particularly great verse 3 unknowns - its not a choice.

 

[rugboy]

If i was a potential pro-rugby player i'd play NRL from 18-22 then look to jump. Prove myself from 22-26 or 27 in Rugby, maybe nab a few international appearances and then retire to Japan to play kiddies rugby for 10 years on a high end NRL salary.

Start with the high impact stuff and work your way down.

Sounds sensible. Just need to let Cam Murray and Angus Crichton know. Seems Tom Wright had already received the memo.

 

[Dan54]

Whilst appearing unwillingly to countenance 5 Australian teams - yes.

If you choice was 5 Aus teams with 1-2 not particularly great verse 3 unknowns - its not a choice.

I agree, but I think you will find if you have listened to what NZR have said, they want all Aus teams in if they are able to be sustainable, you know be able to be able to afford, and you can bet your boots they won't be keen on other teams that can't show they are able to afford to be there ,they won't be unknowns, as shown by not letting PI team join next year. It's called responsible governance!

 

[Derpus]

I agree, but I think you will find if you have listened to what NZR have said, they want all Aus teams in if they are able to be sustainable, you know be able to be able to afford, and you can bet your boots they won't be keen on other teams that can't show they are able to afford to be there ,they won't be unknowns, as shown by not letting PI team join next year. It's called responsible governance!

That seems very chicken and egg, though.

How can any team be sustainable without a competition to play in? anyways. We've been through all this.

Rumour has it that the Fox offer was about on par with what we previously had which means, assuming Twiggy fronts the Force, we can afford 5. If that's the case NZRU won't have any reasons left to play silly buggers.

 

[Dan54]

That seems very chicken and egg, though.

How can any team be sustainable without a competition to play in? anyways. We've been through all this.

Rumour has it that the Fox offer was about on par with what we previously had which means, assuming Twiggy fronts the Force, we can afford 5. If that's the case NZRU won't have any reasons left to play silly buggers.

If rumours were true, I had an awful lot of girlfriends in bed with me when I was a young fella , unfortunately they not always true.
And if they are true and getting the same money, why were they broke last year? Though I really hope all is good.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

That seems very chicken and egg, though.

How can any team be sustainable without a competition to play in? anyways. We've been through all this.

Rumour has it that the Fox offer was about on par with what we previously had which means, assuming Twiggy fronts the Force, we can afford 5. If that's the case NZRU won't have any reasons left to play silly buggers.

There is an assumption the force are prepared to pay in a competition which they self fund their participation - i don’t buy it and suspect neither does twiggy. Joining super rugby nz competition for example would be on basis of share of broadcast revenue.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

There is an assumption the force are prepared to pay in a competition which they self fund their participation - i don’t buy it and suspect neither does twiggy. Joining super rugby nz competition for example would be on basis of share of broadcast revenue.

It's been a while since I did Tax Law but there's a reason Forrest administered GRR and the Force via his philanthropic arm. Turning a profit would be counter to the beneficial taxation arrangements under that structure.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It's been a while since I did Tax Law but there's a reason Forrest administered GRR and the Force via his philanthropic arm. Turning a profit would be counter to the beneficial taxation arrangements under that structure.

I still don’t buy it - ok maybe another season he may do and tip in extra money as other privately owned sides with wealthy billionaires may do but eventually would some share of competition revenue

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I still don’t buy it - ok maybe another season he may do and tip in extra money as other privately owned sides with wealthy billionaires may do but eventually would some share of competition revenue

He see returns in the form of tax offsets. Likely in quantities comfortably more so than any profits from a TV deal. Then there's the whole goodwill side of the coin. Equally as valuable.

 

[half]

opps sorry guys wrong thread. The post is in the broadcast thread.

 

[dru]

There is an assumption the force are prepared to pay in a competition which they self fund their participation - i don’t buy it and suspect neither does twiggy. Joining super rugby nz competition for example would be on basis of share of broadcast revenue.

Though NZR finances are then squeezed. Are the current franchises expecting a drop in funding to support the additional team(s)?