Australian Rugby / RA

[JRugby2]

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

The NBL knows it's a second rate competition compared to the NBA. A-league is the same. They are feeder competition to better domestic leagues overseas where our best talent aspire to be playing.

If Australia started it's own domestic competition we would effectively be signalling to the player market that, that is what we are also. Start your career with us but go get good somewhere else.

Maybe that is our future but feels like we are just giving up. I'd like to see us at least try and reform our domestic set up and reclaim Super Rugby's position as the best domestic league in the world before conceding it's gone forever and settling for this.

 

[JRugby2]

I think you're confusing the word 'idea' with 'demonstrably successful model that is easy to copy.' It'd be more like you already manufacturing and selling phones, but not doing very well, and then incorporating some of the features that make Apple and other competitors popular, in order to sell more phones.

Keeping in mind the status quo loses money every year, and has been failing Australian rugby for a couple of decades. So it might be worth trying the demonstrably successful model that works all around the world, including in Australia, and in many different sports, including rugby union.

Yeah maybe? Kinda like how the A-League copied the NRL and AFL and is now just as successful as them (I think anyway, I didn't look).

 

[Braveheart81]

Two things the NBL has going really well for it is private ownership and availability of quality players at the price point they pay.

The private ownership is proving to (mostly) be financially beneficial though. Teams are going up in value and certainly aren't cash draining lifestyle assets that privately owned rugby clubs tend to be.

The NBL standard is pretty decent and has certainly improved a lot. They benefit massively from having a large pool of players available at that price point though.

From a financial perspective it's also a better sport. A 15 player roster in total is a lot easier to make work financially than a squad of around 35.

 

[Mick The Munch]

Finally listened to the Roar Pod - talk about not having a plan - we now have 4 Super Rugby team - so 92 players in 1st team Squads (23 x4) and we're talking 65 to the UK!!!! 2 3rds, 65% of ALL professionals starters - nothing says increasing competition . CRAZY.

More maths lets say there is and extra 35 support staff = 100 people, assuming each person (match fees, accom flights, etc) is about $50K - Thats $5mil for this tour alone.

THIS IS INSANE

 

[Braveheart81]

We're taking a squad that large because we're playing a series of Australia A games aren't we?

I think everyone is in agreement that the Australia A fixtures have been pretty valuable for the next tranche of players coming through so I guess it's the cost of doing business?

 

[KOB1987]

Finally listened to the Roar Pod - talk about not having a plan - we now have 4 Super Rugby team - so 92 players in 1st team Squads (23 x4) and we're talking 65 to the UK!!!! 2 3rds, 65% of ALL professionals starters - nothing says increasing competition . CRAZY.

More maths lets say there is and extra 35 support staff = 100 people, assuming each person (match fees, accom flights, etc) is about $50K - Thats $5mil for this tour alone.

THIS IS INSANE

That's a bit simplistic, there are 35 I think in each squad, so that equates to 140, plus some spots will be filled with overseas based players. Also factoring in some developing players not in the main squads, it's probably more like 40%. Our pro players don't get enough footy as it is, this all seems like a pretty good outcome to me.

 

[Rebel man]

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

The NBL knows it's a second rate competition compared to the NBA. A-league is the same. They are feeder competition to better domestic leagues overseas where our best talent aspire to be playing.

If Australia started it's own domestic competition we would effectively be signalling to the player market that, that is what we are also. Start your career with us but go get good somewhere else.

Maybe that is our future but feels like we are just giving up. I'd like to see us at least try and reform our domestic set up and reclaim Super Rugby's position as the best domestic league in the world before conceding it's gone forever and settling for this.

Yes and no, in the short term that would definitely be the case.

Yet in the mid to long term it’s not unrealistic to be able to be lose to parody when it comes to pay where the NBL and A league will never be anywhere near their overseas rivals

 

[Mick The Munch]

That's a bit simplistic, there are 35 I think in each squad, so that equates to 140, plus some spots will be filled with overseas based players. Also factoring in some developing players not in the main squads, it's probably more like 40%. Our pro players don't get enough footy as it is, this all seems like a pretty good outcome to me.

Yes 35 in each squad, my maths are based on a match day 23, as the rest of the squad are either human tackle bags or young fellas - so is your argument that sending a majority of out players (many of whom shouldn't be near a Wallabies squad) to go and play some Premiership B teams (its the middle of the season in Eur so no way the big teams will risk their starters as they have tiny squads too) is reasonable, This all smacks of incompetance

 

[Strewthcobber]

Finally listened to the Roar Pod - talk about not having a plan - we now have 4 Super Rugby team - so 92 players in 1st team Squads (23 x4) and we're talking 65 to the UK!!!! 2 3rds, 65% of ALL professionals starters - nothing says increasing competition . CRAZY.

More maths lets say there is and extra 35 support staff = 100 people, assuming each person (match fees, accom flights, etc) is about $50K - Thats $5mil for this tour alone.

THIS IS INSANE

Is it insane if Bristol and others are paying us enough to cover the costs for the Australia XV games?

 

[JRugby2]

Finally listened to the Roar Pod - talk about not having a plan - we now have 4 Super Rugby team - so 92 players in 1st team Squads (23 x4) and we're talking 65 to the UK!!!! 2 3rds, 65% of ALL professionals starters - nothing says increasing competition . CRAZY.

More maths lets say there is and extra 35 support staff = 100 people, assuming each person (match fees, accom flights, etc) is about $50K - Thats $5mil for this tour alone.

THIS IS INSANE

I don't know for sure but this seems exaggerated. Where is the number of wallabies support staff published?

I know there would be more than what's listed on the website (like physio, dieticians, etc) but I have no idea where this number has come from, or (why if it were true) it would need to be doubled in the first place (eg its likely that a dietician could work across both programs at the same time).

 

[Mick The Munch]

I don't know for sure but this seems exaggerated. Where is the number of wallabies support staff published?

I know there would be more than what's listed on the website (like physio, dieticians, etc) but I have no idea where this number has come from, or (why if it were true) it would need to be doubled in the first place (eg its likely that a dietician could work across both programs at the same time).

I guessed on the support staff - I'm guestimating. Even the cost of 64 players (lets guess 50k per player - again guestimating) is 3.2M

 

[JRugby2]

I guessed on the support staff - I'm guestimating. Even the cost of 64 players (lets guess 50k per player - again guestimating) is 3.2M

Man that is a wild guess. Every squad player basically has their own personal staff member in that scenario

 

[Omar Comin']

Yeah maybe? Kinda like how the A-League copied the NRL and AFL and is now just as successful as them (I think anyway, I didn't look).

It's not a matter of being as successful as the NRL and AFL, it's about being more successful than Super Rugby. The A League is not a huge success compared to the NRL and AFL but it's got 11 Australian based teams with a presence in most major population centres and had a total attendance of just under 1.5 million last season. Super rugby in Australia is not close to this.

1 advantage rugby has over the A League is that there's not many other places for players to go. There's only 4 other top level professional leagues, and all of them have limited squad spots for foreign players that are pretty much always full. And with rugby growing in Europe and South America the competition for these spots is only increasing. An 8 team mini-NRL style competition, with moderate levels of investment behind it, would immediately be among the top leagues in the world with the majority of the best Australian players, plus good quality imports from around the world.

Super rugby itself could evolve into a much better competition just by opening up player eligibility (so that AB players and contenders can play for Australian based teams) and ensuring there are more competitive teams based in the large Australian markets with growth potential. But there seems to be no appetite for this from NZR, so I think we'd be better off doing our own thing.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's not a matter of being as successful as the NRL and AFL, it's about being more successful than Super Rugby. The A League is not a huge success compared to the NRL and AFL but it's got 11 Australian based teams with a presence in most major population centres and had a total attendance of just under 1.5 million last season. Super rugby in Australia is not close to this.

Likewise we can't afford to lose nearly as much money as the A League teams collectively lose each year.

 

[JRugby2]

Super rugby itself could evolve into a much better competition just by opening up player eligibility (so that AB players and contenders can play for Australian based teams) and ensuring there are more competitive teams based in the large Australian markets with growth potential. But there seems to be no appetite for this from NZR, so I think we'd be better off doing our own thing.

Agree here re eligibility but financially we aren't better off on our own and this is really just simple math.

I get that having to work with other unions is annoying and means we can't just make quick changes when we want to but we also benefit from that relationship - massively - and this is always left out of this debate.

We share the cost of running the competition with NZ and get the benefit that 6 extra teams bring to the table (from a broadcast perspective) without having to pay to run them.

The moment we bring it all in house we either have to find the cash to support 6 extra teams/ 3 games (just to meet our current agreement) or try and sell a competition that has only 2 games per week.

 

[Slayer!]

Finally listened to the Roar Pod - talk about not having a plan - we now have 4 Super Rugby team - so 92 players in 1st team Squads (23 x4) and we're talking 65 to the UK!!!! 2 3rds, 65% of ALL professionals starters - nothing says increasing competition . CRAZY.

More maths lets say there is and extra 35 support staff = 100 people, assuming each person (match fees, accom flights, etc) is about $50K - Thats $5mil for this tour alone.

THIS IS INSANE

For any international tour the inbound team covers the airfares and the hosting union covers accommodation/food/transport/training venues etc.
Not sure what the situation is with "A" teams but would assume RA has got the same deal given they'll be co-located with the Wallabies.
So you're only looking at the airfares (say $200k total). Pretty good deal.

 

[Rebel man]

With the NRL looking at going to 20 teams and 19 games it could open a window up for Rugby.

Especially as the AFL will likely look to expand to 20 sides and the AFLPA is pushing for a shorter season

 

[Mick The Munch]

For any international tour the inbound team covers the airfares and the hosting union covers accommodation/food/transport/training venues etc.
Not sure what the situation is with "A" teams but would assume RA has got the same deal given they'll be co-located with the Wallabies.
So you're only looking at the airfares (say $200k total). Pretty good deal.

So RFU/IRFU are covering the costs to bring 50% of all Australian professional players essentially??

 

[Mick The Munch]

Man that is a wild guess. Every squad player basically has their own personal staff member in that scenario

Eddie took 10 coaches, then add comms, marketing, nutrition, PAs, not that far fetched = Attack Coach - Brad Davis

Defence Coach - Brett Hodgson

Forwards Coordinator - Neal Hatley

Lineout Coach - Dan Palmer

Maul Consultant - Pierre-Henry Broncan

Kicking Consultant - Berrick Barnes

Learning Coordinator - David Rath

Strength and Conditioning Coordinator - Jon Clarke

Strength and Conditioning Coach - Nigel Ashley-Jones

Speed Consultant - John Pryor

Sport Scientist - Warrick Harrington

 

[Mr Pilfer]

I really like the idea of a "Champions League" style competition! It would add another level of excitement after the domestic comps and give the top teams a chance to compete on a bigger stage without completely abandoning the local rivalry. The format you suggest—6 teams from Australia (with Fiji) and New Zealand (with Samoa)—makes sense and keeps things compact, with only 10 rounds, which would help avoid player burnout.

The top 3 from each comp moving into a Champions League-style setup could be a great way to increase fan interest while maintaining the local flavor. It also gives the second-tier teams something to fight for in a promotion/relegation-type structure, which would keep things competitive. Definitely something that could help build the sport further in the region!

Yes I think it would be good and as it develops then you could build on the champions league format by adding teams from Japan, Jaguares etc or the Saffas might want back in.