Derpus
George Gregan (70)
Yeah - but the third option seems like the only one that could result in something worth watching, right?
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
stillmissit
Chilla Wilson (44)
Nor a guarantee of financial success. I could live with twice a year but 3 times is too much.
The big thing is why aren't our Super Rugby sides capable of beating NZ sides and why are arguments here stating we should not play them, it strikes me as gutless. What's next? we won't play the Brumbies and if we have to drop one they should be the club dropped from the comp.
stillmissit
Chilla Wilson (44)
Why not set up a domestic comp with the top 2 Super Rugby teams from Aus and NZ playing once a month, That should keep the viewers happy and the many Kiwis here can watch their own comp on Stan, the monthly battle may involve different teams will be interesting to see how/if Aus is improving.
Reduces costs and still gives us an opportunity to match ourselves against NZ.
Reduces costs and still gives us an opportunity to match ourselves against NZ.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
You wouldn't necessarily need that. If things like contracting were centralized we could conceivably split SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) into two with NZ taking their 6 and adding two more and RA taking our 5 plus the Drua and looking to run a 2nd squad out of both NSW and Qld operating them as separate domestic home and away structures. Alongside that link up with League 1 to create an Asia-Pacific Cup with 8 from each competition. Eight pools of 3 home and away. A minimum of 18 games a season. With teams only playing each other 2 each season outside of finals while maintaining a level of crossover and exposure to NZ Rugby.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
The most important thing about separate domestic competitions is it then allows each competition to align and adapt to there own marketplace.
NZ may end up with 8 teams Australia 7 (who knows, but each individual market will determine that)
Tribalism, scheduling, economies, private money, financing, derbies, scale. They are all ultimately dealt with when they become competitions in there own right and stand alone, market place demands will ensure issues get dealt with.
Right now all the game is doing here is just kicking the can down the road heading into a dead end.
Last edited:
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Yep, I understand what a couple say hoggy, but bottom line is financials. we all know that's what is bottom line, Aus splits, immediately (I assume lose the * mill a year that they get off NZ for tv rights, etc etc, and NZ would lose whatever tv rights RA pay them (not sure it's any). That immediately causes more problems.
If tv or whoever thought they would get more viewers, I imagine the 2 countries would be listening and doing what they say now?
half
Alan Cameron (40)
Two simple facts.
1] Super Rugby is killing rugby in Australia
2] We need to start a National Domestic Competition
Solution.
We need Super Rugby to fund rugby over 4 to 7 years, while we build a sustainable NDC.
The first step is to recognise we need a NDC and then develop a model acceptable to the broader rugby community. IMO this will take 18 to 24 months.
Once a model is accepted two years to develop, and one year to implement.
However the big take is we need Super Rugby to survive for 4 to 7 years to allow time to fund the concept through development to an actual working national domestic competition. The before the first step is to accept over time we need to develop a DDC.
1] Super Rugby is killing rugby in Australia
2] We need to start a National Domestic Competition
Solution.
We need Super Rugby to fund rugby over 4 to 7 years, while we build a sustainable NDC.
The first step is to recognise we need a NDC and then develop a model acceptable to the broader rugby community. IMO this will take 18 to 24 months.
Once a model is accepted two years to develop, and one year to implement.
However the big take is we need Super Rugby to survive for 4 to 7 years to allow time to fund the concept through development to an actual working national domestic competition. The before the first step is to accept over time we need to develop a DDC.
LeCheese
Jim Lenehan (48)
half
Alan Cameron (40)
Without Super Rugby income, there is no professional alternative capable of bringing in the revenue needed to keep a core player group who will become players in the new competition.
Meaning if Super Rugby folds then keeping our best in Australia rugby would be impossible, many to RL, many overseas, professional structures in place pertaining to coaching and player development will fall over, at best retreat to a fraction of there current size.
Issue is keeping Super Rugby forever is simply a slow, painful continuous decline. Another issue our main partner has no such issues, with Super Rugby providing its main population centres with a local team, and heaps of community support so much so they are talking about taking the game to the USA and cracking the local market, while we struggle across most measurable areas.
stillmissit
Chilla Wilson (44)
Half, My issue with this is that we dump an underwhelming comp and develop a local comp based on what? This seems to me to just be another solution to our current position and holds nothing for building Aus Rugby but rather taking it down to a level just above club rugby AKA the NRC.
That's a NO! from me..
Adam84
Phil Kearns (64)
Sure, that wasn't the question though, the question was how does Super Rugby fund the development of a NDC when Super Rugby isn't even covering the costs of Super Rugby
half
Alan Cameron (40)
All depends on perception, EPL, NFL [US Gridiron}, AFL, all have national domestic competitions, all have different competitions formats.
If fact most successful sports / codes have national competitions.
We currently have five teams, mostly populated with Australian based players, if we jumped to 8 to 10 teams we need heaps more players, an argument could be to follow other international codes like basketball and football and bring in overseas players to help fill the gaps.
The key hhhmmmm main issue, important, critical, essential, thing is to do a non Australian Rugby decision, rather than like the NRC was a top down Pulver and before Flower decision from wo to go inside six months. The model chosen must include debate negotiation by all stakeholders.
Once the model is chosen, it will need to be developed and this I think is at the heart of your question, having chosen a model how does Super Rugby fund it,
The simple answer Super Rugby does not fund the new model, the new model whatever it is will need private capital investment to fund it and develop it. Thats why it will take 18 to 24 months to get the model.
Super Rugby's role is mostly to maintain some interest in rugby and keep a pool of players.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
"develop a local comp based on what"
based on Australian rugby, based on a domestic competition, based on local rivalry, based on tribalism, based on TV interest, based on the same model that works for the AFL & NRL, based on local derbies, based on something we can actually afford, based on reality, based on growing the game, based on more teams in NSW & QLD, based on not going bankrupt, based on what actually works,
stillmissit
Chilla Wilson (44)
Hoggy, if that was possible, the logical thing would have been at the start of pro rugby base our rugby on the existing clubs. Then let them either grow or disappear based on how successful both on the field and financially. That door has never been opened and the clubs are mostly amateur.
You could argue that the model was right in front of us in league but we chose the Super Rugby route never imagining that the punters would lose interest in it.
The Ghost of Raelene
Andrew Slack (58)
Key part. I'm really unsure how they build it now but in terms of buy in from fans you need existing brands. When the idea was first floated of letting Clubs either thrive or die I thought it was ridiculous but it's not. It happens anyway in their leagues.
We've seen the creation of new teams twice now and I've been to Sydney Fleet games and North Harbour Rays games trying to be a supporter. I didn't give a shit when they lost. I do however get the shits when my Club loses or a Club I really don't like wins. I watch games of Clubs I don't like supporting the opposition whereas I never would have watched Brisbane City v Melbourne Rising.
I still struggle to see how it would work to develop our current Clubs beyond what they are now without millions of dollars in facilities, coaching and administration.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
I agree with this, the existing clubs never appeared interested in stepping up (that's another story) but how do we move forward then, when our primary product is not fit for purpose.
I would argue the best option moving forward would be to use the existing 5 franchises and aim to add 3 teams for an 8 team competition.
You could argue keeping the Drua as your 6th team and look at adding a 2nd team in NSW & QLD.
Importantly I would still think you would play NZ and overseas teams but in a different format (champion leagues style) but base it around you domestic competition.
I just think this would be the best option to grow the game in Australia (which is the the main thing it needs, growth at home)
How its funded, well that's the Million dollar question, but the RA are essentially borrowing $80 million to operate over the next 3-4 years while already $40 million in debt. to achieve what if nothing changes????
Last edited: