Australian Rugby / RA

[Quick Hands]

It's hard to know but I do feel like we have a better chance at a financially successful and thus sustainable competition with NZ than without. I firmly believe the international drawcard is important. Rugby is a global game and having a competition of sufficient quality is important to driving international interest.

A competition that was Australian only with less of our top talent because the funds available are lower and the remaining talent spread more thinly would seem very likely to resemble the NRC in quality, maybe a little better. I don't think that some of the teams involved being the Reds/Waratahs/Brumbies/Rebels is going to increase the interest enough to really change the dynamic. We're already working from a base where there isn't enough interest in those teams.

We're competing with other rugby competitions for our domestic viewers as well as with other sports. I don't think being the best local rugby competition is enough to bring out the fans in enough numbers to make it sustainable. It has to be high enough quality, even if that means that we are generally amongst the weaker teams in the competition (because NZ is stronger).

It's going to be a massive challenge regardless.

No matter what happens next year and at least the five years after that are going to be a massive challenge for rugby in Australia. I actually see this challenge as a massive opportunity, and one which probably won't come again. We have the opportunity to set the foundations for a national domestic competition. Doing so will obviously involve some risk and some tough times, but again they are both in store for us anyway.

To me our current situation provides the opportunity to break free of the shackles of Super Rugby and not have to consult NZ and SA every time we want to do things in the professional space. The Wallabies will still provide the bulk of the income, but without increasing support for the game and trying to attract a wider audience of potential fans then that will eventually dry up. The last super game that I went to about 3 years ago, the vast majority of the crowd were closer to 60 than 50. Tests do slightly better but an ageing demographic and a shrinking grass roots structure cannot continue to provide an long term profitable fan base for the Wallabies.

We need to seize the day with both hands and move forward together as Australian rugby. That is ironically more possible and likely today than it has been in living memory.

 

[Derpus]

By "less competition" I assume you mean home-grown competition? So if, say, Boshier gets a gig with 'tahs what does e.g. Hanigan do?



Who's depth? NZ's? Yours? Both?

EDIT: paying a Beaugan or a Mo'unga stupid amounts of money might give you some short-term gain results-wise & if you're lucky bums-on-seats- & memberships/ merch-wise, but long-term the Beaugan or Mo'unga is the only winner & once they've gone you guys are likely back to here you were.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, this probably belongs on Where To For Super Rugby? but I can't reply to one thread in another. But if the thread fairies can dump the last few posts into that one..

Helps with our depth and obviously there is less competition here coz we suck. So an ambitious young kiwi might try to demonstrate his talent playing for the tahs where hes not stuck behind a tenured AB.

 

[Quick Hands]

^

"If anyone wants to address the actual questions.."

1. Why would e.g. Boshier WANT to play for NSW?
2. What if he DOESN'T want to?

I'll address the question. I doubt that most Kiwis would sign with an Australian team in a Trans Tasman competition. I suspect the only ones who would would be those who had been cut in NZ and had no opportunities there and came as a last throw of the dice.

NB I'm not in favour of a Trans Tasman competition except as some sort of champions league at the end of a domestic competition.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ Thank you.

Now you've (correctly IMO) answered Q.1, maybe someone would like to take on Q.2 'cos that's the guts of it IMO & I've yet to see anyone even come close to something that makes sense. It's almost like "oh, yeah, let (or somehow make*) kiwis play for our State teams & still be available for AB & nek minnit we be knee-deep in AB-quality players, problem(s) solved".

EDIT: * a proposition I've actually seen posted on these boards, BTW.

 

[KOB1987]

^ Thank you.

Now you've (correctly IMO) answered Q.1, maybe someone would like to take on Q.2 'cos that's the guts of it IMO & I've yet to see anyone even come close to something that makes sense. It's almost like "oh, yeah, let (or somehow make) kiwis play for our State teams & still be available for AB & nek minnit we be knee-deep in AB-quality players, problem(s) solved".

Well no one is going to force him to. It would come down to where he is going to get the best opportunity, and the dollars of course.

EDIT: the last half of your post appeared after I replied. I was always working on the assumption that it would be a player’s choice, where did this ‘making them play for X’ come from?

EDIT2: oh you’ve deleted it now, at least I captured it

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

OK, that's Q.2 (again correctly IMO) answered so thank you, too.

EDIT: sorry for adding to my post after you'd replied, purely a function of having to use my phone & a dodgy wifi connection ATM, no second-guessing or goalpost-shifting intended.

As to the "making them play for X" bit, trust me: it's in either this or the WTFSR? thread & by no means was it one person making one post to that effect.

So, to summarise:

Q.1: why would e.g. Boshier WANT to play for NSW?
A: hardly any kiwi player would.

Q.2: What if he DOESN'T want to?
A: hope someone else does.

Nuf said?

 

[KOB1987]

Yeah, you’re drafting the players to clubs though, whereas I’m working on open negotiations, so the answer to the first question would be because he’s choosing to. Two completely different models.

Anyway, I don’t see it happening either way. Now that I understand where you’re coming from it doesn’t come across as arrogant, that was my aversion.

 

[qwerty51]

Haven't read much of the debate but why are there Australians playing for the Warriors in the NRL? Surely the Warriors would be 100% Kiwi before any Kiwi went to play for an Australian NRL club by some of the arguments made here.

 

[Joe King]

What Joe actually wrote, and several others have written variations of, was "The real solution to this would be for NZR to pick test players from non-NZ teams, but it's always been in their best interests not to.."

Note I'm not having a crack at Joe, or anyone else who's made the same suggestion over what is now quite a long period of time. I just find it really strange that anyone would think that opening up AB eligibility to guys playing for non-NZ teams is some kind of solution to the current actual or perceived imbalance in strength between NZ & Aus sides.

So again my questions are: if NZR were to open AB eligibility up to guys playing for non-NZ sides why would anyone other than those in the marquee player class (of which I'd suggest there's about six or eight, tops) want to? And if none or only a handful, what's Plan B? Because it seems to me it has to be either paying ridiculous amounts of money for journeyman players, in which case your teams likely don't improve that much but go bankrupt in the attempt, or some kind of forced draft which is IMO unworkable & probably unlawful.

Thanks for your insight and pushback, wo.

I don't think NZR would ever go for some sort of mechanism to forcibly even out the competition, which would be required.

Keeps bringing me back to the one big drawback of a TT comp is that for it to be attractive, it forever restricts Australia to no more than 3 competitive teams. Any more teams than that and the quality just diminishes and the lopsidedness just turns the fans off all over again.

For a TT comp to work it would need to be our 5 teams joining with your traditional provincial ITM Cup teams.

 

[qwerty51]

No it just needs free movement ffs.

 

[liquor box]

No All Black would want to play outside of NZ but it's possible players looking to 'make it' who aren't in the frame would go abroad as there is less competition - which would assist with depth.

Not advocating for it - just spitballing.

I could see current starting players wanting to play overseas if they could get selected. I think some players who have families may like the idea of living on the Gold Coast and playing for the Reds for family/weather/job opportunities for partner reasons.

 

[Micheal]

I could see current starting players wanting to play overseas if they could get selected. I think some players who have families may like the idea of living on the Gold Coast and playing for the Reds for family/weather/job opportunities for partner reasons.

If I had a choice between Melbourne or Auckland, I'm choosing Melbourne.

 

[brokendown]

hobson's choice!

 

[Forcefield]

If I had a choice between Melbourne or Auckland, I'm choosing Melbourne.

To live in or to fire a nuclear weapon at .

 

[The Honey Badger]

Couldn't give two shits attracting mungos to the game. They already have a dumbed down version of football to watch. Why should we change the laws to pander to non rugby fans?

Ditto GRR nonsense. Apart from what Cyclo is saying re the application of the laws, the game is fine, if you don't like it find another sport.

Seems every 5 mins we have someone saying more tries = better games. What absolute nonsense.

Rugby is sport that competes in a marketplace with other sports.

Currently not competing very well. Loosing crowds and viewers and players.

Everyone on this site seem to agree that things need to change to turn this around.

The product we have now is a poor one, many people struggle with the rules and stoppages.

Perhaps its time we had an open mind about the things holding back the game, the rules of the game being 1.

 

[Derpus]

Rugby is sport that competes in a marketplace with other sports.

Currently not competing very well. Loosing crowds and viewers and players.

Everyone on this site seem to agree that things need to change to turn this around.

The product we have now is a poor one, many people struggle with the rules and stoppages.

Perhaps its time we had an open mind about the things holding back the game, the rules of the game being 1.

No that's arrogant.

 

[The Honey Badger]

No that's arrogant.

Thanks for the nice reply.

How so?

 

[cyclopath]

Thanks for the nice reply.

How so?

Have you actually read any other posts in this thread addressing this issue? Because you're posting the same proposition to which others, including me, have replied previously, answering the very question you have asked. Again.
Beats me.

 

[Quick Hands]

To live in or to fire a nuclear weapon at .

Depends how many nuclear warheads you had.

 

[qwerty51]

Rugby is sport that competes in a marketplace with other sports.

Currently not competing very well. Loosing crowds and viewers and players.

Everyone on this site seem to agree that things need to change to turn this around.

The product we have now is a poor one, many people struggle with the rules and stoppages.

Perhaps its time we had an open mind about the things holding back the game, the rules of the game being 1.

A-League is doing worse than rugby. Do you think they've ever thought about changing the rules?