Where to for Super Rugby?

[KOB1987]

To everyone, please answer the question, if rugby was going in Aus for best part of a 100 f***en years before super rugby, and there was no domestic comp, how the hell did super stop you having a domestic comp??

No-one has answered so I will - that would be because prior to Super Rugby the sport was amateur. We had a plethora of domestic comps going on around the country at various levels and the sport was thriving on the back of our 1991 RWC win. The first 10 years of the pro era Australia actually adapted well, better than most countries in fact, which ironically may have had a bit to do with our Rugby League experience as a pro sport, and the aforementioned domestic comps were all still thriving. It all went to shit after 2003 - no one had a crystal ball but it's pretty clear in retrospect that we would have been better of to go our own way at this point, or at least when it became apparent that playing in the ludicrous Super Rugby formats that followed was going to do us more harm than good, when we actually still had some money to spend on growing a domestic pro comp.

 

[Derpus]

The onus to 'level the playing field' rests solely with Australia.

You can't demand your 5 teams and then blame the other side for having an un-even playing field. LOL Again, NZ & SA have done the hard yards of building a domestic comp - you guys want us to do that work for you.

But why would there be an onus to level the playing field when we dont even want to be playing? I dont get it.

All we want is a domestic comp. Some sort of representational bullshit with NZ can come after. And no - we can't have both. We just don't have the resources.

 

[Derpus]

No-one has answered so I will - that would be because prior to Super Rugby the sport was amateur. We had a plethora of domestic comps going on around the country at various levels and the sport was thriving on the back of our 1991 RWC win. The first 10 years of the pro era Australia actually adapted well, better than most countries in fact, which ironically may have had a bit to do with our Rugby League experience as a pro sport, and the aforementioned domestic comps were all still thriving. It all went to shit after 2003 - no one had a crystal ball but it's pretty clear in retrospect that we would have been better of to go our own way at this point, or at least when it became apparent that playing in the ludicrous Super Rugby formats that followed was going to do us more harm than good, when we actually still had some money to spend on growing a domestic pro comp.

Tyranny of distance was a big barrier to a domestic comp as well.

 

[hoggy]

No-one has answered so I will - that would be because prior to Super Rugby the sport was amateur. We had a plethora of domestic comps going on around the country at various levels and the sport was thriving on the back of our 1991 RWC win. The first 10 years of the pro era Australia actually adapted well, better than most countries in fact, which ironically may have had a bit to do with our Rugby League experience as a pro sport, and the aforementioned domestic comps were all still thriving. It all went to shit after 2003 - no one had a crystal ball but it's pretty clear in retrospect that we would have been better of to go our own way at this point, or at least when it became apparent that playing in the ludicrous Super Rugby formats that followed was going to do us more harm than good, when we actually still had some money to spend on growing a domestic pro comp.

Agreed, but sadly also the reluctance of the Sydney club scene to go professional, a national comp would or could have grown from the Sydney clubs and as with the NRL and AFL expand from that footprint.
But the private school ethos or basically snobbery prevented that from happening, there was no vision, fuck its 2021 and there still denying Western Sydney exists.
(PS i'm not having a go at those clubs, as it was never that simple, but that was the moment.)

 

[Bullrush]

If you want the Wallabies as good as the Socceroos on the International stage - sure LMAO

 

[half]

20 years of decline, across all areas, crowds, ratings, player numbers, player quality numbers,

We sign a new three-year media deal, gives us time to start the growth.

Question then is how do we grow, and how do we measure growth success. Is it increased ratings, increased juniors, increased school uptake, or something else?

Marketers will tell you, if you are a small player, in a highly competitive market place, with dominate players and a number of challenger codes, then the more market touch points you have the better.

Let’s define rugby as a challenger code, lets declare, cricket, AFL & NRL as the dominate players. Further let’s define the challenger codes, as rugby, football, basketball & netball, with surfing also lifting its head above water.

The challenger codes are all chasing increased market share with the dominate players doing everything within their power to hold existing positions and even grow.

Touch points are effectively teams, and rugby has five, the other challenger codes more. The challenger codes have longer season’s and have many more local games than rugby. These increased games provide extra touch points for growth and extra revenue.

Rugby folk, sorry many rugby folk, seem to think the Wallabies are somehow special and the bread and butter for both growth and revenue. The issue is this only works against the dominate codes of AFL & NRL.

All the challenger codes have international tournaments to equal if not better rugby.

The question hhhmmmm nay not question, the goal should be to grow rugby.

To me it seems we can never commit to a long term plan because we are always in a short term crisis.

While we have the support of a major media company and their funds we need to make the long term commitment to grow rugby and that means more local teams and a local competition.

The other challenger codes all have well developed growth plans.

My fear is the short term, cash issues, along with existing stakeholders wanting to hold their positions, along with a highly inflated Wallabies valuation by existing stakeholders, will stop real change happening.

My solution as always, run a local domestic competition established by RA, and run by the clubs to both fund and market.

 

[Derpus]

If you want the Wallabies as good as the Socceroos on the International stage - sure LMAO

Soccer and Rugby are incomparable. Rugby is only the most popular sport in one country internationally and is played at a high level by 10 at a stretch. Just cant be compared.

 

[kiap]

To everyone, please answer the question, if rugby was going in Aus for best part of a 100 f***en years before super rugby, and there was no domestic comp, how the hell did super stop you having a domestic comp??

Surely your 100 years is a red herring when Unzid only ran a comp (unpopular when it started) since 1976 - when Australia had already been running one for eight years, since the late 1960s.

 

[Dan54]

Again you misdirect. What is required for a level playing field is a controlling structure that is by the competition - not by NZ. I'm completely satisfied ion 5 Aus teams don't suit NZ so they go elsewhere. If NZ wants Aus involvement then a comp needs to reflect those requirements.

As I have said, I'd be happy with NZ and Aus domestic comps in parallel, followed by a TT. I'm happy if that TT requires the Aus teams to go semi representational in order to condense talent.

I'm not at all happy with 5 + 5 (+2) and nothing to balance the qualitative levels between the teams. I won't be watching NZ teams in Super Pacific other than when they play my team. When the success rate of making the finals reflects what we all know will happen - I won't be watching the Finals either. Or will for as long as the Reds remain in it, not further.

I don't want you to fix anything. I certainly don't want NZR ever again going direct to Aus teams creating mayhem. I don't want NZR leaking comp details to NZ media as a method of pressuring RA. I don't want a comp structure dictated by RA rather than by the comp itself.

If that means NZ proceed without us, thank christ for that.

 

[Dan54]

Surely your 100 years is a red herring when Unzid only ran a comp (unpopular when it started) since 1976 - when Australia had already been running one for eight years, since the late 1960s.

View attachment 12602

What?? I not sure where you heard NZ weren't playing domestic rugby since 1976, c'mon kiap that's embarassing your lack of knowledge. You heard of Ranfurly shield? Been played since 1904!! Mate I am embarssed for you. You didn't really think we started domestic rugby in 1976 surely. I am truly staggered.

 

[hoggy]

Just an interesting note, the Warriors confirming Redcliffe (Brisbane) as there 2022 base with games in NZ if possible. Should make Super Pacific with an 18th February start intersting.

 

[Adam84]

To everyone, please answer the question, if rugby was going in Aus for best part of a 100 f***en years before super rugby, and there was no domestic comp, how the hell did super stop you having a domestic comp??

lol how many times over does NZ fit into Queensland geographically?

 

[Adam84]

What?? I not sure where you heard NZ weren't playing domestic rugby since 1976, c'mon kiap that's embarassing your lack of knowledge. You heard of Ranfurly shield? Been played since 1904!! Mate I am embarssed for you. You didn't really think we started domestic rugby in 1976 surely. I am truly staggered.

Ease up Dan, you act as though you don’t make ill-informed comments on here.

 

[Dan54]

No-one has answered so I will - that would be because prior to Super Rugby the sport was amateur. We had a plethora of domestic comps going on around the country at various levels and the sport was thriving on the back of our 1991 RWC win. The first 10 years of the pro era Australia actually adapted well, better than most countries in fact, which ironically may have had a bit to do with our Rugby League experience as a pro sport, and the aforementioned domestic comps were all still thriving. It all went to shit after 2003 - no one had a crystal ball but it's pretty clear in retrospect that we would have been better of to go our own way at this point, or at least when it became apparent that playing in the ludicrous Super Rugby formats that followed was going to do us more harm than good, when we actually still had some money to spend on growing a domestic pro comp.

Great an answer, so why were the plethora of domestic comps up to 2003. A domestic comp should of always survived with Super. And I struggling to think of the plethora when I was there 1996- 2003. And how did super kill this plethora of comps!

 

[Adam84]

From what I've read, it seems some think that a Super Rugby Au will be just as popular and lucrative as the NRL and AFL are.

I think it will be more the NBL and maybe A-League at best.

no one has said that…

 

[kiap]

What?? I not sure where you heard NZ weren't playing domestic rugby since 1976, c'mon kiap that's embarassing your lack of knowledge. You heard of Ranfurly shield? Been played since 1904!! Mate I am embarssed for you. You didn't really think we started domestic rugby in 1976 surely. I am truly staggered.

Ranfurly is for a challenge match between two sides. No ladder, no league, no comp.

I mean, Qld challenged NSW and others in Intercolonial matches from the 1870s onward. Good as it is, no one's claiming that as a domestic comp.

 

[Dan54]

Ease up Dan, you act as though you don’t make ill-informed comments on here.

Lol mate I make plenty, but I usually take Kiap as being switched onto rugby, lol maybe because he got a South African sounding nic My bad.

 

[kiap]

See my post above

 

[Adam84]

Well if this is the case Derpus, why have RA signed up for Super?? Really asking an honest question, if it so bad, and it's f***ed as you say, are you telling me that Hamish McLennan and co (plus Stan/9)are incompetent for signing ut to it? Or do you think just maybe they have done some work to see what is best for Aus rugby. You (or anyone in here) can't have it both ways.

could be any number of reasons…

Revenue sharing agreements may have been reached.
Might have been a stipulation for continuing the rugby championship/additionally Bledisloe. Or even something like ensuring a NZRU vote for Australia’s 2027 RWC bid.

You can criticise Hamish Mcelann, but what was put to him 12 months ago by that fluffybunny of a NZRU CEO was scrapping 2 Australians teams and the ultimate collapse of professional rugby in Australia. The man has done more with less then any other sporting administrator in Australia during the pandemic as far as I’m concerned. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect though.

 

[Dan54]

Ranfurly is for a challenge match between two sides. No ladder, no league, no comp.

I mean, Qld challenged NSW and others in Intercolonial matches from the 1870s onward. Good as it is, no one's claiming that as a domestic comp.

Yep, but we had a bloody great domestic scene, got formalised in to 3 levels, but I been watching competitive domestic rugby all my life, And there were actually good domestic comps all my life, For example you ever heard of Seddon Shield a comp between northern South Island provinces, Hanan Shield between southern provinces etc? There was definitely domestic comps in NZ for years!!