• 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.

Super Rugby Pacific 2023

Dan54

John Eales (66)
Interesting to get players that are currently in France isn't it? I mean the general concensus is they get more coin over there etc, but maybe only elite players? Seem an interesting pick up by the clan.

And to add now that ABs finished I get to turn my mind to super rugby for awhile, so amd wondering who the Canes will chase as 3rd halfback now that TJ is a goner. Not sure if Logan Henry from Manawatu is locked up anywhere, but looked ok to me, unless they chase young Crowley from the Naki , which would of course plaese me, a Crowley from Kaponga in the Canes ;)
 

waiopehu oldboy

Phil Waugh (73)
Any chat in Aus media wrt Rugby Australia & NZR reaching agreement on what SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) looks like post-2023? There's a GPaul story in the Hurld but it's a GPaul story therefore I'll believe it when I see it reported elsewhere.
 

Joe King

Jim Clark (26)
Because it’s a WC year, I would much rather SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) 23 be a single round with finals.

This would allow room for 3x Possible v Probable games to select the Wallabies. Alternatively, 3 extra trial games for Wallabies, and 3 games for Australia A.

Wallabies only have about 5 games left before the WC and we’ve had such a disrupted team this year. Players need more games together and we need more time to confirm the team.

We could potentially have a strong team if best players are available, but not enough cohesion built could be what let’s us down in the WC.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
Because it’s a WC year, I would much rather SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) 23 be a single round with finals.

This would allow room for 3x Possible v Probable games to select the Wallabies. Alternatively, 3 extra trial games for Wallabies, and 3 games for Australia A.

Wallabies only have about 5 games left before the WC and we’ve had such a disrupted team this year. Players need more games together and we need more time to confirm the team.

We could potentially have a strong team if best players are available, but not enough cohesion built could be what let’s us down in the WC.
I would enjoy that too Joe, and from a NZ point we could have a North/South game, which is something we treasure over here. Only trouble is it would open unions to criticism of only using super rugby to feed test teams?
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
I would enjoy that too Joe, and from a NZ point we could have a North/South game, which is something we treasure over here. Only trouble is it would open unions to criticism of only using super rugby to feed test teams?
That’s already the case Dan, not just the criticism but the act of doing so, anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.
 

Wilson

Mark Loane (55)
Any chat in Aus media wrt Rugby Australia & NZR reaching agreement on what SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) looks like post-2023? There's a GPaul story in the Hurld but it's a GPaul story therefore I'll believe it when I see it reported elsewhere.

From the SMH:
The news comes as New Zealand and Australia bury the hatchet on Super Rugby and agree a long-term deal to keep a 12-team competition intact until 2030.

The deal will be announced in Sydney on Friday, the Herald understands, with Australia to retain five teams through until after the 2029 women’s World Cup.

It is a big breakthrough after months of negotiations, during which Rugby Australia chairman Hamish McLennan repeatedly threatened to walk away from the 25-year-old partnership.

A report in the New Zealand Herald suggested the final terms of the agreement, which starts in 2024, would see “temporary financial arrangements” in place in 2024 and potentially 2025. A final revenue split would be agreed for 2026 and beyond, which would dovetail with Rugby Australia’s next broadcast deal. Nine, publisher of this masthead, has a two-year option to extend at the end of 2023.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
That’s already the case Dan, not just the criticism but the act of doing so, anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.
Yep Adam, I realise that, just saying it would make it more so. Basically most comps are geared towards the step up to the comp above, NRC was to develop players for Super etc? Not arguing with it, but just think it would add fuel to fire.
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
I don’t support it unless there’s a clear demonstration that they’re trying to improve the equality of the competition with equal funding distributions to teams and a model which sees greater flexibility In player distributions/contracting.

Otherwise we’re going to see the same one-sided boring results that has disengaged Australian fans from the sport.

They also need to improve the marketing and branding of the tournament, it's pathetic they can't even coordinate the naming of teams on the same days between NZ and Aus, and lack of a single website for the comp that features news, highlights, stats, team lists and profiles.
 

hoggy

Vay Wilson (31)
I don’t support it unless there’s a clear demonstration that they’re trying to improve the equality of the competition with equal funding distributions to teams and a model which sees greater flexibility In player distributions/contracting.

Otherwise we’re going to see the same one-sided boring results that has disengaged Australian fans from the sport.

They also need to improve the marketing and branding of the tournament, it's pathetic they can't even coordinate the naming of teams on the same days between NZ and Aus, and lack of a single website for the comp that features news, highlights, stats, team lists and profiles.
Was there ever any doubt this was gonna happen, their pretty much broke. The domestic bandwagon left town years ago. They've kicked the can down the road till 2030 with Lions & World Cup, Super rugby will be tossed around like a mdiget in a nightclub and come 2030 the same fundamental issues will still exists as have done since day one.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
I don’t support it unless there’s a clear demonstration that they’re trying to improve the equality of the competition with equal funding distributions to teams and a model which sees greater flexibility In player distributions/contracting.

Otherwise we’re going to see the same one-sided boring results that has disengaged Australian fans from the sport.

They also need to improve the marketing and branding of the tournament, it's pathetic they can't even coordinate the naming of teams on the same days between NZ and Aus, and lack of a single website for the comp that features news, highlights, stats, team lists and profiles.
I would suggest if write up is correct NZR will be helping Aus teams until 2015, when Rugby Australia will be planning to get more out of 9/Stan deal through Lions etc? Then I guess should have enough coin to stand on own feet? Just guessing, but what it reads to me. From what I have read it will mean another $5 mill a year? I guessing it up to Aus teams to up the equality of comp, but believe there are probably 3 teams up to speed or thereabouts already, and Force and Rebels will need some improvement on past couple of years.
I agree would love to see proper advertising, not sure if naming of teams need to be on same day, just should all be 2 days prior to matches?
Would also agree something like a website (and updated constantly) would be a bloody good tool.
I not sure about locking in same teams until 2030 is great, but if that's what it is will have to live with it.

Would really like a seperate board formed to administer the comp, but not sure how costly that is etc. And Sanzaar wasn't always considered a huge success.
Now all we got to do is wait to see how much of article is accurate.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Phil Waugh (73)
More details starting to emerge - this from the Newshub site:

"Rugby Australia had threatened to walk away from Super Rugby and form its own domestic competition when the current deal expires next year, unless it was offered an even share of broadcast revenue.

"NZR's broadcast deal is worth roughly $70 million more per year than Rugby Australia's.

"Newshub understands the newly minted deal won't see the two unions split revenue, but a hybrid model will be introduced, giving Rugby Australia a greater slice of the revenue share, if it negotiates a more lucrative broadcast deal next year.

"Rugby Australia is reportedly confident of making that happen.

"SANZAAR will also cease control of the competition, and Newshub understands an independent board will be established to run Super Rugby on an interim basis in 2023 and a full-time basis from 2024.

"NZR and Rugby Australia will both have seats on the board, with independent appointees and player representation making up the other members.

"The new structure is hoped to give the competition a fresh look and feel, as its future finally gets the certainty it needs."


Also there's a stuff piece by Paul Cully where he says the Brits, Irish & Euros told Rugby Australia & NZR to get their shit together as the impasse was holding up planning for the World Club Championship.

Loving that they're finally going to an independent commission-type model, hopefully the PI Unions are allocated shares & a seat at the Board table.

Looking forward to all being revealed later today.
 
Last edited:

Dan54

John Eales (66)
I certainly hope it's true that an independant board part is true.
The Paul Cully piece is here, https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...l-is-done--is-the-world-club-competition-next once again I hope it reasonably accurate.
If comments from Dominic McKay is true I like the sound of him, and maybe a few should take note, about talks behind the scenes and not saying too much because it can cause expectations! You know engage mouth when there is something sorted! We need more like that in rugby and most sports perhaps? All in all Paul Cully's write up looks interesting if somewhat amusing where he suggest that all 5 NZ teams could book a spot in suggested comp, I think if he used a little brain he might realise that there are 5 Aussie teams that might have something to say about that!
Talk about idiotic comment, why did you Aussie's let that idiot return to NZ?? ;) I know he still a SMH journo, couldn't you have just kept him there so we don't read him so often?:D
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
not sure if naming of teams need to be on same day, just should all be 2 days prior to matches?
of course they should have a set time to name the teams weekly followed with a marketing campaign across social media every time it’s done. Its just basic professionalism that has been lacking from this tournament for years. It flows through to value add propositions like fantasy league competitions, news reports and sports betting.

Take note of NRLs team naming criteria, it’s carefully timed and structured to maximise all of those. Whereas super rugby has for decades been haphazard and inconsistent.
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
I certainly hope it's true that an independant board part is true.
The Paul Cully piece is here, https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...l-is-done--is-the-world-club-competition-next once again I hope it reasonably accurate.
If comments from Dominic McKay is true I like the sound of him, and maybe a few should take note, about talks behind the scenes and not saying too much because it can cause expectations! You know engage mouth when there is something sorted! We need more like that in rugby and most sports perhaps? All in all Paul Cully's write up looks interesting if somewhat amusing where he suggest that all 5 NZ teams could book a spot in suggested comp, I think if he used a little brain he might realise that there are 5 Aussie teams that might have something to say about that!
Talk about idiotic comment, why did you Aussie's let that idiot return to NZ?? ;) I know he still a SMH journo, couldn't you have just kept him there so we don't read him so often?:D
The standard of kiwi journalism that we have come to all expect really..
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
The standard of kiwi journalism that we have come to all expect really..
I agree mate, I still trying to work out if he was that bad when he went to Aus? It pretty rubbish everywhere from what I see, just seem to report rumours etc and don't worry about facts. I sure there some good ones in world somewhere, just I think we remember crap ones more.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
of course they should have a set time to name the teams weekly followed with a marketing campaign across social media every time it’s done. Its just basic professionalism that has been lacking from this tournament for years. It flows through to value add propositions like fantasy league competitions, news reports and sports betting.

Take note of NRLs team naming criteria, it’s carefully timed and structured to maximise all of those. Whereas super rugby has for decades been haphazard and inconsistent.
Well as I don't and never have taken any notice of NRL, I will take your word for how it works. Why I like the 2 days before match , it means you tend to get more accurate teams, as quite often they look at players on last few days pf training to assess fitness.
 

PhilClinton

Jim Lenehan (48)
Pretty disappointing honestly that Rugby Australia have gone with a 'let's steady the ship' approach to Super Rugby and extending this deal until 2030 with no real innovation. A bit of a white flag in my opinion.

The only thing that could possibly light the fire in Australian rugby fans again will be winning the RWC in 2023, and I really don't see that happening. I genuinely think we have enough talent in this group to be a major contender in 2027 on home soil, but I'm doubtful of what our Super Rugby quality and engagement will be by that time.

The new generation of players/spectators don't have the history of the Wallabies 90s/2000s campaigns that really hooked the audience and made Super Rugby a thriving competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
Top