Australian Rugby / RA

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I was wondering if anyone was going to link to that post from Bidwell. It's all very well to say "our system worked really well by ourselves for 100 years", but that was during the amateur years when there wasn't the same global market for players.

What Hamish seems to conveniently forget is the context of the times when Super Rugby was formed, especially in the pro era. We had the Super 10, yes, but in the mid-1990's there was an existential threat from rugby league and the World Rugby Corporation (remember them?) and a snap decision was made to turn the game professional and do the deal with News Ltd to bring us the 3N and Super Rugby. Had this not happened, I very much doubt NZ rugby would have survived in it's previous form (nor would OZ, BTW).

 

[LeCheese]

To be fair, in the article, Bidwell actually proposes what a lot of posters here advocate for. The demise of Super Rugby and replacing it with stronger national competitions with champion cross-over games.

The suggestion of exploring that format isn't the issue with the article - it's the "back in the good old days" way it's presented, as well as the obvious pot-stirring re: the Rebels to drive clicks

 

[mst]

Well RA debt is going to mean they will be relocating the Brumbies to Western Sydney (Sorry, Brumbies fans. I hope that never happens) before adding a 5th team. Honestly looking over RA documents from AGM they need to be shut down by the government and taken over by a whole new board with some experience that's relevant to running a sports organization.

How are they going to service 10 million a year interest with a reduced TV deal?

Don't be sorry. It will never happen. NSW can't support one team let alone two. The Shute / NSWRU/ RA civil war would need to happen before a Super Rugby team was allowed anywhere near Sydney.

RA wont want to funding and running two teams. Brumbies won't get enough support in western Sydney without rebranding and the loss of the current Brumbies sponsors for the game overall will be a bigger blow.

The issue is this is all just a fantasy. We all know it, but we just can't accept or don't want to accept it. Union is still thinking its something its not and the realities are biting. 2025 is the swan song. Super Rugby can't sustain itself as its nothing more than an overinflated funded opposed training session for the Wallabies. It not a competition that the masses want to watch. Every game sounds like a Wallabies selection match rather then a proper competition between my team and your team with the best Aussie's and a few our big names going at it.

As much it is hurts to say, we may have to kill off what we have (yes, the Super Rugby teams) to make something better. If we don't it will collapse anyway in time. But Union covets its history and will go down with the ship rather than concede and change so I think its damned. That's why we are here now! No one near the game can honestly say they could not see this coming.

You are spot on with the management needing to change. And that means clearing house of any of the ex-players and recycled administrators and pretenders we have in the management ranks. We need a Super Rugby to be a business to produce entertainment. Enough of the funded opposed Wallabies training squads marketed as a competition! Competitions overseas can mix and match nationalities that make them attractive without hurting their international squads. We cant we learn to do the same? Imagine, something the people want to watch.

The stupidity of RA and the wider rugby community to be ok with RA using the Lions funds to bail itself out is ridiculous. FFS, RA is bleeding money and all we seem capable of doing is waiting until the next payday to bail out the disaster rather than using the funds to fix the actual problems. It should not be allowed. It money wasted on paying off past problems without a a solution. It's the epitome of rinse and repeat. Why is there not more outrage? And what will the Lions money actually do for the game? Will anything change except the bank balanced? No, it wont!

You are right with the interest to pay back, reduced TV deal, sponsors not wanting to get involved in Super Rugby as they are worried it for RA not the Super Rugby team (hearing this more and more). RA may be the cancer but 'we" are also still being the host for the cancer.
.

 

[SouthernX]

To be fair, in the article, Bidwell actually proposes what a lot of posters here advocate for. The demise of Super Rugby and replacing it with stronger national competitions with champion cross-over games.

Professional rugby is in huge trouble in NZ if you disband super rugby. The kiwis need Australia more than Australia needs kiwis.

Super rugby NZ would simply become the ITM cup with rep players and everyone would be taking a pay cut.

 

[Tomikin]

Isn't the board cast deal mostly built of the Wallabies and not super rugby? I know that might be the issue but for now selling the Wallabies, the lions tour, the 2 world cups, nation championship and then super rugby that's a pretty compelling deal. Not sure that no Rebels really destroys that.

We have a lot coming in the pipeline... I'd much prefer a national comp, but I'm not all negative ATM.

 

[Derpus]

Professional rugby is in huge trouble in NZ if you disband super rugby. The kiwis need Australia more than Australia needs kiwis.

Super rugby NZ would simply become the ITM cup with rep players and everyone would be taking a pay cut.

I dunno, the ITM cup with bigger salary caps and all their All Blacks playing would probably be pretty good. It's basically what I would want for Aus.

 

[SouthernX]

I dunno, the ITM cup with bigger salary caps and all their All Blacks playing would probably be pretty good. It's basically what I would want for Aus.

but they currently have super rugby and ITM cup.
I can’t see pay rises incoming for NZ players if there’s less content. You’d be making one or the other competition essentially redundant because how do you distinguish between the 2?

Australia in a position where we wouldn’t be having less content because super rugby suddenly becomes national comp… I don’t see “further” pay cuts coming in that scenario for Australian teams.

I am interested to see what comes of this discussion. My personal preference is status quo super rugby and Waratah Phil make good on his promise of promoting club rugby into a national comp:

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'm keen to see how they piss it away this time.

In all honesty I can't see this happening, nor a Western Sydney team more generally for some time. Relocating the Brums would be a costly exercise for bugger all benefit, and moving them into what is now an NRL stronghold would make the bean counters nervous about recouping those costs.

The crowd numbers in Canberra have been disappointing recently despite their moderate success, but RA would be better off channelling funds into boosting the Brums' profile in the area.

Moving the Brumbies to Western Sydney would be epically stupid and would burn through money like never seen before. They would be better served in using some of these funds to promote our SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) teams as opposed to this.

 

[Dan54]

Dan, I am not arguing that RA has done a great job, we all know they haven't but:

When you have a media who, over the last 20 years have run nothing but, to paraphrase it all "Rugby is too dangerous" from scrummaging will break your neck, to brain damage today and all the other issues that come up in between, it is no surprise that schools have dumped rugby and are playing soccer et al. The reduction in rugby playing stocks and the skill standard coming out of the remaining schools leaves much to be desired.
Yet the media doesn't appear to do the same hatchet job on RL.

If rugby union is too dangerous then ban it or allow it only at an amateur level after players sign a contract that stops them from suing (if such a thing is possible). That would be better than the death by a thousand cuts we are putting up with.

I would agree with players signing an agreement mate, big time. But we unfortunately know thet's not going to happen. I am truly amazed that some parents etc will say rugby (or similar) is too danderous for little Johnny, but then quite happy for him to be skateboarding, riding bikes etc etc. A lot of it is perception by media isn't it?

 

[Dan54]

Oh yeah, I didn't get far into that... rancid.

Read any Bidwell article especially on Roar is similar. I actually thought this one was not as bad as many, just his usual drivel.
On the actual statement, he not worried about Rebels going down gurgler is probably something a lot of people outside of Victoria say unfortunately, but then he just dribbles on about old days etc , as though the game had never gone Pro. Basically a rancid bait as pointed out, and best way to stop it, just ignore his articles!

 

[half]

The suggestion of exploring that format isn't the issue with the article - it's the "back in the good old days" way it's presented, as well as the obvious pot-stirring re: the Rebels to drive clicks

Before Syd Barrett left Pink Floyd, Peter Green left Fleetwood Mac, Peter Gabriel left Genesis and SNL was good, you know the good old days, most games were played on Saturdays and teams would have their grounds for hosting games, pre Super Rugby.

The word was spread, and league raided us.

 

[Froggy]

This whole fantasizing over some sort of domestic comp seems to completely overlook where the money might come from to run it. Or is the answer just to have an amateur competition, have all the better players go overseas, and rugby sink to the level of, say, water polo, with only a handful of interested participants and the rest of the nation taking a side look once every four years if we happen to make it to the world cup.

The only way a domestic comp can have us better off than we are now is if we could somehow generate a real and dedicated following for teams, and a big group of fans genuinely invested in the success of their team. If you can get a big enough following, so will broadcast deals and sponsorships follow. Maybe some of the proponents of a domestic comp can tell me how to do that, because I'm sure I don't know.

And of course, we have this constant 'sack 'em all' call regarding the administrators. Now I am not suggesting for a minute they have been particularly good, in fact I think we missed a massive opportunity with the Islander community when rugby went professional and we were winning, but that horse has now well and truly bolted. However, I don't know where these super administrators are going to come from. If we appoint ex rugby people, all I hear is it's an old boys club, or if we appoint non rugby business types. I hear they don't understand and are not invested in rugby. Looking forward to hearing where these super administrators are hiding out.

 

[Derpus]

^^^
Super Rugby has the exact same issue with funding. It doesn't bring in enough money and is run off the back of the Wallabies. I suggest that a domestic comp has greater potential to eventually be self sustaining. It ticks more of the boxes that seem to keep fans in Aus happy. More domestic rivalries, more games and a guaranteed domestic winner each year.

We just find the losses Super Rugby makes palatable because it already exists and making change is scary/hard. Super Rugby is becoming less viable - not more - as time passes.

 

[mst]

^^^^
The key metric that really suggested that change was possible was the ratings for SRAU v Super Rugby with SRAU up +20%. This may have fallen back post COVID but it shows there is market for a domestic comp and we would be starting on an equal if not better footing. Sponsorship may be improved by a more relevant domestic market and more games.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

^^^^
The key metric that really suggested that change was possible was the ratings for SRAU v Super Rugby with SRAU up +20%. This may have fallen back post COVID but it shows there is market for a domestic comp and we would be starting on an equal if not better footing. Sponsorship may be improved by a more relevant domestic market and more games.

The idea of a domestic comp appeals to me but higher ratings for SRAU might also be due to people not having any available activities beside turning on the TV or streaming app of choice.

 

[Derpus]

Setting aside the viability arguments - Super Rugby has more or less failed now. What's to lose in trying something new?

 

[hoggy]

This whole fantasizing over some sort of domestic comp seems to completely overlook where the money might come from to run it. Or is the answer just to have an amateur competition, have all the better players go overseas, and rugby sink to the level of, say, water polo, with only a handful of interested participants and the rest of the nation taking a side look once every four years if we happen to make it to the world cup.

The only way a domestic comp can have us better off than we are now is if we could somehow generate a real and dedicated following for teams, and a big group of fans genuinely invested in the success of their team. If you can get a big enough following, so will broadcast deals and sponsorships follow. Maybe some of the proponents of a domestic comp can tell me how to do that, because I'm sure I don't know.

And of course, we have this constant 'sack 'em all' call regarding the administrators. Now I am not suggesting for a minute they have been particularly good, in fact I think we missed a massive opportunity with the Islander community when rugby went professional and we were winning, but that horse has now well and truly bolted. However, I don't know where these super administrators are going to come from. If we appoint ex rugby people, all I hear is it's an old boys club, or if we appoint non rugby business types. I hear they don't understand and are not invested in rugby. Looking forward to hearing where these super administrators are hiding out.

Its not Fantasizing, you are doing it the way 99% of successful sporting competitions are operated around the world, the money comes from the exact same place it does now, maybe less or maybe more if it proves popular and you can generate real & dedicated followers for the competition & fans become genuinely invested in the competition, just like 99% of successful sporting competitions.

The alternative, to keep doing the same and rely on the 1% option of the Wallabies being the no1 rugby team in the world, operating in a structurally flawed set up, creating better players from a smaller playing pool and more money from less fans.

Take your pick.

 

[Froggy]

What is you domestic competition model? What will the teams be, how are you going to market it, how will you fund it, will the Wallabies be more or less competitive as a result of only playing ourselves?
I am not trying to be a smart-ass here, I genuinely want to know what the proposed model is, and how it answers these questions.

 

[Derpus]

What is you domestic competition model? What will the teams be, how are you going to market it, how will you fund it, will the Wallabies be more or less competitive as a result of only playing ourselves?
I am not trying to be a smart-ass here, I genuinely want to know what the proposed model is, and how it answers these questions.

I mean - there is a thousand page thread which must not be named with extensive discussion covering these questions.

 

[Froggy]

Hoggy, what you are saying is 100% correct, however it is also the way 99% of unsuccessful sporting competitions are operated. The critical point is, how do you make it popular, how do you attract these real and dedicated followers that become genuinely invested. Because I'm sure volleyball, water polo, hockey and a myriad of other sports that run this model and can't generate enough followers pay full time professionals want to know.