M
Moono75
Guest
I think we need to commission a commission into why we haven't put a commission structure in place. I expect a commission for this idea, or to be appointed as Commissioner of the new commission.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
^^^^
Assuming you are correct then the entire competition seems untenable and we should have a trans-tasman only competition.
Additionally, i can see no reason why player contracts and funding can't still be sourced from the national unions to keep the best players for their respective Super teams. They just don't make the decisions on how it's spent.
Having said that i think the idea of the national team being the absolute pinnacle of a sport is long dead and not a viable model anymore. All the biggest commercial sports are club based. NFL, EPL, NBL etc. Even domestic league's in cricket are starting to eclipse the national game. Look at the IPL.
Assuming you are correct then the entire competition seems untenable and we should have a trans-tasman only competition.
Additionally, i can see no reason why player contracts and funding can't still be sourced from the national unions to keep the best players for their respective Super teams. They just don't make the decisions on how it's spent.
Having said that i think the idea of the national team being the absolute pinnacle of a sport is long dead and not a viable model anymore. All the biggest commercial sports are club based. NFL, EPL, NBL etc. Even domestic league's in cricket are starting to eclipse the national game. Look at the IPL.
Before any major surgery's agreed to I'd recommend the following changes for next year:
- Kings to be cut immediately.
- Structure to revert to a three conference competition. See here: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/s18-on-its-way.13275/page-31
In relation to player contracts, how it's spent is important and those needs are different for the national team versus the Super Rugby team because the same positions are most important to each.
It doesn't help the Wallabies if the 25 highest players in Australian rugby only cover 5 or 6 positions because that is what is most important to each side.
The international game is still by far the biggest revenue generator for the SANZAAR countries and I'm pretty sure most or all of the Northern Hemisphere unions. In most cases by a long way. Whilst it would be good for that reliance on the international game to decrease you can't just decide that is going to happen because you don't get to move the revenue from one to the other.
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
It's not a decision though, its anticipation of a future trend. Deep down in our ugly, black, rugby-loving souls we all know that European money will, sooner or later, turn rugby into some glorified marketing machine. Mourad Boudjellal is trying his hardest to turn Toulon into the Real Madrid of rugby.
The aim of the game is to make Super Rugby, which by all rights should already be the premier club competition, into the league that generates the most interest and the most money. Wallabies can only benefit from this.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
I make the distinction because the only material naming names with (false) confidence seem to have come from RSA.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Beginning to wonder:
1. The dropping three teams for a S15 three conference thing is NZRU attempt to wake up SARU
2. ARU are playing a longer strategy of allowing sARU to say "no way"
3. The ARU push for a S18 three conference deal with a "yes of course as fine SANZAR supporters we were seriously working on dropping a team, pity that is no longer tenable, looks like we get to keep 5x franchises"
4. The RUs are staying stumm because it is actually in their interests
Doesnt help the current speculation damage and players considering options etc. place is kind of shut down till we hear the next step.
1. The dropping three teams for a S15 three conference thing is NZRU attempt to wake up SARU
2. ARU are playing a longer strategy of allowing sARU to say "no way"
3. The ARU push for a S18 three conference deal with a "yes of course as fine SANZAR supporters we were seriously working on dropping a team, pity that is no longer tenable, looks like we get to keep 5x franchises"
4. The RUs are staying stumm because it is actually in their interests
Doesnt help the current speculation damage and players considering options etc. place is kind of shut down till we hear the next step.
oops!Did you not just re-quote the entire article??
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I've become convinced that the only way for Australian rugby to recover is to get out of super rugby. There may be some short term pain, but long term it's the only way.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
But netball has significant opposition at the elite level from basketball which is an olympic sport and hockey. I'd also point out that 2 years ago soccer passed netball for the first time ever as the largest female participant sport in Australia. Netball recognise that their pre-eminence is no longer there and they have acted.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
There are two common characteristics which succesful sports in Australia possess (even sports with a lower profile than rugby)
1. A system of junior and youth development which is club based rather than school base
2. A national competition at the elite level
We've now had super rugby for 20 years and in that time the game of rugby in Australia has gone backwards at exponential speed. Surely it's time to re-evaluate our continued participation. I've gone from being a 100% supporter of our participation to having the view that we'd be better off out of it. To me the super rugby concept is almost unsalvageable from where it is now. Let's all go our separate ways and stand on our own two feet.
1. A system of junior and youth development which is club based rather than school base
2. A national competition at the elite level
We've now had super rugby for 20 years and in that time the game of rugby in Australia has gone backwards at exponential speed. Surely it's time to re-evaluate our continued participation. I've gone from being a 100% supporter of our participation to having the view that we'd be better off out of it. To me the super rugby concept is almost unsalvageable from where it is now. Let's all go our separate ways and stand on our own two feet.
The Snout
Ward Prentice (10)
After reading posting on this thread I've headed that way too.
And with the announcement of the Global Calendar, a Feb-June 16 week home and away NRC then finals. Followed by the Inbound Tests then TRC would be just fine by me.
But do we have the fortitude to take 2 steps back now to take 3 forward over the next generation.
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
No?
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
And I think it wouldn't be as difficult as many may believe. We have 5 Super Rugby bases that could be employed. The Rebels, Force and Brumbies could essentially all remain as is. In place of the Tahs and Reds both the NSWRU and QRU could continue to utilise their cirrent facilities but run multiple squads. Which outside of the the NSW squads is how it currently works in Qld anyway.
As an aside. It would actually make a Rugby SOO concept more viable.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
- Status