Back to the future.

[Micheal]

I know everyone's talking about cutting a team, but for me, the most desirable outcome would be a trans-Tasman competition.

The Saffer games are annoying in terms of time slots and I literally know about one in every eight players they field. They play boring rugby and the more we play NZ the better (atleast in the long-term).

As it stands, we'd have:

1. Waratahs
2. Reds
3. Brumbies
4. Force
5. Rebels
6. Hurricanes
7. Highlanders
8. Crusaders
9. Chiefs
10. Blues

Not a bad start, but you really need a minimum of 12 teams.

So where to from here?

Add another team per country.

Western Sydney and another Kiwi team. Or let the Sunwolves stay and add one of the two.

The Western Sydney team would be run by the NSWRU (with whose cash I don't know) and staffed from the NRC. Perhaps Waratahs players could elect to be transferred there (players like Latu, Keps etc may choose to).

Get the Norths coach to lead them. He seems like a good'un.

I also wouldn't mind seeing a draft system introduced to make the distribution of players more equitable. We see too much quality isolated at the Reds / Tahs and logjams in certain positions at certain clubs (e.g. Reds with their 2nd rowers, Rebels with their backrow).

I firmly believe we have the talent and the resources in this country but its all used far too inefficiently.

 

[wamberal]

Not sure about the resources, if we had all the financial resources we need we would not lose good players to Europe.

 

[Rebels3]

I know everyone's talking about cutting a team, but for me, the most desirable outcome would be a trans-Tasman competition.

The Saffer games are annoying in terms of time slots and I literally know about one in every eight players they field. They play boring rugby and the more we play NZ the better (atleast in the long-term).

As it stands, we'd have:

1. Waratahs
2. Reds
3. Brumbies
4. Force
5. Rebels
6. Hurricanes
7. Highlanders
8. Crusaders
9. Chiefs
10. Blues

Not a bad start, but you really need a minimum of 12 teams.

So where to from here?

Add another team per country.

Western Sydney and another Kiwi team. Or let the Sunwolves stay and add one of the two.

The Western Sydney team would be run by the NSWRU (with whose cash I don't know) and staffed from the NRC. Perhaps Waratahs players could elect to be transferred there (players like Latu, Keps etc may choose to).

Get the Norths coach to lead them. He seems like a good'un.

I also wouldn't mind seeing a draft system introduced to make the distribution of players more equitable. We see too much quality isolated at the Reds / Tahs and logjams in certain positions at certain clubs (e.g. Reds with their 2nd rowers, Rebels with their backrow).

I firmly believe we have the talent and the resources in this country but its all used far too inefficiently.

Agree with this, with a little tweak.

I'd have 6 kiwi teams playing in a NZ conference and revert the teams back to their NPC counterpart.

The Aussie conference to be made up of 5 existing teams and a pacific team.

16 round competition (8 home, 8 away). Play own conference twice other conference once.

NZ conference

Wellington
Auckland
Waikato
Otago
Canterbury
Taranaki

Aus conference

Waratahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels
PI team (4 games in Fiji, 1 games in Samoa, 1 in Tonga and 2 games in Singapore aka taking the money currently offered to the Sunwolves to play there)

Top 2 from each conference make it through to semis. Australian championship game, NZ championship game. This way both countries have silverware. Winner of both in Final, played at team with better overall record.

75% of squads need to be eligible for country they play in but open trade for Aus and NZ players to be able to play for Aus or NZ teams as long as they play in this comp. Might keep some AB or Aus players from moving to Europe if Tahs could offer for example Cruden money or Auckland able to offer Folau cash, etc.

To not compromise the Mitre 10 Cup, NZ conference has promotion/relegation with of teams below playing NPC equivalent.

Work out some sort of Champions league comp beyond this with teams Currie Cup (South Africa), Top League (Japan) and the America's once they get upto a sufficient level.

 

[Micheal]

Aus conference

Waratahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels
PI team (4 games in Fiji, 1 games in Samoa, 1 in Tonga and 2 games in Singapore aka taking the money currently offered to the Sunwolves to play there)

Huge fan of this but apparently a PI team simply wouldn't work due to culture clashes.

I'd go with either including the Sunwolves in the Australian conference or a strict Fiji team a la the NRC.

Personally I'd be far more interested in this relative to the current format of Super Rugby.

Only problem is that without SA it may not be commercially desirable for the NZRU, particularly given the state of Australian rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agree with this, with a little tweak.

I'd have 6 kiwi teams playing in a NZ conference and revert the teams back to their NPC counterpart.

The Aussie conference to be made up of 5 existing teams and a pacific team.

16 round competition (8 home, 8 away). Play own conference twice other conference once.

NZ conference

Wellington
Auckland
Waikato
Otago
Canterbury
Taranaki

Aus conference

Waratahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels
PI team (4 games in Fiji, 1 games in Samoa, 1 in Tonga and 2 games in Singapore aka taking the money currently offered to the Sunwolves to play there)

Top 2 from each conference make it through to semis. Australian championship game, NZ championship game. This way both countries have silverware. Winner of both in Final, played at team with better overall record.

75% of squads need to be eligible for country they play in but open trade for Aus and NZ players to be able to play for Aus or NZ teams as long as they play in this comp. Might keep some AB or Aus players from moving to Europe if Tahs could offer for example Cruden money or Auckland able to offer Folau cash, etc.

To not compromise the Mitre 10 Cup, NZ conference has promotion/relegation with of teams below playing NPC equivalent.

Work out some sort of Champions league comp beyond this with teams Currie Cup (South Africa), Top League (Japan) and the America's once they get upto a sufficient level.

Or you could just go with a straight H/A season for 18 games plus a 4 team finals series. If you go to 12 teams i'd still keep it at that for 22 rounds if we can get the June Test window pushed back to July. Then have a 6 team finals series.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think most Australian fans would prefer a Trans Tasman comp (or plus Fiji and Japan). The ARU even went into the last round of negotiations with this as a preference for the regular season but the NZRU weren't in favour.

I do wonder what would happen if the ARU forced the issue on this. I suspect the NZRU would choose Australia over South Africa if forced, but there'd need to be a Plan B in case they didn't, and a plan B is hard when we only have 5 teams.

 

[NTT]

I almost vomited reading Hugh Cavills puff piece on the front page. Personally i would be embarrassed to put my name to such an article, well not an article, just a rehashing of the writings of others.
It offers only the same sad and disappointing view that Australian rugby is doomed and it must be the Forces fault. Instead of coming together to advocate for Australian rugby we are served more pig trough, recycled non sense from another out of touch individual trying to make a name for himself. At no point does Mr Cavill offer anything resembling an original opinion or an original idea. Just because NSW rugby may (or may not, we never get the true situation) be in a lull period, why is it convenient to state that the solution to NSWs lull is to be found in WA. We are growing the game, producing players and producing referees. To draw the conclusion that WA is in anyway responsible for any of the perceived problems in NSW is baseless and sad.
We all want Australian rugby to be strong. To do this we need depth in our playing ranks and a strong pathway system. We have the pathway systems ever evolving and getting stronger. We need strong premier rugby in every state and we need the best 16-20 year olds presented the opportunities to participate in these pathways, regardless of where they live or what state they are from.
Most importantly though for Australian rugby to be successful (which i would argue is one of the stronger rugby playing nations in the world) is for everyone to be working towards the same goal, Strong clubs, strong pathways and a strong National team. Australian rugby has money it is just not being maximised as best it could be due to corporate structural issues, eg: too many hanger on types not giving rugby true value for money.
And the biggest issue we must overcome is the state vs state white anting that is undermining the whole dam thing. The casual viewer who we ate trying to win over understands the issue of infighting and the negative affect it has and the negative image that results. The casual viewer is a lot smarter than a lot of you give them credit for. I mean which sport would you get involved in, the one that has great advertising, great news stories and an inclusive nature or the sport that is plagued by negativity and factioned infighting, bad news stories and an everyman for himself mentality?

Fucking wake up to yourselves, the sport is more important than any individual, until we learn that we will forever be stuck in this deer dance, going round and round, never progressing.

 

[barbarian]

Wow. Thanks for the feedback NTT. Though I'm sure it's not the first time my writing has induced nausea, and it certainly won't be the last.

I was by no means blaming the Force for the struggles of Australian rugby. It's not their fault at all (well maybe a little bit, but no more than a whole range of teams/players/officials), and below in the comments I actually advocate for keeping them.

It's not about blame or responsibility. It's about ensuring Super Rugby is as good a competition as it can be. The more I look at it the more I think that we can only sustain four Australian teams.

Like it or not, the Force and Rebels both perform poorly on the field year after year after year. It's just not sustainable.

There are a few other solutions here (like a Trans-Tasman comp) that may be workable but in reality as long as we're in SANZAAR it's not going to happen. So we need to work with what we have, and that to me means dropping a team.
.

 

[dru]

Very little discussion on this thread on the socio-economic stability and sustainability of South Africa, let alone a non "transformed" sport there.

I doubt the Kings will depart any time soon. I know it seems a side issue, but should an assessment of SA suggest they are not the most stable environment, well this discussion changes a lot.

 

[half]

Does anyone have details of revenue streams.

My very limited understanding is our current media deal is 56 million, broken down to overseas sales 30 million with Super Rugby & Tri Nations 26 million.

Further and just what I have read is European ratings are down meaning the 30 million may not be that high. Resulting in the need to reduce teams.

Also there is a fear of falling ratings in SA, NZ & Aust.

I don't know if the above is true. However its what I have read and maybe its totally wrong.

Its difficult but as a code our administrators for better or worst keep things very close to their chest. It would be nice if we had a reasonable knowledge of whats behind some of key decisions coming up.

My biggest fear is yet again being out played in the broad rooms around the country. Take Netball they have been so open as to whats going on and its driving many ideas and support. The same in women's AFL.

A key difference in rugby is the ARU own 4 of the 5 teams, and its the ARU that sit on all key boards.

I still think to go back to 4 possibly 3 teams is a total sell out.

If that happened the ARU would loose me.

 

[wamberal]

Sometimes certain things have to be kept confidential. We are sometimes criticised for having too many ex-GPS types in our various hierarchies. These guys talk to each other privately, as do most decision-makers before decisions are finally announced (often long after they have been made).

I do not think we are being outplayed in the board rooms. We are being outplayed in terms of the popularity of our game. Netball is a hugely popular game, so is the AFL.


Netball is already a women's sport, so there is their advantage over us in terms of popularity (when will there ever be an elite domestic womens' rugby competition that anybdy would be interested in televising).


And the AFL will spend whatever it takes to make the WAFL popular.


Cannot see what we can learn from either sport. Again, cannot see what the nation's boardrooms have to do with it, frankly.

 

[BaysideBird]

Why don't they drop it to 16 teams? Get rid of the Kings and Sunwolves, and play everyone else once, with top 8 QFs, and guarenteed one team from Aus, NZ and SA to keep the Saffas happy. Have an integrated Australian competition (bring back the ARS?) through the preseason and June tests where Australian teams play each other again, therefore bringing back more Home Derbies.

So for Australian teams you would play 15 games of Super Rugby, then an extra 4 Australian Championship games with a Final for that before or after the Super Rugby Final depending on the status of Aussie teams in playoffs.

Finally have a Super B comp, have the Sunwolves there with Pacific Islands teams, Western Sydney, another Auckland team, and maybe two more semi pro teams (Adelaide, Napier, Nelson, AIS?) with the opportunity for a Pro/Rel playoff with the ANZ teams in Super A. Gives the Japanese and PIs a better platform to develop, and also allows them to play Super A when they're ready rather than being thrown in the deep end.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Why don't they drop it to 16 teams? Get rid of the Kings and Sunwolves, and play everyone else once, with top 8 QFs, and guarenteed one team from Aus, NZ and SA to keep the Saffas happy. Have an integrated Australian competition (bring back the ARS?) through the preseason and June tests where Australian teams play each other again, therefore bringing back more Home Derbies.

So for Australian teams you would play 15 games of Super Rugby, then an extra 4 Australian Championship games with a Final for that before or after the Super Rugby Final depending on the status of Aussie teams in playoffs.

Finally have a Super B comp, have the Sunwolves there with Pacific Islands teams, Western Sydney, another Auckland team, and maybe two more semi pro teams (Adelaide, Napier, Nelson, AIS?) with the opportunity for a Pro/Rel playoff with the ANZ teams in Super A. Gives the Japanese and PIs a better platform to develop, and also allows them to play Super A when they're ready rather than being thrown in the deep end.

I certainly think it would be an interesting exercise brave as well. One that I wouldn't mind seeing as a means to growing the brand into new markets. I'd structure it in conferences much like Super Rugby is now. Purely for geographic reasons. So you would have Super A Asia-Pacific, Super A Americas etc.

I'd run it as a slightly shorter structure. Ideally you look to have each conference with 6 teams so they can play a 10 week regular season with the top 2 progressing to the finals. Depending on how many conferences you have of course. You could even look to have Super A Europe if you wanted to. If you have 4 conferences then its only the top team.

Play a short finals series. To determine the winner. They then get a chance to play off against the last placed team in Super Rugby. Trying to keep it as regional based as possible would be to keep costs as low as possible with the exception of the finals. This would also be contingent on whether there is enough interest from broadcasters.

Part of this would also be a means of developing these franchises to a point where they are both financially stable and competitive enough to be able to be promoted to Super Rugby proper.

 

[mst]

I think most Australian fans would prefer a Trans Tasman comp (or plus Fiji and Japan). The ARU even went into the last round of negotiations with this as a preference for the regular season but the NZRU weren't in favour.

This is what most fans are overlooking!

SA provides a gateway to Europe where all the money is atm. That is why the NZRU wants to stick with SA.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Why don't they drop it to 16 teams? Get rid of the Kings and Sunwolves, and play everyone else once, with top 8 QFs, and guarenteed one team from Aus, NZ and SA to keep the Saffas happy..........

They spent 20 years complaining about their teams having to spend up to five weeks in Australasia c.f. Australasian sides spending a maximum of three in SA. Having finally achieved what they see as parity, they're not going to give it up for anyone.

 

[Omar Comin']

SA provides a gateway to Europe where all the money is atm. That is why the NZRU wants to stick with SA.

From what I read the money was actually around the same after taking into account the cost saving of a trans-tasman comp. From memory the main reason that was reported was the NZRU wanted their players to have regular exposure to the South African style of play.

Not sure if this is completely accurate but if it is it really highlights the conflicting interests at play when it comes to Super Rugby. I think the interest of fans and the teams need to be prioritised a little more.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^ NZR have been consistent in wanting as much contact with SA sides as possible, believing rightly or wrongly that it's essential to keeping the AB at or at least near the top of the pile.

 

[dru]

They spent 20 years complaining about their teams having to spend up to five weeks in Australasia c.f. Australasian sides spending a maximum of three in SA. Having finally achieved what they see as parity, they're not going to give it up for anyone.

Few in Aus actually get it WoB. I cant work out why. The change, were there to be one must start from NZ. SA isnt changing in a hurry.

If NZ isnt either, then Aus calls the bluff, which is pointless without a back up. Or we continue with our tail between our legs.

No B Plan? Boy at the poker table with a pair of twos. And a face that says "Im bluffing".

 

[BaysideBird]

They spent 20 years complaining about their teams having to spend up to five weeks in Australasia c.f. Australasian sides spending a maximum of three in SA. Having finally achieved what they see as parity, they're not going to give it up for anyone.

I have often heard that the games between Aussie teams and the Saffasdon't rate and aren't interesting. So here's an idea, whilst using my original as a basis:

• How about Australia offer to play all regular season games against SA franchises in the Republic in exchange for killing the Kings (or another team, couldn't care really) and keeping all 5 Oz teams. That keeps the Saffas happy about the long tours, and the Kings problem is sorted.
• Now you set up a second round robin fixture outside of Super Rugby for the Aussie teams, which satisfies the need for more local derbies that the other SANZAAR partners don't want or need.
• Therefore you could have a single round robin comp of 15 games, max 3 game tours for all countries and bring back the H/A local derbies in Australia.

I just think Aussie rugby needs to think out of the box to help Super Rugby survive, and this is an out of the box idea that I think could work.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^ Australian sides being about as successful in SA as SA sides in Australia, who in their right mind would agree to let alone propose such a schedule?

When would the outside-of-Super-Rugby round robin be played, and to what purpose? Seems to me it would have to coincide with the June Internationals and/ or TRC therefore no Wobs therefore who's gunna pay to watch it? Or stage it?

Few in Aus actually get it WoB. I cant work out why. The change, were there to be one must start from NZ. SA isnt changing in a hurry.....

What continues to baffle me is how people can't get it. It's not like NZ & SA have only recently adopted their positions, both have been fairly consistent since pretty much day one. None so blind, I s'pose.