Where to for Super Rugby?

[RedsHappy]

But this is the assumption that underpins this whole local idea that I am so unsure about.

IMO there is a good chance the stadiums won't fill. The subscriptions won't sell. And so the Wallabies get worse, so they get paid less and less and inevitably go offshore.

And so we go back to the 1980s. Which would be fine if every other country did the same, but sadly for us they are going to be still in 2020.

Now we can argue if that's actually a bad thing, as Reg did on the front page a month or so ago.

But there needs to be an acknowledgement of that possibility in construction of the 'local only' model.

Just: yes.

And prey tell where is there a single analogue _anywhere_ in any global pro sport of this delineation of outcomes:

- Phase 1: a global sport retrenches in a key market XX right back to largely pro-am (mostly am) local only domestic comp. The rest of the world in that sports goes increasingly commercial-hard, brings in PE, better fan engagement, investment in better pro coaching and media strategies, etc., global money flow and global pro sizes gets bigger, and, in parallel

- Phase 2: XX pro-am local with, essentially, very low relative investment, is so commercially successful and reborn it single-handedly builds a far larger commercial base in crowds, media $s etc so that it readily in (say) 3-5 years auto converts to full pro status and is fully pro viable again.

(Btw, as an aside: Let me mention the case of Argentina. The entire survival of local, Argentinian pro rugby (the next level down is heavily amateur only) is based on the continuous injection of net funds from WR (World Rugby) (and, to a degree, SANZAAR) so as to get Argentinian pro players back home from Nth Hem to a just-viable degree to form the Jags and prop up the national pro team, and it has been this way for some years.)

 

[hoggy]

There are no guarantees of instant success or filling stadiums, but this is the structure that underlines 99% of successful sporting competitions in the world.

We have had a specific Wallaby-centric designed competition for 20 years now competing against the best teams in the world that has delivered us 7th in the rankings. That exact structure costing $billions, delivered a ranking no better than the 80's.

Regardless of TT or domestic, economic factors will ensure that many of the Wallabies will be playing in Europe in the future, so either will have little effect on the Wallabies performance.

I have never been able to understand the logic behind the thinking of having such little faith in the product of Australian rugby domestically yet at the same time measuring success as being regularly ranked 1 or 2 in the world, that this can somehow be maintained without having a genuine domestic presence.

There also needs to be some acknowledgement of 20 years chasing fools gold in foreign markets that has delivered next to nothing yet at the same time ignoring the biggest market ever available to the game in this country, Australia.

 

[RedsHappy]

the big question with the above is, where do those 3 teams play? What competition?

Could be 4 if the Force remains viably funded by Twiggy, as is likely.

As I have said, IMO the pro comp for Aust teams will be TT with prob a Fijian or PI team included (subsidised likely by WR (World Rugby) as it should given the milking of these nations). Any maybe some form of play-offs with elite Japanese pro teams.

 

[RedsHappy]

There are no guarantees of instant success or filling stadiums, but this is the structure that underlines 99% of successful sporting competitions in the world.

Not with a low-relative-investment/low-money-flow pro-am only model it doesn't.

All the globally successful sporting comps/codes in the world today are, at the many upper levels, pro-pro.

 

[Derpus]

There are no guarantees of instant success or filling stadiums, but this is the structure that underlines 99% of successful sporting competitions in the world.

We have had a specific Wallaby-centric designed competition for 20 years now competing against the best teams in the world that has delivered us 7th in the rankings. That exact structure costing $billions, delivered a ranking no better than the 80's.

Regardless of TT or domestic, economic factors will ensure that many of the Wallabies will be playing in Europe in the future, so either will have little effect on the Wallabies performance.

I have never been able to understand the logic behind the thinking of having such little faith in the product of Australian rugby domestically yet at the same time measuring success as being regularly ranked 1 or 2 in the world, that this can somehow be maintained without having a genuine domestic presence.

There also needs to be some acknowledgement of 20 years chasing fools gold in foreign markets that has delivered next to nothing yet at the same time ignoring the biggest market ever available to the game in this country, Australia.

Maybe at a select few French clubs (which have limited spots) but England its reducing is salary cap, punishing breaches of said cap and putting in further foreign player limits. As is Japan.

Just thought i'd point that out. There are opportunities for our best players - but they are being limited, not expanded.

 

[barbarian]

We have had a specific Wallaby-centric designed competition for 20 years now competing against the best teams in the world that has delivered us 7th in the rankings. That exact structure costing $billions, delivered a ranking no better than the 80's.

This analysis is just straight wrong. The greatest period of Wallaby success arguably in our history, the 1998-2003 era, was underpinned entirely by Super Rugby and the success of our three teams.

Likewise the rise in popularity of the game, which went alongside the rise of those Wallaby teams and culminated in the 2003 World Cup.

Now obviously the competition has gone downhill in recent years for a variety of reasons, but it's not fair to say an international competition model has 'delivered next to nothing' for our game.
.

 

[hoggy]

This analysis is just straight wrong. The greatest period of Wallaby success arguably in our history, the 1998-2003 era, was underpinned entirely by Super Rugby and the success of our three teams.

Likewise the rise in popularity of the game, which went alongside the rise of those Wallaby teams and culminated in the 2003 World Cup.

Now obviously the competition has gone downhill in recent years for a variety of reasons, but it's not fair to say an international competition model has 'delivered next to nothing' for our game.
.

Then it is equally wrong as the assumption that a domestic competition will immediately send us back to the 1980's.

 

[sunnyboys]

the big negative a TT comp brings is the "Bledisloe loss feeling" every weekend...

pitting ourselves against the kiwis means our fans will rarely be happy - its hard to build fan bases that way.

cant we just have a domestic comp and have our teams and players feel successful - raise a cup - once a year.

league and afl have big days for their GF's....

what do we get from Super Rugby .... not much. once every blue moon we get a team in the GF.

i'd prefer an all Aus GF i can get stuck into - invite friends over for a BBQ etc!

 

[Derpus]

the big negative a TT comp brings is the "Bledisloe loss feeling" every weekend.

pitting ourselves against the kiwis means our fans will rarely be happy - its hard to build fan bases that way.

cant we just have a domestic comp and have our teams and players feel successful - raise a cup - once a year.

league and afl have big days for their GF's..

what do we get from Super Rugby .. not much. once every blue moon we get a team in the GF.

i'd prefer an all Aus GF i can get stuck into - invite friends over for a BBQ etc!

No, essentially. If you want all domestic watch league or go to the Shute Shield final. We dont have the foundations or funds to set up a domestic only comp.

 

[Omar Comin']

Maybe at a select few French clubs (which have limited spots) but England its reducing is salary cap, punishing breaches of said cap and putting in further foreign player limits. As is Japan.

Just thought i'd point that out. There are opportunities for our best players - but they are being limited, not expanded.

This is the reason a domestic professional competition with a significantly reduced salary cap (but enough to pay decent full time wages) would still retain a majority of the current professional players in Australia. It's not like soccer where there are virtually endless alternatives.

 

[Derpus]

This is the reason a domestic professional competition with a significantly reduced salary cap (but enough to pay decent full time wages) would still retain a majority of the current professional players in Australia. It's not like soccer where there are virtually endless alternatives.

Maybe. Not convinced we could afford even that. And wed still need the funds to magic up five or so more teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

Maybe. Not convinced we could afford even that. And wed still need the funds to magic up five or so more teams.

Another option would be to just go all in with Twiggy Forrest and basically let him own that middle professional tier in Australia. Depends what he wants to do obviously and how much he wants to spend, but he has ridiculously deep pockets and seems pretty motivated to continue the push into the Asia Pacific with GRR. Adding the 4 other Australian teams to that competition would be a big boost for it. He was also looking to introduce teams in Western Sydney and Newcastle. 5-7 Australian teams plus a few others from the Asia Pacific all backed by a multi-billionaire could work.

 

[hoggy]

No, essentially. If you want all domestic watch league or go to the Shute Shield final. We dont have the foundations or funds to set up a domestic only comp.

But is it a good solution to tell the percentage of rugby supporters that want domestic content to go watch another sporting code.

 

[Derpus]

well anyway, guess we shall just have to wait and see. Personally, fingers crossed for a 10 team TT comp.

 

[RedsHappy]

Another option would be to just go all in with Twiggy Forrest and basically let him own that middle professional tier in Australia. Depends what he wants to do obviously and how much he wants to spend, but he has ridiculously deep pockets and seems pretty motivated to continue the push into the Asia Pacific with GRR. Adding the 4 other Australian teams to that competition would be a big boost for it. He was also looking to introduce teams in Western Sydney and Newcastle. 5-7 Australian teams plus a few others from the Asia Pacific all backed by a multi-billionaire could work.

The type of model you suggest here of a huge infusion of 'highly patient' new cash funds - irrespective of whether it's Twiggy or PE or XXX or GRR etc - is the only way to attain a viable 6-8 teams Aust pure domestic rugby pro comp. There is no other realistic and credible way and the multiyear $ investment thus required would be very large and the financial return prospects intrinsically high risk.

And major changes in management would be key with existing local Aust RUs' management essentially replaced and in the order of at least 20 new well-credentialed pro coaches and c. 20 top players imported from other countries so as to ensure the calibre of as-played rugby would be uplifted as rapidly as possible. Plus Law variations to enhance the comprehensibility and speed of each match, and so on.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Maybe. Not convinced we could afford even that. And wed still need the funds to magic up five or so more teams.

At a minimum 3 more teams. Especially if it's accompanied by some kind of Cup structure.

 

[Derpus]

The type of model you suggest here of a huge infusion of 'highly patient' new cash funds - irrespective of whether it's Twiggy or PE or XXX or GRR etc - is the only way to attain a viable 6-8 teams Aust pure domestic rugby pro comp. There is no other realistic and credible way and the multiyear $ investment thus required would be very large and the financial return prospects intrinsically high risk.

And im not really convinced there is much prospect of any particularly high returns. Sport is often a terrible investment.

 

[Rebels3]

And im not really convinced there is much prospect of any particularly high returns. Sport is often a terrible investment.

Sport is about building equity and greasing the wheels of other businesses. If you lose 2-3m a year on a team but it helps facilitate income in other businesses it’s a positive investment. Thing is does Rugby in this country have the ability to do this?

 

[hoggy]

Sport is about building equity and greasing the wheels of other businesses. If you lose 2-3m a year on a team but it helps facilitate income in other businesses it’s a positive investment. Thing is does Rugby in this country have the ability to do this?

Its also about Ego's, your dealing with people (wealthy) who support rugby that hopefully will be happy to piss up against the wall 2/4 $million a year.

 

[Omar Comin']

Twiggy Forrest has a net worth of approx $13 billion. To put that into perspective, if he spent $100 million on something that would be equivalent to someone with a net worth of $1 million spending $7,692. If he wants to take over the professional tier of Australian rugby he can do it, whether he makes or loses money on it would be a rounding error to him.