Australian Rugby / RA

[noscrumnolife]

It is not trolling to point out that the Brumbies (and the other Super teams, cant single them out here) don't pull good crowds and that the numbers are on a decline as well. Anyone with eyes can tell you that. Id argue it is actually trolling to suggest otherwise, complete denial of reality.

 

[Slim 293]

It is not trolling to point out that the Brumbies (and the other Super teams, cant single them out here) don't pull good crowds and that the numbers are on a decline as well. Anyone with eyes can tell you that. Id argue it is actually trolling to suggest otherwise, complete denial of reality.

I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise...

 

[RugbyReg]

Whatever happens in the future with a national competition, it should be a no brainer that they base a team in Toowoomba. I'm sick of driving back from Suncorp late at night after only having two beers. I can have a belly full of beers at Toowoomba's 14,000 seat stadium and walk home. Who cares about whether it makes economic sense - why won't anyone think of punters like me? Plus, rugby's always been strong on the Downs and there are players from this area in every Super Rugby team now - you all know it makes sense.

which 14,000 seat stadium in Toowoomba?/

 

[The Phoenix]

which 14,000 seat stadium in Toowoomba?/

Toowoomba Sports Ground aka Clive Berghofer Stadium aka The Athletic Oval. They've had a few Reds trial games there and with temp seating it can host that many. Plus it's being upgraded for 2032 games to host Women's soccer pool games. Look, I know it won't happen, but it would be handy for me.

 

[Pfitzy]

There is a concern that a local competition will cause our standards to deteriorate and cause the Wallabies to drop even further down the world pecking order. Done properly, I don't believe that is necessarily so. It is arguably likely to be a more attractive spectacle for local people and as the Au years showed, would probably lead to substantially increased crowds at games and more TV viewer interest.

As a counterpoint, I'd counter with what Kiwis have been saying: the exit of South African teams took away an important facet of competitive play.

If we remove the Kiwi side of things, we gain in not losing to them but we lose for not playing them at all.

Looking at our domestic scene, the players inside pro rugby right now don't all push upward for national selection. Diluting this existing level of quality is a guarantee of standards dropping in the short term; "Premier" Rugby is not going to provide in the short term; it simply isn't good enough in the current multi-grade format.

We'd need something to drive development in playing and coaching for that to head in a positive direction for the longer term.

And then there is the money question: without PE, who will pay? The Premiership clubs don't have the money. The franchises and states don't all have the money. Twiggybucks?

Lastly, there is the question of tribalism. As many have pointed out, NRC failed because certain sections didn't get behind it, and the franchises had no identity.

I don't identify with any Premier Club. Particularly not the ones in Sydney, who are often hostile to my own club. Why would I turn around and support that?

 

[Pfitzy]

but it would be handy for me.

Peak Aussie Rugby

 

[Tomthumb]

As a counterpoint, I'd counter with what Kiwis have been saying: the exit of South African teams took away an important facet of competitive play.

Which I have always found weird as the South African's were mostly uncompetitive in Super Rugby

 

[Merrow]

He was trying to have a crack at me because I put up actually stats

but this says it better than anything

View attachment 17821

SHE wasn’t having a crack at you. SHE was pointing out the crowd figures given at the games. Your choice not to believe them.

 

[Members Section]

SHE wasn’t having a crack at you. SHE was pointing out the crowd figures given at the games. Your choice not to believe them.

i wasnt talking about you

 

[hoggy]

If we remove the Kiwi side of things, we gain in not losing to them but we lose for not playing them at all.

No one ever said that we wouldn't be playing NZ teams anymore. The Wallabies would still be playing 14/15 Tests a year. and no doubt cross over games would occur with NZ Teams, with champion leagues style competitions.

It just seems that whenever a domestic competition is mentioned, it is always implied we are going to turn into some sort of North Korean regime.

 

[Dctarget]

move on people, nothing to be gained here

 

[Bullrush]

IMO, the Brumbies do not do a good job of engaging and drumming up local support. It would probably be the easiest Australian franchise to do it in and they do SFA.

Il

 

[sunnyboys]

No one ever said that we wouldn't be playing NZ teams anymore. The Wallabies would still be playing 14/15 Tests a year. and no doubt cross over games would occur with NZ Teams, with champion leagues style competitions.

It just seems that whenever a domestic competition is mentioned, it is always implied we are going to turn into some sort of North Korean regime.

A few pages back I suggested a new structure where the 5 current Super Rugby teams play in a domestic SRAu (plus others if need be), and there be two new teams created to play international provincial rugby (so SRP (Super Rugby Pacific), world club champs if it eventuates).

advantages:
More competitive vs kiwi teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (making more aussies tune in or attend matches)
We still do continue to expose our players to international opponents (but hopefully in more competitive teams)
There is no loss of supporters through cutting teams as per the Force scenario
SRAu provides lots of local interest and tribal passion and importantly also, content. as well as Aus teams winning.
Allows for improved consolidation of talent (and cohesion) for the test team
Doesn't see a reduction in professional opportunities for emerging talent
Would allow for a reset of how players are remunerated - separate pay structures for SRAu vs the "international" players - SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) & Tests.
SRAu can be changed, updated, expanded, contracted as it suits Australian Rugby's needs and bank account. More autonomy.

In my first comment on this, I mentioned what the two SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) teams should be called and where they should be based.
Decisions like that can make it hard to make a fair judgement of the proposal. So i'm not naming the teams or where they should be based. But more competitive teams should for better commercial outcomes and they need to guide those decisions.
With fewer teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific), I'd be then asking NZR to move to full home and away season.

From SRAu and down - that's run by state bodies, along with development pathways with strong support from RA - and as much alignment as possible - with shared training and fitness programs and standards set by RA but implemented by state bodies.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) & Test teams are basically run centrally by RA. Providing a clear link between the work done by the two SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) teams and the Test side.

I like to look at this as Aus catching up to SA/NZ - who when Super Rugby started added a smaller group of pro clubs above their existing, more numerous and more extensively spread provincial teams.

 

[Rebel man]

Can we stop talking about changes to the professional game and start talking about why the professional systems are failing?

This is what needs to be addressed. Unfortunately the Shute Shield and Hospitals Cup are not fit for purpose.

 

[Brumby Runner]

As a counterpoint, I'd counter with what Kiwis have been saying: the exit of South African teams took away an important facet of competitive play.

If we remove the Kiwi side of things, we gain in not losing to them but we lose for not playing them at all.

Looking at our domestic scene, the players inside pro rugby right now don't all push upward for national selection. Diluting this existing level of quality is a guarantee of standards dropping in the short term; "Premier" Rugby is not going to provide in the short term; it simply isn't good enough in the current multi-grade format.

We'd need something to drive development in playing and coaching for that to head in a positive direction for the longer term.

And then there is the money question: without private equity, who will pay? The Premiership clubs don't have the money. The franchises and states don't all have the money. Twiggybucks?

Lastly, there is the question of tribalism. As many have pointed out, NRC failed because certain sections didn't get behind it, and the franchises had no identity.

I don't identify with any Premier Club. Particularly not the ones in Sydney, who are often hostile to my own club. Why would I turn around and support that?

Pfitzy, see Hoggy's comment above.

 

[Wallaby Man]

A few pages back I suggested a new structure where the 5 current Super Rugby teams play in a domestic SRAu (plus others if need be), and there be two new teams created to play international provincial rugby (so SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific), world club champs if it eventuates).

advantages:
More competitive vs kiwi teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) (making more aussies tune in or attend matches)
We still do continue to expose our players to international opponents (but hopefully in more competitive teams)
There is no loss of supporters through cutting teams as per the Force scenario
SRAu provides lots of local interest and tribal passion and importantly also, content. as well as Aus teams winning.
Allows for improved consolidation of talent (and cohesion) for the test team
Doesn't see a reduction in professional opportunities for emerging talent
Would allow for a reset of how players are remunerated - separate pay structures for SRAu vs the "international" players - SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) & Tests.
SRAu can be changed, updated, expanded, contracted as it suits Australian Rugby's needs and bank account. More autonomy.

In my first comment on this, I mentioned what the two SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) teams should be called and where they should be based.
Decisions like that can make it hard to make a fair judgement of the proposal. So i'm not naming the teams or where they should be based. But more competitive teams should for better commercial outcomes and they need to guide those decisions.
With fewer teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific), I'd be then asking NZR to move to full home and away season.

From SRAu and down - that's run by state bodies, along with development pathways with strong support from Rugby Australia - and as much alignment as possible - with shared training and fitness programs and standards set by Rugby Australia but implemented by state bodies.

SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) & Test teams are basically run centrally by Rugby Australia. Providing a clear link between the work done by the two SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) teams and the Test side.

I like to look at this as Aus catching up to SA/NZ - who when Super Rugby started added a smaller group of pro clubs above their existing, more numerous and more extensively spread provincial teams.

I like the premise but you just can’t have players living in Perth, Melbourne for 3 months, then having to move to Brisbane or Sydney for another 3 months (for the consolidated period v kiwi teams), then heading off to wallaby camp and travel the world for 3 months. It’s just not feasible for player retention and a guaranteed way for losing players with family’s to overseas because they want a stable environment to have kids in school etc. or young players on low wages affording to jump around housing etc.

 

[sunnyboys]

I like the premise but you just can’t have players living in Perth, Melbourne for 3 months, then having to move to Brisbane or Sydney for another 3 months (for the consolidated period v kiwi teams), then heading off to wallaby camp and travel the world for 3 months. It’s just not feasible for player retention and a guaranteed way for losing players with family’s to overseas because they want a stable environment to have kids in school etc. or young players on low wages affording to jump around housing etc.

next level detail - i'd run the two comps concurrently. so that impact is reduced. your either playing SRAu or SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) for the season - not both (perhaps only as a short term injury cover.) Reasoning is that global calendar will dictate it mainly. and the current Super Rugby teams are doing some good stuff with Aug-Nov inbound and outbound tours from other club teams.

 

[Merrow]

IMO, the Brumbies do not do a good job of engaging and drumming up local support. It would probably be the easiest Australian franchise to do it in and they do SFA.

Il

What don’t they do?

 

[Bullrush]

What don’t they do?

Much at all lol

For a game that is struggling domestically, there seems to be little to zero willingness to engage with the local fan.

I reckon my son has had about the same, if not more opportunities to meet rugby stars from visiting Aotearoa teams than Brumby players.

6yrs of playing and there has been a Brumby presence at two trainings - including rep rugby.

There are only 7 clubs in Canberra and maybe 3-4 schools that play. How hard could it be to do something with the kids and get them excited about rugby?

That’s my thoughts anyway.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

If they where to ever to go with premier grades clubs, the only thing that would be the same imo would be clubs IP.