Derpus
George Gregan (70)
Auckland was pretty nice when i visited. That said i liked Wellington more than both.
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
I can see some without families also enjoying some of the hedonism of the Gold Coast.
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
Knock it down and start over? Honestly I'm unsure but if the thing came crashing down it would suck, though you could hope it would take out the usyd boys, the randwick boys and the mosman/shore boys as it went. There are so many on the ground and high up executives, admin and managers who would be great but simply aren't part of those clubs and don't want to be involved so are running league, soccer or afl clubs. Same goes for the club guys who are just as bad or exclusive but in a smaller world and seem to get off on whinging about what shouldn't be done.
There's no will for going all in on the NRC but they should imo. They just need to take in bids and everyone needs to lock commitments for 5 years. Og nrc the Sydney clubs refused to work with the ARU and the ARU weren't committed to making it big. They sort of just let people run. If you look at the a-league, which has its problems but also has now been around a while they supplied kits, dictated brands, approved business models and media sourcing and directly supported in back room capacities.
Other option is to revert to when we had country based pools In super rugby and let it develop more Like a euro champions cup. Normal season followed by international season. Orgs will take a hit though in doing that.
Force, rebs and brumbies could all still exist in either scenario. Tahs and reds would have to fly most likely in the sense of them as a pro Club.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
FWIW later today I'm gunna condense my ramblings & put them up on the Where To....? thread. It's a discussion worth having IMO 'cos I don't think the people advocating free movement of players have fully thought it through.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
Good old windy Wellington, you can't beat it on a nice day. But its literally Hell's gate on a bad one.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Mate Wellington ALWAYS beat Auckland, may get windy but it got more character than Auckland will ever have!! Lived in Wellington for a few years and drove Tower Cranes there so know exactly what wind is like ! I like Melbourne to, in my opinion much better than Sydney and Brisbane, and once again weather never decides if a city if good or bad, it's the vibe the city has got. I used to be pretty keen on Christchurch too, before earthquake.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Hey WOB, first, apologies for coming lately to this interesting input. I thought it better to go back to the first of your posts.
Firstly, to answer your question with a question: If the suggested change in policy will make no difference, as you suggest, does this not provide open door to change the policy? If you're correct, the policy as exists is entirely redundant.
Clearly a view to spread the Kiwi talent through Australia is Aus-centric. But where we are traveling is looking to a revised comp, within that Aus focused view, is trying to meet the requirement of broadcasters. The shrink to greatness thing is a complete Australian fail.
Equally clear is that diluting the Australian talent by expanding teams, results in a lop-sided competition which is also a fail. As those policies dictate matters at the moment.
The easier solution (based on these specific criteria) is for Australia to drop NZ altogether and run a domestic comp where a level playing field can better attained. Some argue that such a watered down comp will not capture interest. I disagree, as long as it is competitive I think it would gather support.
Equally clearly, the best solution is both high quality and higher quantity of teams.
If "Super" then follows a domestic comp, this could be arranged by rep teams where the Aus talent is condensed into say two teams, against the Kiwi 5 big hitters. If it just the top aus domestic teams, that is also pointless.
If we want a TT, then another solution is to further reduce Aus teams. Debacle, disaster and the same rugby downtrend beyond the abyss.
But let's say we built a comp with 14 teams, which means adding another 4 Aus teams. Those current Kiwi AB players may not come over (though I think this would soften over time).Those current non AB but Kiwi franchise starting players might not either. But Kiwi players not starting and wanting opportunity might. Guys at the edge of professional opportunity but not making it in NZ, they might too.
But the ultimate answer to your question "what then?" is that a TT competition would not be viable, Australia would need to run on it's own, and Kiwis need to seek alternate international partners - if that is what they seek.
Or of course, RA simply sucks it up and continues on the hem skirts of NZRU with the downtrend accelerating. If that can actually be imagined.
eastman
Arch Winning (36)
All this talk about restricting eligibility of international (seems like its only kiwis being brought up, not islanders btw..) players completely misses the point- we want this to be a professional and sustainable competition. Why would a New Zealander want to come to Australia? Because if the salary is equivalent and there is the opportunity, why the fuck wouldn't they? Like they do in the NRL, J-League and any other comparable and successful competition.
Winning teams are far more likely to be commercially successful teams, and in the long run maybe rugby will be seen as a real option for that freak athlete in St. Marys.
We need to go with a trans- Tasman competition with complete free trade of players between teams. Now that might mean that initially the Australian teams could be filled 60-70% Kiwis, but in my opinion, if this helps Australian teams to be competitive and win, this will do more to bring engagement and popularity across Sydney than some guy from Randwick being able to boast that his son played U10s with half the current Waratahs.
Winning teams are far more likely to be commercially successful teams, and in the long run maybe rugby will be seen as a real option for that freak athlete in St. Marys.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
They come to play for Australian teams in the NRL because there are lot more Australian franchises. I assume the money is pretty good in the J-League.
But it will be a very long time, if ever, for the quality of coaching in the average Australian rugby franchise to be on a par with that on offer in New Zealand.
If the money is the same (which it would have to be, presumably), the advantages of living in one's own country and playing for a team that will probably do more to improve and showcase one's skills and opportunities for higher honours would seem to be pretty persuasive. Finally, not having been in too many myself, I assume that it is always nice to be in a winning team.
Add it all up. Advantage New Zealand.
brokendown
Vay Wilson (31)
don't I know it,I spent the first 27 years of my life there,that's why I live in Perth.lol
Juan Cote
Syd Malcolm (24)
When you consider the a-league is ranked the 58th best comp in the world and Soup holds itself out to be the premier provincial rugby comp in the world, any comparison between the two in the way you are trying to is meaningless.
Super Rugby is 59th, isn't it?
TSR
Mark Ella (57)
What position is New Zealand in to attract sufficient dollars to fund a professional comp that can retain their best players either to the extent or close to the extent that super rugby currently is?
If they are able to do that then I imagine there is limited appeal from their side in a TT comp. If they can’t then I imagine it will at least be an option considered.
Some NZ players already come to Australia for opportunities. If the selection restrictions are dropped surely it would be reasonable to be expect that to increase. I imagine that the quality of the coaching program will impact a lot of decisions, but it won’t be the be all and end all. Why do guys sign for places like the Titans? Normally because it is the best offer (on whatever their personal scale is) available to them.
If they are able to do that then I imagine there is limited appeal from their side in a TT comp. If they can’t then I imagine it will at least be an option considered.
Some NZ players already come to Australia for opportunities. If the selection restrictions are dropped surely it would be reasonable to be expect that to increase. I imagine that the quality of the coaching program will impact a lot of decisions, but it won’t be the be all and end all. Why do guys sign for places like the Titans? Normally because it is the best offer (on whatever their personal scale is) available to them.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
They still draw crowds to both ITM and Super Rugby so presumably significantly better financial position than us.
I always understood that Super Rugby was a financial burden on RA. I can't see the appeal in NZ getting involved in a competition where half the teams will be in the red for the get go.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
I would argue that it doesn't just have to be open slather. You could restrict imports to say 1-2 players per team. It would also be reciprocal, introduce a semi draft system.
The point is to introduce a system that is beneficial to the competition not suit a specific country over the other.
The point is to introduce a system that is beneficial to the competition not suit a specific country over the other.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
Yeah true. Who knows? they apparently have pretty good cash reserves and i think any product they would have would have greater appeal overseas than anything we could cobble together, so more TV money.
I guess my point was that adding us into the equation doesn't really automatically mean there would be more money available to Kiwi sides even if they fall short alone.
If anything it could drag them down further.
I guess my point was that adding us into the equation doesn't really automatically mean there would be more money available to Kiwi sides even if they fall short alone.
If anything it could drag them down further.
TSR
Mark Ella (57)
I think this is a key point - NZ Rugby want to maximise their earning capacity, which means taking part in the best possible comp they can with enough games to provide a high level of content for broadcasters and the biggest possible numbers of viewers. Yes, they’ll have other goals too - but playing in a high quality comp that attracts broadcast revenue & sponsorship will be high up the list.
They may feel their best avenue for this is ITM cup. But if they do look towards a Trans Tasman comp then there are some benefits there (IMO) of a more free flow of players.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
WOB I invariably concur with your observations about the game, and especially when it comes to the NZ side of things.
But it's starting to wear a bit thin for people to contimually claim that NZ are not interested in a competition with Aus Rugby, or that NZ players wouldn't want to play for an Aus side which by very definition must be underperforming. There is no doubt at all that Aus rugby went through a very low patch around 2016 - 2018, but last year and this has been a different story.
The Brumbies earned their third spot in Super last year and this year were one of the best performing sides, probably the best except for a couple of minutes of brain fart at the end of the game v the Landers until COVID -19 put a stop to proceedings. Remember too, that they had a very interrupted pre and early season, unable to train in Canberra due to bush fire smoke, then had a run of mumps in the playing group and coaching staff that affected their preparations for three matches, one being in the lead up to their excellent and well-deserved win over the NZ leading side at the time (at home for the Chiefs). There is just no way that they are not on a par with any of the NZ sides at this time.
On top of that, even the Rebels came away with a win over a NZ side this year iirc, and there were a few wins for the baddies last year as well. This year, only the Tahs look to be lagging and that might be that they were also under-done by smoke at the beginning.
Then, have a look at the various results against SA sides last year and this. Again, the Brumbies were undefeated I believe against SA sides last year and other results were at least on par. It is not incorrect to say (imo) that the Aus Super sides are stronger currently than the SA sides and that Aus rugby is stronger than SA rugby except at test level (where there is very little difference) and in administration.
If NZ want to play the better teams, they should be looking at playing here rather than in SA. Not that I would personally favour that. I am coming round to the view that a wholly domestic comp based on the Super sides plus Force and perhaps Fiji and/or other PI teams playing out of Sydney/Brisbane etc would be our best option. We desperately need more home games and local derbies to bring back interest in the game here. Playing NZ in a TT comp would just continue the unsatisfactory situation where our teams (and yours) would be playing more games away. Finish with a final series involving the top two teams from each country to establish a TT champion by all means, but lets just get back to having domestic comps that give every country a champion team every year.