Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

I like it. Replace the third NSW team with Drua. But there would be plenty of questions.

• funding is a problem with 5 let alone 8 - in the longer term I think it works, but funding is needed to get it rolling
• NSW and Qld clubs would not be competitive against Brumbies and probably not Rebels and Force. Something would be needed to level things.
• What happens during TT for the non rep players? A revamped NRC? More money.
• Are NZ happy with an extended domestic comp of 5 teams? Unlikely.

I really like it though, KOB. would be great if we can get it up.

But, perhaps NZ and Aus club comps are simply incompatible.

Conceptually has some appeal but what it does do is create need for separate teams from domestic comp teams and hence dilutes brands of both as they both operate in limited domains.

I hence think the concept of creating regional rep teams to play nz teams in champions league games is dead in water as good in theory but not a commercial reality.

 

[KOB1987]

I like it. Replace the third NSW team with Drua. But there would be plenty of questions.

1. funding is a problem with 5 let alone 8 - in the longer term I think it works, but funding is needed to get it rolling
2. NSW and Qld clubs would not be competitive against Brumbies and probably not Rebels and Force. Something would be needed to level things.
3. what happens during TT for the non rep players? A revamped NRC? More money.
4.Are NZ happy with an extended domestic comp of 5 teams? Unlikely.

I really like it though, KOB. would be great if we can get it up.


But, perhaps NZ and Aus club comps are simply incompatible.

1. definitely outside capital - PE, sponsors and member ownership
2. initially you'd let the existing contracts run their course but encourage uncontracted players to at least look at the new clubs. Over time I think players would migrate towards their roots
3. Shute Shield and QPR become semi pro, the top 100 players or so would be tied to the 'rep' sides and the remainder return to their clubs.
4. Don't care!

 

[Dan54]

Let's be honest, I finally getting head around figures and seems apart from finals Super Au was dropping off as comp went on, so where is all this desire for Australian only comp?? See in broadcast options thread, numbers are growing after Aus teams getting pummeled in first weeks? Last night's game only watched by more than Au final?
So how do we work all this out?

 

[KOB1987]

Let's be honest, I finally getting head around figures and seems apart from finals Super Au was dropping off as comp went on, so where is all this desire for Australian only comp?? See in broadcast options thread, numbers are growing after Aus teams getting pummeled in first weeks? Last night's game only watched by more than Au final?
So how do we work all this out?

Build it and they will come. It's not an overnight proposition whatever we do, it requires hard work and investment.

 

[hifflepiff]

Rebels3 is right, it's not likely to happen. But the hypothetical concept here is that these are rep teams formed from the best players of the domestic comp. To answer your question the teams would be NSW origin, Qld origin and 'best of the rest'. No teams are being cut, the current 5 franchises still exist only that Tahs and Reds would become Sydney and Brisbane, and you'd add two more NSW teams and one more Qld team to form an 8 team comp. Or something like that.

Its kind of a cool idea to have these 3 reps teams competing for Wallabies spots. Very old school, but in a good way, like the Lions tours. If its promoted correctly it could become the Union equivalent to SoO.

I also like that it allows us to both add more Aus teams and get game time in v the Kiwis without having to worry about the talent gap.

 

[Dctarget]

Its kind of a cool idea to have these 3 reps teams competing for Wallabies spots. Very old school, but in a good way, like the Lions tours. If its promoted correctly it could become the Union equivalent to SoO.

I also like that it allows us to both add more Aus teams and get game time in v the Kiwis without having to worry about the talent gap.

Will people miss seeing the Brumbies v Blues? Will people get as excited for Hurricanes v 'The Rest' compared to Hurricanes v Force?

Also where does the 'The rest' play out of? Melbourne/Canberra/Perth now get 1/3 of the home games yes?

 

[hifflepiff]

Will people miss seeing the Brumbies v Blues? Will people get as excited for Hurricanes v 'The Rest' compared to Hurricanes v Force?

Also where does the 'The rest' play out of? Melbourne/Canberra/Perth now get 1/3 of the home games yes?

With extra AUS teams in Super AU everyone would get more home games anyway.

The only people that really care about the Blues in Aus are expats from Auckland/NZ. I don't think they'll mind who the Aus team playing them is.

Tbh I'm pretty ambivalent to what the post season looks like so long as we keep and focus on growing Super AU long term. I like the idea of short series against the Kiwis, but I don't really care if that involves the top 3 Aus domestic sides or 3 Aus rep teams.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Will people miss seeing the Brumbies v Blues? Will people get as excited for Hurricanes v 'The Rest' compared to Hurricanes v Force?

Also where does the 'The rest' play out of? Melbourne/Canberra/Perth now get 1/3 of the home games yes?

Yeh why like I said good in theory bad commercially as now created new teams and limiting building the team brand of those playing in domestic competition.

 

[KOB1987]

Will people miss seeing the Brumbies v Blues? Will people get as excited for Hurricanes v 'The Rest' compared to Hurricanes v Force?

Also where does the 'The rest' play out of? Melbourne/Canberra/Perth now get 1/3 of the home games yes?

That would be the most logical. if NZ have 5 teams then we're only looking at 3 or 4 home games for these sides a season. The 3rd team is really there obviously for the players who aren't from NSW or Qld, and I guess the appeal for the supporters of these players is that they are genuinely playing for Wallaby jerseys, rather than the team they are actually playing for, if that makes sense. The only other alternative would be to have 2 teams and those from outside NSW and Qld would have to elect which one they want to play for during their career. Which would probably be worse, but there isn't a perfect solution I don't think.

 

[Joe King]

ATM, RA keep saying they want to play the NZ teams somehow.

What if three AU teams were only allowed to pick Australian players, but the other two AU teams could pick from anywhere?

Would NZR be happy to pick ABs from those two AU teams if a full season TT depended on it?

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I just don't understand why we'd want to downgrade Super Rugby to the NRC by spreading talent so thin, into non-traditional rugby areas. And then rep teams with minimal prep before going up against SRAe teams that have had pre-season and then a tough domestic Super Rugby comp? Are you honestly suggesting a return to amateur rugby? Will there be a non-assembly rule like in 1994?

 

[Dan54]

Not too sure where all the coin is going to come from to pay these other teams as well. I know RA at one stage (not sure if they still are) were taking $200 from every registered team to fund pro teams (it was advertised as Wallabies at time), so perhaps they can just get the kids teams and rest to pay another $100 each a year?
But if you think about it is't roughly $10 mill a year at least to run a team ( I think I read) so I sure they will just stump up another 20-30 mill a year out of all the spare cash they got lying around?

 

[Dan54]

Build it and they will come. It's not an overnight proposition whatever we do, it requires hard work and investment.

I do like the idea KOB, but is RA going to risk trying to build new teams from base of nothing with the hope it will create all this EXTRA support. You can't do it with support you have now, can you imaging the Tahs fan base cut in half by a new team coming into being down there. Or do you really think Reds are going to want their suppoter base chopped, because apart from these 2 places you not going to have any new teams in Aus are you?

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Not too sure where all the coin is going to come from to pay these other teams as well. I know RA at one stage (not sure if they still are) were taking $200 from every registered team to fund pro teams (it was advertised as Wallabies at time), so perhaps they can just get the kids teams and rest to pay another $100 each a year?
But if you think about it is't roughly $10 mill a year at least to run a team ( I think I read) so I sure they will just stump up another 20-30 mill a year out of all the spare cash they got lying around?

Oh it's the tooth fairy bottomless pit of private investment.​

 

[kiap]

I just don't understand why we'd want to downgrade Super Rugby to the NRC by spreading talent so thin, into non-traditional rugby areas. And then rep teams with minimal prep before going up against SRAe teams that have had pre-season and then a tough domestic Super Rugby comp?

Yep. While not on board with some of your other recent posts, these are good points. Dilution is an issue. Expanding to include an outside team, e.g. Drua, could avoid that but greenfield domestic expansion is a whole other level. It's not a quick or cheap answer.

 

[Joe King]

I just don't understand why we'd want to downgrade Super Rugby to the NRC by spreading talent so thin, into non-traditional rugby areas. And then rep teams with minimal prep before going up against SRAe teams that have had pre-season and then a tough domestic Super Rugby comp? Are you honestly suggesting a return to amateur rugby? Will there be a non-assembly rule like in 1994?

Yeah, fair points.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Yep. While not on board with some of your other recent posts, these are good points. Dilution is an issue. Expanding to include an outside team, e.g. Drua, could avoid that but greenfield domestic expansion is a whole other level. It's not a quick or cheap answer.

You know what they say about broken clocks!

I just view TT (with or without the two Pacific teams) as a way to keep the playing standards high with 10-12 teams, with the added bonus of someone else (i.e. NZRFU) footing the bill for half the teams. Super Rugby has its own set of problems in NZ, but it's still a mature rugby market and we should still be leveraging that.

Would I like to see more Australian teams? 'Course I would, it would mean the game has grown out of the same handful of clubs and schools in Brisbane and Sydney. But maybe thinking bigger should wait until we've weathered the current storm. Bear in mind that being too bullish with expansion (with a team with private equity, no less) helped entrench the rot in Super Rugby, at least from Australia's point of view.

 

[Joe King]

Yep. While not on board with some of your other recent posts, these are good points. Dilution is an issue. Expanding to include an outside team, e.g. Drua, could avoid that but greenfield domestic expansion is a whole other level. It's not a quick or cheap answer.

What would it be like to have Super Rugby AU with those 6 teams, and then have a post-season origin series in order to pick the Wallabies, and not have any contact against the NZ teams outside Test rugby?

 

[Bandar]

Surely it's not that hard...

Run a 6 team Super AU where the top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 4 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Run a 6 team Super Ao where the top 4 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Japanese rugby have top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, next 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.

Play 3 weeks of local rugby then 1 week international.

NZ teams get to have their softer matches & Aus & Japan get to play the tough NZ teams.

 

[John S]

Surely it's not that hard.

Run a 6 team Super AU where the top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 4 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Run a 6 team Super Ao where the top 4 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Japanese rugby have top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, next 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.

Play 3 weeks of local rugby then 1 week international.

NZ teams get to have their softer matches & Aus & Japan get to play the tough NZ teams.

That makes too much sense and not complicated enough to work......

I wonder how many people will say that "you'll still get the NZ teams dominating the AU teams in both comps each year"?