Australian Rugby / RA

[Adam84]

The simple answer Super Rugby does not fund the new model, the new model whatever it is will need private capital investment to fund it and develop it. Thats why it will take 18 to 24 months to get the model.

easier said then done isn't it.... Private Equity have no interest in funding a new, largely experimental competition in a market where the code is dwindling andit's two predecessor competitions have failed. RA have already made an approach to market for PE and was met with little interest.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Hmmm, it's as if we need a billionaire willing to take a swing to improve something in Australia.

Just say we'll name each side after one of his businesses. Hell, I'll glue 21mm studs to the bottom of some Craftsman's if it will help.

 

[dru]

easier said then done isn't it.... Private Equity have no interest in funding a new, largely experimental competition in a market where the code is dwindling where it's two predecessor competitions have failed. RA have already made an approach to market for PE and was met with little interest.

The problem I have is that we have had the chance to do something about this when the situation was not as dire - but found excuses, reluctance or ennui without energy to act. So we are now here. Do we keep to the same ennui without action as the trend continues?

You could argue that the model was right in front of us in league but we chose the Super Rugby route never imagining that the punters would lose interest in it.

I think that the original Super offering, glittereing with enthusiasm was a good one. A real effort to do something. It is unfortunate that the challenges became increasingly obvious and that the competition lost its shine. It was a really good attempt. Time to dust off with the added experience and knowedge.

 

[stillmissit]

I agree with this, the existing clubs never appeared interested in stepping up (that's another story) but how do we move forward then, when our primary product is not fit for purpose.

I would argue the best option moving forward would be to use the existing 5 franchises and aim to add 3 teams for an 8 team competition.
You could argue keeping the Drua as your 6th team and look at adding a 2nd team in NSW & QLD.
Importantly I would still think you would play NZ and overseas teams but in a different format (champion leagues style) but base it around you domestic competition.
I just think this would be the best option to grow the game in Australia (which is the the main thing it needs, growth at home)

How its funded, well that's the Million dollar question, but the RA are essentially borrowing $80 million to operate over the next 3-4 years while already $40 million in debt. to achieve what if nothing changes????

Agree, but as a libertarian I want the Super Rugby or clubs or whoever to build it and NOT R.A. building it from the top down with a shit load of borrowed money.

 

[stillmissit]

The problem I have is that we have had the chance to do something about this when the situation was not as dire - but found excuses, reluctance or ennui without energy to act. So we are now here. Do we keep to the same ennui without action as the trend continues?



I think that the original Super offering, glittereing with enthusiasm was a good one. A real effort to do something. It is unfortunate that the challenges became increasingly obvious and that the competition lost its shine. It was a really good attempt. Time to dust off with the added experience and knowedge.

It is as Ghost says and that is the ability to identify with a team and players. I suggest most Aussie rugby supporters would struggle to name more than 3 kiwi Super Rugby players. The ennui that has encompassed us has been brought about by the hope that the next season will improve. After the Tahs win in 14? we should have reviewed all Super Rugby performances as opposed to dumping WA and sent off with another few seasons of hope again.

 

[Dan54]

easier said then done isn't it.... Private Equity have no interest in funding a new, largely experimental competition in a market where the code is dwindling andit's two predecessor competitions have failed. RA have already made an approach to market for PE and was met with little interest.

The problem is the that tv is the power that decides everything really isn't it? If Stan thought there would be enough interest in a new comp, I guessing they would push for it. And PE money will only come in if the games are on tv enough for companies to get some advertising to pay for it.

 

[half]

easier said then done isn't it.... Private Equity have no interest in funding a new, largely experimental competition in a market where the code is dwindling andit's two predecessor competitions have failed. RA have already made an approach to market for PE and was met with little interest.

Hmmm, it's as if we need a billionaire willing to take a swing to improve something in Australia.

Just say we'll name each side after one of his businesses. Hell, I'll glue 21mm studs to the bottom of some Craftsman's if it will help.

The problem I have is that we have had the chance to do something about this when the situation was not as dire - but found excuses, reluctance or ennui without energy to act. So we are now here. Do we keep to the same ennui without action as the trend continues?

Adam , Ghost and others.

The existing model we have in Super Rugby, does not work and can't be fixed no matter how much re-organising is attempted.

What is our model so we can define it.

The Governing body of Rugby in Australia as accepted by the international rugby board, along with partner nations governing bodies mostly NZ rugby, run the competition in Australia.

Within the Australian context the governing body of rugby in Australia is supported by the various state unions. The most important unions in NSW & QLD and arguably ACT unions run their teams in Super Rugby.

This model has been in decline for at least 15 years I would argue longer.

Dru, correctly pointed out we have failed to act when in a better position, despite south bound trend.

Why we failed to act is complex, and it's across many levels, it crosses many little chieftains, lots of ego's effected etc.

Australian rugby needs a new operating model, our competition in Australia long ago separated their clubs competitions from their national bodies, NRL, AFL & A-L, there models do vary between them. Across the global Indian cricket competitions, European or say world football, in the US NFL, MBL, NBL, Hockey & MLS all have similar but different models.

The refusal to face up to and then determine and argue for a new operating model has brought us to this point.

As I see it, we need Super Rugby to survive 4 to 7 years with the main objective to maintain the existing player base .

What the chosen model will be is open for debate, argument and needs to command not demand this is the way to go.

Otherwise Dru is 100% correct, we will slowly fade away.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

All depends on perception, EPL, NFL [US Gridiron}, AFL, all have national domestic competitions, all have different competitions formats.

If fact most successful sports / codes have national competitions.

We currently have five teams, mostly populated with Australian based players, if we jumped to 8 to 10 teams we need heaps more players, an argument could be to follow other international codes like basketball and football and bring in overseas players to help fill the gaps.

The key hhhmmmm main issue, important, critical, essential, thing is to do a non Australian Rugby decision, rather than like the NRC was a top down Pulver and before Flower decision from wo to go inside six months. The model chosen must include debate negotiation by all stakeholders.

Once the model is chosen, it will need to be developed and this I think is at the heart of your question, having chosen a model how does Super Rugby fund it,

The simple answer Super Rugby does not fund the new model, the new model whatever it is will need private capital investment to fund it and develop it. Thats why it will take 18 to 24 months to get the model.

Super Rugby's role is mostly to maintain some interest in rugby and keep a pool of players.

For the sake of discussion, I'll put the English soccer model out there for consideration as an alternative to the top-down approach currently being advocated for by RA.

Each squad is required to have a certain number of English players that have spent 3 years before their 21st birthday registered to an English club. However there is otherwise no centralization and no restriction (read: Giteau law) on selection to the national team.

This makes organically grown native talent disproportionately valuable and incentivizes clubs to develop young prospects. These native players are simultaneously exposed to the world-class international players and coaching that Premier League money brings in and arguably benefit from it. Players are given the freedom to go abroad in search of more playing time with no repercussion.


Problem #1: This model works precisely because the Premier League is the wealthiest soccer league in the world and English players tend to mostly stay home. Australian rugby does not pay more than Japan or France and will not be able to without massive investment.

Problem #2: Rugby is a more structured game than soccer. Forging the chemistry and cohesion necessary for a test side requires more time than a soccer side does. Leaving player movement and development at the mercy of the invisible hand might prove inadequate for improving the Wallabies as a cohesive unit.

Problem #3: Money. Where does it come from?

 

[stillmissit]

L Socks, thanks for the analogy and the hands up at the end, we all feel a bit like that at this time.

I remember quite clearly the calls for the NRC to build player strength at the next level below test rugby. The Roar and most rugby pundits thougth this was the way to go and when RA put it in place, hardly anyone went to watch them. I went to 2 matches and at the end of those I just couldn't be arsed, the drive out, the parking and the games had all that Ghost suggests is missing in Super Rugby.

SO! I am open to a new structure but I would like a team of deep rugby people to argue the merits, especially anyone who's been involved in Super Rugby and understands the issues inc financially that are involved in the comp. My suggestion is to leave it up to Waugh and some old heads to come up with a future for rugby in all its aspects from juniors to tests.

 

[half]

L Socks, thanks for the analogy and the hands up at the end, we all feel a bit like that at this time.

I remember quite clearly the calls for the NRC to build player strength at the next level below test rugby. The Roar and most rugby pundits thougth this was the way to go and when RA put it in place, hardly anyone went to watch them.

Both versions I said would fail and fail badly copped a lot of negative comments for saying it will fail.

My reason it was top down from Pulver and from through to team selection about six months... BTW Pulver showed his smarts as Flower did the same think in about the same time and it failed even worst.

This is the mistake we must never repeat, to work it must be bottom up. Get the model designed and then ask does anyone wanta be a part of it.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

My feeling is that building the engaging domestic competition or at least changing Super Rugby has to be the priority. The Wallabies struggle because domestic rugby struggles.

Building an entertaining, tribal competition that brings in revenue/engagement and all the advantages that buys improves the Wallabies and ensures the long term viability of the sport so that it could weather a bad RA ceo or a misguided decision.

Whereas going top-down full control means the sport stays "fragile" and overly tied to the good fortunes of the Wallabies and RA.

Counterpoint: New Zealand is successful maintaining control and turning the Crusaders into an incubation chamber for the all blacks

Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: New Zealand has minimal serious competition from other domestic sports...for now (a lot of kiwis I know love the Wahs)

 

[Dan54]

@LevitatingSocks , I think the first thing is to disregard the counterpoint to the counterpoint. NZ doesn't have huge compettion from other domestic sports because NZR puts so much work into keeping rugby top of pile. I always thought when in Aus AFL was similar, don't just sit back and say we got other sports that are popular , but get into schools etc at ground level and try and make a difference, but do same to top level. Even in NZ over last couple of months , they have had tv at preseason training for super teams etc, just keeping game at forefront of minds.
As you rightly point out there a Wahs thing at moment, it's not first time it's happened (and rugby actually reconises leahue etc with good wishhes etc posed to them on NZR social media), we had in early 80s soccer was going to take over etc. Is only stopped by a lot of work. Don't accept the other sports make hard, just work regardless.

 

[Adam84]

Both versions I said would fail and fail badly copped a lot of negative comments for saying it will fail.

you keep saying this as though you were the only one with criticisms of the design of those competitions at inception, but where did you make these comments and who provided that feedback?

 

[PhilClinton]

A lot of buzz words being thrown around like tribalism, rivalry, local derbies etc.

None of that stuff just happens. It literally is formed over decades of competition and fan engagement.

There were comments on the forums not long ago about how even the Reds v Tahs games had lost that interstate passion.

I’m all for changing the Super Rugby format but let’s not pretend a new coat of paint will suddenly have fans coming in droves to attend the games.

 

[dru]

The Wallabies struggle because domestic Super rugby struggles.

The club scene in Qld is mostly going fine, in spite of the overall problems to rugby in this country. NRC performed most poorly in NSW where key leadership within SRU actively hunted it down with intent to kill. The relationship between SRU and NSWRU and RA seemed toxic. You can call this a problem with not building from the ground up but it is an incomplete assessment.

Our key issue in my mind for building a Rugby for the future is to make the game national. The start in Canberra is excellent, it needs to be cherished. Melbourne and Perth need to be high on the priorities. We need to make what we can of the strengths from NSW and Qld. These things can and should start with the grassroots in development and pathways but it also needs a primary professional game that focusses on same drivers.

That has not been Super. I don't see it ever being Super.

For the Wallabies there is a lot more in the mix than the competition systems below them. That does impact the building blocks available for the Wallabies and has long term downtrend issues because of the systems, pathways and commercial success back in the unions. But the complicating issues for the Wallabies started with an adequate squad in spite of the background development issues. That whole "top-down" thing is working strongly in it's disaster and nadir. I am less confident that when they are successful, that the top-down thinking is so effective in building what are in-substantial roots.

 

[hoggy]

A lot of buzz words being thrown around like tribalism, rivalry, local derbies etc.

None of that stuff just happens. It literally is formed over decades of competition and fan engagement.

There were comments on the forums not long ago about how even the Reds v Tahs games had lost that interstate passion.

I’m all for changing the Super Rugby format but let’s not pretend a new coat of paint will suddenly have fans coming in droves to attend the games.

Then why after 25 years, growing tribalism, rivalry, local derbies etc etc and with Super rugby it appears the exact opposite is happening.

Every 2-3 years they have been shoving a new coat of paint on Super Rugby, but nothing changes.

The problem with so many of the doubters on here say "yes a domestic competition is the best format" but I will only support it if from day one you turn up with a $billion dollar TV contract, ready made teams all funded & thousands of new fans all waiting at the turnstiles.

The game is forever stuck in fucking no man's land.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

There is a lot of blaming going on of the tool and not the tradie. The fact is we have been underperforming at Super Rugby and International level. You can't bring back the old fans let alone dream of creating new ones the way we are going.

We could create the best domestic league you could ask for but if the Wallabies sucked I'm confident the comp would wither as we would blame it.

We feed down from the Wallabies whether we like it or not. That's why it's so important they get it right.

 

[hoggy]

There is a lot of blaming going on of the tool and not the tradie. The fact is we have been underperforming at Super Rugby and International level. You can't bring back the old fans let alone dream of creating new ones the way we are going.

We could create the best domestic league you could ask for but if the Wallabies sucked I'm confident the comp would wither as we would blame it.

We feed down from the Wallabies whether we like it or not. That's why it's so important they get it right.

While I understand your sentiment, that by definition is ultimately accepting your own demise.

Yes the game flows down from the Wallabies in Australia, the main reason why it is struggling so much, however that strategy for growth moving forward will become harder & harder to achieve especially for a sport that is barely struggling to maintain 4th or 5th spot in its own backyard.

As the other more dominant domestic codes increase there market share in Australia, Rugby will simply be unable to compete for resources & players to achieve competitive status for the Wallabies.

10, 20, 30 years from now, you simply won't be able to get it right regardless of what you do as you won't have the tools to do it.

If the game doesn't start to compete with the AFL/NRL/Soccer/Basketball and any other emerging codes at a grassroot domestic level moving forward, you simply will not have the athletes available for the Wallabies to compete with, because they will all be playing other sports.

 

[stillmissit]

Both versions I said would fail and fail badly copped a lot of negative comments for saying it will fail.

My reason it was top down from Pulver and from through to team selection about six months... BTW Pulver showed his smarts as Flower did the same think in about the same time and it failed even worst.

This is the mistake we must never repeat, to work it must be bottom up. Get the model designed and then ask does anyone wanta be a part of it.

Agree in bottom-up approach BUT it must be built by people with skin in the game and not just keyboard warriors paid or unpaid.

 

[stillmissit]

The club scene in Qld is mostly going fine, in spite of the overall problems to rugby in this country. NRC performed most poorly in NSW where key leadership within SRU actively hunted it down with intent to kill. The relationship between SRU and NSWRU and RA seemed toxic. You can call this a problem with not building from the ground up but it is an incomplete assessment.

Our key issue in my mind for building a Rugby for the future is to make the game national. The start in Canberra is excellent, it needs to be cherished. Melbourne and Perth need to be high on the priorities. We need to make what we can of the strengths from NSW and Qld. These things can and should start with the grassroots in development and pathways but it also needs a primary professional game that focusses on same drivers.

That has not been Super. I don't see it ever being Super.

For the Wallabies there is a lot more in the mix than the competition systems below them. That does impact the building blocks available for the Wallabies and has long term downtrend issues because of the systems, pathways and commercial success back in the unions. But the complicating issues for the Wallabies started with an adequate squad in spite of the background development issues. That whole "top-down" thing is working strongly in it's disaster and nadir. I am less confident that when they are successful, that the top-down thinking is so effective in building what are in-substantial roots.

Dru, The BIG question that I would be asking if I were in RA, before they start making changes is "What the F*** have the academies been doing?"