Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

Fristly it seems to me to be self-evident that continuing the same path is ultimately ruinous to Australian rugby. But yes, agree we dont leave if staying works.

Currently the well-broadcast requirement of NZ to continue with SA is something we should be surprised by. And the SARU requirements are very likely imo to be not just more of the same but getting worse. Both positions quite well broadcast.

And if we are not offered something that works for us then we need an alternative and we need to have the courage of our convictions.

I dont agree with your assessment that somehow SANZAAR would become commercially vindictive. Its a commercial proposition that stacks or doesnt.

Otoh I CAN see SARU doing the sleight of hand on revenue being attributed to Currie Cup, not Super Rugby. and that is behaviour that is impacting us right now.

You've said that SARU and NZRU are getting everything they want at the expense of the ARU and then said that you can't see them becoming commercially vindictive if we walked from SANZAAR. I don't see how those two positions mesh. The SANZAAR agreement covers both Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship. If we walk away we would have to start negotiations all over again and that would include playing test matches against the other three countries during that period.

Clearly NZRU has made it clear that playing South African teams is a key criteria for them. Super Rugby is changing and that number of games is decreasing. They now only play three South African teams each year. As our position on the viability and success of Super Rugby is changing, the same could quite easily be happening for New Zealand.

To my knowledge, SARU getting a higher share of the revenue by splitting out the Currie Cup revenue and assigning a higher proportion of value to that was a feature of the previous deal. In the 2016 deal that disappeared which was one of the reasons our share went up substantially.

 

[Brumby Runner]

If the ARU pull out of Super Rugby, there is nothing to suggest NZ and SA wouldn't continue that competition in some, similar format. Aus rugby would necessarily decline with substantially reduced income, maybe none, from tv. Every Aus player worth his salt would be off o/seas where they could continue to afford to make rugby their chosen career. The Wallabies would go to shit and would be hard pressed to get an occasional test match v NZ or SA, or other top notch European/British sides as well. No revenue then from international matches, no revenue from Super Rugby, no local tv and again no revenue. That is a dying wish for rugby in Australia.

 

[fatprop]

Unfortunately we don't have the cattle for the sides.

Examples?

We had two foreign starting 9s last season and two average foreign 10s this season

What is next a couple of THPs?

 

[Omar Comin']

Which other sport has ever moved to that model where one of the major requirements was a big decrease in payments to players?

Well I don't think there's ever been a cross-continental league like Super Rugby before so I assume it hasn't happened yet. But if it's inevitable that we won't be able to keep top players in Australia in the longer term by continuing to compromise our interests for those of NZ and South Africa, then what's the point of continuing to do so? Why continue to have just 5 or 4 or 3 teams, while all competing sports kill us with more content in more markets, if we won't be able to keep the top players here anyway?

We're always going to have the Wallabies, they'll most likely always be a good team and a drawcard. We're already losing heaps of good players overseas, at what point do we concede this is only ever going to get worse, and that we should just pick the best players no matter where they're playing? This may strengthen the Wallabies. And in the meantime we can create a competition with local rivalries and greater geographic reach that is better connected to the grassroots and is designed in every way to suit our market.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, happy to agree to disagree. I'm not even necessarily against remaining in Super Rugby as we know it so long as a more sensible structure can be found, but I'd rather we go off on our own and lose some players than cut any of our teams and their supporters.

 

[Omar Comin']

If the ARU pull out of Super Rugby, there is nothing to suggest NZ and SA wouldn't continue that competition in some, similar format. Aus rugby would necessarily decline with substantially reduced income, maybe none, from tv. Every Aus player worth his salt would be off o/seas where they could continue to afford to make rugby their chosen career. The Wallabies would go to shit and would be hard pressed to get an occasional test match v NZ or SA, or other top notch European/British sides as well. No revenue then from international matches, no revenue from Super Rugby, no local tv and again no revenue. That is a dying wish for rugby in Australia.

Do you think New Zealand rugby fans would be happy to play the bulk of their season in a competition that is on in the middle of the night half the time? Personally I doubt it. It'd be unsustainable.

And you're talking as if the Wallabies would no longer exist. Most of the revenue the ARU gets is from the Wallabies, not Super Rugby. Super Rugby actually costs the ARU more than it brings in. And the Wallabies may end up a better team with greater depth as we'd just pick the best players regardless of where they were playing.

How would you feel if the decision from SANZAAR is that Australia must go to 4 teams and the Brumbies are cut? What would you prefer, Super Rugby without the Brumbies, or a national competition with the Brumbies?

 

[half]

Justice delayed is considered injustice.

We can only delay key decisions for so long, as implantation and talks with stakeholders outside rugby, ie broadcast partners, sponsors, players union etc all need to be on board, and takes time.

Both Flower and Pulver rushed their versions of the NRC and IMO it shows.

We cannot rush to a decision when the axe man starts to swing the axe with our heads on the block.

We need IMO a visionary leader, who can pull the various waring rugby tribes together and via consolation with all stakeholders develop a structure for rugby to adopt.

We have to get it right and do it soon, time is running out.

It needs to be ready for implantation the year the current broadcast deal runs out.

Time is fast running out, the inaction of the ARU, and hiding behind a media broadcast subscription company no longer washes with me.

It’s time the board call a meeting of the minds and accepted things need to change.

I no longer believe I have the answer, I did once, my belief was we could sign a media broadcaster and maintain reasonably closely to existing revenues be it with 10 teams rather than 5. Also have big costs reductions in things like travel, increase crowd revenue etc.

However seeing what FFA are going through it will not be easy as the revenue shortfall will be of mega size, if we go straight to a local domestic competition.

But to idly sit by and hope for the best simply masks what other codes are doing.

 

[p.Tah]

Everything old is new again. From 2009:
Trans Tasman comp, SA looking towards the North and the current CEO of SANZAAR was the managing director of SA rugby.

I'd forgotten he was the MD for SA. I don't think this is going to end well for Aus or Super Rugby this time.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super14/SA-to-say-goodbye-to-Sanzar-20090423

 

[No4918]

SANZAR for now is still the best option. Going it alone is suicide, breaking away with NZ MAY work but is not likely this agreement (or probably anytime soon).

So being realistic what would people like to see in the comp?

1. As I mentioned, I want more local derbies. Complete home and away cycle in conference. More local content general equates to better crowds, viewers and hence money.

2. Less teams and simplified structure. Aus may have to give a side up. Kings/Rebels/Sunwolves first on the block.

Yes, there are many other issues with Aus rugby. Coaching, depth, schools, clubs all probably need looking at. I don't think this is the thread for that and most have been discussed elsewhere. All big issues that have led to the problem we now have with no depth for 5 teams. But not going to be fixed by whatever happens at the next agreement.

 

[fatprop]

I just want a comp with two rounds home and away, that is how real comps work

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Unfortunately we don't have the cattle for the sides.

Examples?

We had two foreign starting 9s last season and two average foreign 10s this season

What is next a couple of THPs?

There is a solution though which is allow more foreign imports whilst we sort out our grassroots stuff (which is improving some would say). Rebels owners would be happy. And to be frank French and England Premiership are all about allowing imports in so why should we not allow this.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

SANZAR for now is still the best option. Going it alone is suicide, breaking away with NZ MAY work but is not likely this agreement (or probably anytime soon).

So being realistic what would people like to see in the comp?

1. As I mentioned, I want more local derbies. Complete home and away cycle in conference. More local content general equates to better crowds, viewers and hence money.

2. Less teams and simplified structure. Aus may have to give a side up. Kings/Rebels/Sunwolves first on the block.

Yes, there are many other issues with Aus rugby. Coaching, depth, schools, clubs all probably need looking at. I don't think this is the thread for that and most have been discussed elsewhere. All big issues that have led to the problem we now have with no depth for 5 teams. But not going to be fixed by whatever happens at the next agreement.

Let the rebels have more foreign player quota which is what they want as they also privately funded so seems silly to just disband them when we could make some allowances like this.

 

[Braveheart81]

How does more foreign players help unless you have more money to pay for good ones? The foreign imports this year are mostly guys who couldn't get a decent gig elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

BH sorry but I think you are wrong to dismiss this as allowing more foreign imports provides a wider market to access players and in areas where there are gaps.

Example is we have a shortage of quality Super Rugby flyhalfs so we have a NZ flyhalf for Melbourne Rebels (to date a failure) and a NZ flyhalf for Brumbies (to date a success).

Then we have extra quality added by players like Mafi for Rebels and Cubelli for Brumbies. You serious that they have not added to quality of playing stocks. And then we could talk about past players like Potgeiter, Daniel Braid etc and what they offered.

Sorry I think you are wrong to dismiss this so quickly as allowing more foreign imports (up to Super Rugby franchises to only take this up if better options) would allow more options to field a professional side to compete and much better option to pursue than cutting number of teams.

You think the French or English think this way.....no...

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course foreign marquee players improve teams but in most cases it also comes with considerable dollars. There is no bargain basement foreign option to replace an expensive Australian player and that is why increasing the number of foreign players allowed won't really provide much benefit for our teams.

If your major constraint is the dollars you have to spend then the number of international players you're allowed won't make a hell of a lot of difference.

Increasing it by a couple would certainly give teams more options to plug gaps but I don't think it will make a dramatic difference to the quality of teams.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

No BH I don't agree and you have missed the point as that is simply not true as blanket statement as there are other overseas players who are not necessarily expensive but are on offer because of depth of those countries e.g why we have 2 NZ flyhalfs playing in Australia. We suffer from not just having superstars but just base level Super Rugby standard players e..g shortage of Super Rugby standard flyhalfs is case in point and why we have 2 NZ flyhalfs playing for 2 different Super Rugby franchises.

My whole point is let them have the option and if they can within the salary cap create a better team with say 50% imports that is better option than have only four super rugby sides in Oz. That is the argument of the Rebels owner and I agree with him and to be frank I think he is better placed than you to say whether having the option to have more foreign imports would benefit him (or at least able to look at wider worldwide market for players).

Again you are being to quick to dismiss this as there is much more to this than you suggest. And yes it alone is not the magic silver bullet - why because there is not one magic silver bullet but whole lot of things you need to look at to improve - and this is one option that should be considered amongst host of others.

 

[Nevawaz]

IMO Australia needs a domestic comp with a 6th team in western Sydney added. We are 2 rounds into the Super Rugby season and all Aus sides are already written off.

A 6 team home and away with a top 4 would give 10 weeks of local rugby with all teams a reasonable chance of making finals heading into the last couple of weeks of competition. You'd have 2 big local semis with an all Aus GF, fuelling an increase in support, interest and rivalry.

From a Sydney perspective a western Sydney side would provide a silvertails v fibros rivalry which could potentially convert many in the west that see rugby as the private school game.

Ideally Super Rugby would then become a Heineken Cup style tournament with pools of up to 8 teams which allows the amount of games played to be about the same as is currently.

IMO cutting teams would just make an NRL contract a more attractive proposition.

 

[Jagman]

Just to put this out there. Here is Aus super rugby teams "in season" win percentage against NZ teams in the past:

2001-2005= 45.8%
2006-2010= 40.8%
2011-2015= 45.5%

There doesn't seem to be a declining win percentage with a gradual increase in teams and I use NZ teams because they are both the benchmark and because they have never changed their amount of teams.

2016 on the hand was a win percentage of 12.5% by far the lowest ever (2007 was 30%, the next worst). It seems Aus rugby has been smacked by the post 2015 RWC exodus. Will we bounce back as history indicates we will (for example 2012 was 35% but 2013 was in the positive at 60%) or has something changed, has a gap been created that is just unreachable? If so history would suggest that going down to 4 teams won't make a difference.

 

[Slim 293]

Just because I'm bored, during those years.........

2001 - Brumbies Champions (Reds semi finalists)
2002 - Brumbies runners up (Waratahs semi finalists)
2003 - Brumbies semi finalists
2004 - Brumbies Champions
2005 - Waratahs runners up

2006 - Waratahs semi finalists
2007 - Brumbies 5th
2008 - Waratahs runners up
2009 - Waratahs 5th
2010 - Waratahs semi finalists

2011 - Reds Champions (Waratahs qualifying finalists)
2012 - Reds qualifying finals (6th on points)
2013 - Brumbies runners up (Reds qualifying finalists)
2014 - Waratahs Champions (Brumbies semi finalists)
2015 - Waratahs and Brumbies semi finalists

2016 - Brumbies qualifying finalists (6th on points)

 

[Marcelo]

Just to put this out there. Here is Aus super rugby teams "in season" win percentage against NZ teams in the past:

2001-2005= 45.8%
2006-2010= 40.8%
2011-2015= 45.5%

There doesn't seem to be a declining win percentage with a gradual increase in teams and I use NZ teams because they are both the benchmark and because they have never changed their amount of teams.

2016 on the hand was a win percentage of 12.5% by far the lowest ever (2007 was 30%, the next worst). It seems Aus rugby has been smacked by the post 2015 RWC exodus. Will we bounce back as history indicates we will (for example 2012 was 35% but 2013 was in the positive at 60%) or has something changed, has a gap been created that is just unreachable? If so history would suggest that going down to 4 teams won't make a difference.

I think are both, NZ has improved and OZ has decreased. The 2016 season was incredible in terms of NZ teams performances The Jaguares faced all of then and lost all their games, even against Blues, the weaknest NZ team and we are talking about a Tier 1 Nation with more registered players than OZ (120k) with only a Super Rugby franchise. I mean, Jaguares and the Pumas are the same squad.

The performance of NZ teams since last year is stunning. They can smash any nation if they play at international level. I'm not sure if the Wallabies are able to beat all of their franchises. Brumbies with almost a Wallabies forward pack were smashed by NZ teams with many unknown players at test level. The same for the Tahs. I bet that they are going go beat the British and Irish Lions in all the games. (ABs and Super Rugby franchises). The Lions only can win the games against NZ Barbarians or something like that.

And this season could be worst. I can't see Brumbies smashed Hurricanes like round 1 in the last season or Tahs beating Chiefs like last year without Foley. Reds are the hope but is their first season playing together and could take more time to play at their fullest level. And then you have Rebels and Force.

 

[fatprop]

There is a solution though which is allow more foreign imports whilst we sort out our grassroots stuff (which is improving some would say). Rebels owners would be happy. And to be frank French and England Premiership are all about allowing imports in so why should we not allow this.

yeah nah, we don't have the money for decent imports and will end filling rosters with military medium NPC players

We can either reduce the amount of sides to concentrate what little quality we have or continue to get done badly