Where to for Super Rugby?

[TOCC]

It's not a fact or issue that people are electively ignoring, revenue like crowds and general media interest are a symptom of the root cause, which is a competition which doesn't engage or provide enough content for the rugby public to follow.

 

[p.Tah]

A recent article on the Rebels future the CEO said that the "ARU cannot afford" to cut the Rebels, does that intimate some hidden penalties if the ARU was to act? Have they been given a financial guarantee?

You would hope so. If I was investing millions into a club I'd want a claus outline financial compensation if they cut the team.

 

[TOCC]

You would hope so. If I was investing millions into a club I'd want a claus outline financial compensation if they cut the team.

Absolutely, especially if they have taken on restructuring costs with the expectation that this will generate in the longer term

 

[NTT]

One thing that hasn't been spoken about is the fact that does the ARU simply have the cash to fund 5 teams?

Speak all you want about the Fox broadcast deal, but the fact is that since Super Rugby has started through gross mismanagement and/or plain incompetence every single Franchise has had to be bailed out, some multiple times. A recent article on the Rebels future the CEO said that the "ARU cannot afford" to cut the Rebels, does that intimate some hidden penalties if the ARU was to act? Have they been given a financial guarantee? Did one Super side make a genuine profit last year before creative accounting?

All of this is on top of the fact that the sides are just not sustainable playing like busted arses as they have so far this year and all of last year.

The Force have never received an ARU bailout that aligns to the bailouts received by other franchises. We had to sell our intellectual property, no other team has had to do such to receive bail out funding. Twist the wording all you want but the Force had to sell an asset for assistance, no other team has had too. The Force are currently negotiating to repurchase the intellectual property sold to the ARU last year with the incoming funds from the ownership iniative. The only thing the Force wants going forward from the ARU is a greater collaboration and cooperation towards the Forces high performance unit and a greater collaboration towards getting our coaches up to speed and contributing to our national pool of knowledge.
The ARU owns the intellectual property of both the Force and the Rebels. Also part of the private ownership arrangements with Mr Cox includes a clause where Mr Cox can hand back the franchise to the ARU if Mr Cox suffers significant financial losses. I highly doubt there are financial penalties or guaranteed payouts if Melbourne is folded. The losses mentioned by Mr Cox would be sponsorship and investment related and the legal fight Mr Cox would duly put against the ARU.

 

[MarkJ]

A question for Rebels fans - if the Rebels were cut from the comp and the Brumbies relocated to Melbourne (with maybe a token game in Canberra) would you guys start supporting the 'Melbourne Brumbies' or would you just stop watching super rugby?

I just wonder whether that if a team does have to get cut the ARU might think that would be the way to piss off the least number of fans. They'd hope to keep most of the Melbourne fans and some of the Canberra fans, rather than lose the fans in Melbourne/ Perth/ Canberra entirely

 

[stoff]

A question for Rebels fans - if the Rebels were cut from the comp and the Brumbies relocated to Melbourne (with maybe a token game in Canberra) would you guys start supporting the 'Melbourne Brumbies' or would you just stop watching super rugby?

I just wonder whether that if a team does have to get cut the ARU might think that would be the way to piss off the least number of fans. They'd hope to keep most of the Melbourne fans and some of the Canberra fans, rather than lose the fans in Melbourne/ Perth/ Canberra entirely

We'll take the championships but not the board.

Seriously though, personally after years of Brumby support before the Rebs I could live with it. The Melbourne part is more important to me than the nickname. David Pocock would love it here too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan54]

Lol...you don't actually think NZ has the balls to leave do you? Because their near pandering to the SARU's wants and needs over the past couple of deals seriously suggests that they don't.

Don't think that is what DP meant WorkingC, he just saying how quick meeting would be. I actually don't think a lot of people realise that the NZRU would have generally been very keen on SA staying in because they feel the rugby we get there is good for the players. Generally most coaches have indicated that the players have picked up a lot from the fairly brutal type rugby that Saffa teams have generally played over the years, certainly the test players where at times they have not found the intensity quite the same with Aus teams, though all this could possibly be changing a bit.

 

[TOCC]

Oh I think it's realistic, it just doesn't seem like SANZAAR have been trying to make this happen. I think SANZAR should have worked with interested parties in the US a number of years ago to set up a 'Super Rugby America' tournament that in time could have been added as a conference. Maybe this is still possible, but it seems like Pro 12 are more serious about North America at this stage, and that Super Rugby may die in the meantime.

Mate Pro12 is the comp that is actually dying, it probably won't exist this year. US has demonstrated with the failure of the Pro 12 that they are still a few years off entertaining the idea of a professional competiton

 

[TOCC]

RUPA has backed the return of 6 team conference..

So Japan to Australia and Argentina to New Zealand with full home and a away matches against your own conference and then a few matches against each other conference.

Probably the best option until the next broadcast negotiations, but still not without its flaws.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Joe Blow]

Or maybe we move towards a Trans-Tasman comp in which foreign players are allowed (especially as between Aussies and Keewees playing for the "other side"), the corollary being that an Aussie playing for a New Zealand franchise, or vice versa, would still be eligible for national selection.


This might have the effect of evening out competition, and thus improving the games as spectacles, benefiting everybody.


Worth a thought, anyway.

I like this idea. If you play somewhere, anywhere in Super rugby then you are not considered an offshore player and are eligible to play for your test side. You could spread some of that NZ talent out and give a side like the Sunwolves a better chance of success.
Of course it would have to be managed so that we did not end up with all NZs playing in the other Super rugby sides.
We could also have some of our young talent, playing and coaching, involved with the NZ sides.

 

[Omar Comin']

Mate Pro12 is the comp that is actually dying, it probably won't exist this year. US has demonstrated with the failure of the Pro 12 that they are still a few years off entertaining the idea of a professional competiton

You're confusing Pro Rugby with the mostly Celtic Pro 12. The latter is looking to set up a couple of teams in North America.

 

[TOCC]

You're confusing Pro Rugby with the mostly Celtic Pro 12. The latter is looking to set up a couple of teams in North America.

Touché you are right, I still hold the opinion that the USA is at least a few years away from a professional competition and isn't a priority for Super Rugby right now. Expanding to a region with poor foundations to support a Rugby team will only seek to further exacerbate the current issues in Super Rugby and further compromise the integrity of the tournament.

 

[Strewthcobber]

RUPA has backed the return of 6 team conference..

So Japan to Australia and Argentina to New Zealand with full home and a away matches against your own conference and then a few matches against each other conference.

Probably the best option until the next broadcast negotiations, but still not without its flaws.

Sticking with 17 rounds of competition with 2 byes and 8 teams in sudden death finals over 3 weeks, you'd get
10 weeks of home and away, 2 games against one other conference and 3 against the other.

Top 2 from each conference make the finals + next best 2, ranked by points, then 1v8, 2v7 etc

 

[Omar Comin']

Touché you are right, I still hold the opinion that the USA is at least a few years away from a professional competition and isn't a priority for Super Rugby right now. Expanding to a region with poor foundations to support a Rugby team will only seek to further exacerbate the current issues in Super Rugby and further compromise the integrity of the tournament.

I think it would depend on getting the right partners on board. But there are pockets of North America where rugby has a footprint. Places like the Bay area, Sacramento, Denver, Utah, Houston (where the US Eagles consistently get pretty good crowds). No less of a footprint than rugby had in Perth or Melbourne before the Force and Rebels began. And the Vancouver Sevens this weekend has sold around 70,000 tickets, while the Vegas Sevens continues to do well.

 

[Omar Comin']

Sticking with 17 rounds of competition with 2 byes and 8 teams in sudden death finals over 3 weeks, you'd get
10 weeks of home and away, 2 games against one other conference and 3 against the other.

Top 2 from each conference make the finals + next best 2, ranked by points, then 1v8, 2v7 etc

I think if they go with 3 conferences of 6 it'd make a lot more sense to go with 16 matches per team (3 matches against both other conferences). Would make it easier for each team to have 8 home games per season too (as they did in Super 15).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Mate Pro12 is the comp that is actually dying, it probably won't exist this year. US has demonstrated with the failure of the Pro 12 that they are still a few years off entertaining the idea of a professional competiton

The collapse of PRO in the US has more to do with its owner than anything.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think if they go with 3 conferences of 6 it'd make a lot more sense to go with 16 matches per team (3 matches against both other conferences). Would make it easier for each team to have 8 home games per season too (as they did in Super 15).

It's the most sensible structure. Always was. Even with the need to accomodate the Kings and Jaguares plus expanding into Japan. No idea why they chose the current clusterfuck of a format. It gives everyone more domestic content plus maintains the international nature of the competition.

 

[wamberal]

I do not think the format is the problem. The problem is the quality of the individual games, which is a function of the quality of the players.


That is why I made the suggestion I did, which has been widely ignored. Open the gates, allow players from within the competition's boundaries to play for any team and still retain their eligibility to represent their country.


By definition that would tend to even out the quality, to some extent, anyway.


What would effect would it have on, say, the Waratahs' support if Brodie Retallick turned out in their team next year?

 

[Omar Comin']

That is why I made the suggestion I did, which has been widely ignored. Open the gates, allow players from within the competition's boundaries to play for any team and still retain their eligibility to represent their country.

By definition that would tend to even out the quality, to some extent, anyway.

What would effect would it have on, say, the Waratahs' support if Brodie Retallick turned out in their team next year?

I made the same suggestion a few days ago in another thread and people just say it'll never happen because the NZRU would have to change their current model, which has been so successful, and give up some control over some of their players.

That seems a pretty small compromise to me, especially if that number of players was limited. And it is undoubtedly in NZ's interests for rugby in Australia to grow in popularity.

I don't think most supporters care that much where the players come from. I haven't seen Manchester United or Arsenal's support fall as their teams have become less and less English.

 

[TOCC]

Of course it will never happen..
ARU wouldn't pay Folau or Foley $1.5million/annum to play for the Kings and disappear to South Africa of 6 months of the year...

Nor do the NZRU want their rising stars playing In a team like the Sunwolves or Rebels.. teams with greater issues then just the quality of players.

If you're considering options which seek to weaken a strength then you're probably exploring the wrong option..New Zealand Rugby is the best thing about Super Rugby and distributing their players won't improve the coaching, mindset or development pathways of other teams.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro