Exit from Super Rugby?

[Pfitzy]

I think you'd be genuinely surprised how many people in Australia actually care about the EPL and/or European Football.

Yes but most of the pricks support Man U, Man City, Liverpool, or Chelsea. Why? Because they're the winningest!

Your proposal is to take a massive punt that if unsuccessful could easily send make the ARU insolvent in a single year.

On the plus side: it'll be quicker than letting South Africa's dilution spoil what exists already and slowly kill us over three years...

I can't see a plus for Australia either way unless the Wallabies start winning some serious fucking games of rugby, and doing it in a way that brings the magic back. Then that has to filter down to the Soup teams and at that point we have a saleable product.

 

[TahDan]

I hope they get a good deal and one that includes an FTA component, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I also hope the we don't see it expand to 18 teams just so the SARU can have more bottom feeders in the comp. Argentina is a little different, but I reckon that it's still unclear whether having them in the comp has enough benefits to counter the additional travel challenges

 

[TahDan]

Yes but most of the pricks support Man U, Man City, Liverpool, or Chelsea. Why? Because they're the winningest!

Basically that's what it's about, yeah. It really is a return to the days of seeing Chicago Bulls jerseys everywhere, just with a softer sport.

 

[BaysideBird]

Relegation should become formalised. The SARU have been doing it for a while, but there should be formal opportunities for NZ and OZ to do the same.

I know it has been an issue of debate in NZ with a North Auckland/Northland team given the Blues doesnt really represent, or a team based in rugby heartland like Taranaki.

I can see why this would be a very attractive opportunity for South Africa, but it will just be more of the same, not a better product.

New Zealand could easily have another Super Rugby teams, (and be more so competitive than another South African team). Personally I would have a team based in the Central North Island, with collaboration between Taranaki, Manawatu and Hawkes Bay, which are 3 historic unions that are often overlooked by the Hurricanes (seems most of the players form these provinces are playing for the Chiefs and Highlanders.)

 

[Bardon]

Personally I can't stand seeing random Aussies wearing Man-U or Liverpool jerseys. just the very definition of bandwagoners. Sport is about identity, and you ought to support where you're from and/or where you get your bread and butter.

I agree that clubs should put a very big focus on local support and realise that their community is very important to them, I've posted about that on here many times. But in addition to that clubs should also be marketing overseas like football does. It doesn't have to be an either or scenario.

I'd love rugby to reach a stage where random locals in Europe, NA and Asia are wearing Reds, Tahs, Brumbies etc. jerseys because it would signal that RU was growing up a little and realising the potential of rugby being a world wide sport.

Hopefully in 10 years time we're in a position where rather than talking about 95k people going to see Liverpool play in Sydney we're talking about 60k in Dublin to see the Tahs play Leinster or 40-50k to see the Brumbies play in Tokyo.

People can be huge fans of their local team but at their heart they're a fan of the sport and they have a desire to see the best players play. That's why English NFL fans flock to Wembley and Aus football fans went to the MCG.

Rugby has a long way to go in terms of cross boarder marketing but it's what sustains teams. Manchester Utd wouldn't be the global marketing powerhouse it is today if it just stuck to local fans where it's easily beaten into 2nd place by Man City. That was true long before the Sheikh turn up with all his money.

 

[Quick Hands]

T

I strongly believe a Trans Tasman competition is a better/more valuable sell to Foxtel and Sky Sports NZ than Super Rugby. NZ are in better financial state and can afford to consider the implications of not playing SA teams regularly in Super/Provincial Rugby that will affect their international team though. If we could, we should to.

The NZRFU have come out strongly in support of retaining South African teams in Super Rugby, so the proposal for an Aus/NZ competition just won't happen. If we don't shut up, we might be the ones excluded.

A couple of comments from the article below:

But the two most powerful men in New Zealand rugby, NZRU chief executive Steve Tew and Players Association boss Rob Nichol, have both given emphatic indications they did not support the rebel Australian proposal. Both have emphasised the importance of having South African involvement in the round-robin competition.

Everyone we talk to in coaching and high performance believe our young athletes need to play South African teams before they start to play test matches. So we think they're vitally important from a rugby perspective too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...RU-stays-loyal-to-South-Africa-in-Super-Rugby

 

[Blue]

New Zealand could easily have another Super Rugby teams, (and be more so competitive than another South African team). Personally I would have a team based in the Central North Island, with collaboration between Taranaki, Manawatu and Hawkes Bay, which are 3 historic unions that are often overlooked by the Hurricanes (seems most of the players form these provinces are playing for the Chiefs and Highlanders.)

Why is New Zealand then not pushing for another team? Or are they?

 

[TahDan]

I agree that clubs should put a very big focus on local support and realise that their community is very important to them, I've posted about that on here many times. But in addition to that clubs should also be marketing overseas like football does. It doesn't have to be an either or scenario.

Of course that would be ideal, but there is a difference; in Rugby Union the international tournaments are really what comes first, whereas in soccer it's very much club first, nation second. I realise the World Cup changes this, but outside of world cup games people tend to care a lot more about their clubs.

Super Rugby is not at that level yet - the tournament itself is always changing too much for there to be much sense of continuity, and the system itself has felt like a warm up for the TN and now RC pretty well since it started.

I'd love rugby to reach a stage where random locals in Europe, NA and Asia are wearing Reds, Tahs, Brumbies etc. jerseys because it would signal that RU was growing up a little and realising the potential of rugby being a world wide sport.

Hopefully in 10 years time we're in a position where rather than talking about 95k people going to see Liverpool play in Sydney we're talking about 60k in Dublin to see the Tahs play Leinster or 40-50k to see the Brumbies play in Tokyo.

Rugby is more than 10 years away from that for the most part. The exception being The All Blacks - I used to live in Japan as a student and I can remember guys on campus wearing All Blacks jerseys. Even people who didn't seem to know a thing about rugby or really even New Zealand seemed to have heard of them. It was pretty weird really...

People can be huge fans of their local team but at their heart they're a fan of the sport and they have a desire to see the best players play. That's why English NFL fans flock to Wembley and Aus football fans went to the MCG.

That's only true to a certain extent. I love rugby and love watching good rugby, so I get a lot of enjoyment out of seeing the All Blacks play most teams but the Wallabies. I particularly enjoy watching them beat England and cheer them on accordingly, but I'm not about to run out and buy an All Blacks jersey because I'm not a kiwi...

That's the difference between enjoying watching top class footy no matter who is playing, and being a superficial bangwagoner who just likes to follow a winner. Don't get me wrong, we could use fools like that to part with their cash for our teams' jerseys in Australian Rugby, but I've never had much respect for it.

 

[Blue]

Personally I can't stand seeing random Aussies wearing Man-U or Liverpool jerseys. just the very definition of bandwagoners. Sport is about identity, and you ought to support where you're from and/or where you get your bread and butter. Those soccer clubs have absolutely nothing to do with anything in Australia, and I just roll my eyes when I see people wearing those jerseys here. There's seriously an element of cultural cringe in it I reckon.

Welcome to 2014.

Is suspect these pesky globalisation and capitalism nuisances rely aren't your thing.

These are global brands. It has less to do with sport than it has to do with the power of association.

 

[TahDan]

Welcome to 2014.

Is suspect these pesky globalisation and capitalism nuisances rely aren't your thing.

These are global brands. It has less to do with sport than it has to do with the power of association.

2014? More like 1994... As I said, it's been happening forever. It used to be people wearing Chicago Bulls singlets when I was growing up, now it's Man U.

Sure these are global brands, but if you're following them and giving them money when you have zero connection to suburb or city they represent, then you're still a superficial bandwagoner. So yes, it's all about association; the basic desire to be associated with success, no matter how far removed.

Got nothing against the success of the brands themselves, but their global "fans" are a testament to B.T. Barnum's statement that there's a sucker born every minute.

 

[Blue]

I would argue the vast majority are fans through and through. Sure there are bandwagoners / scukers and millions of them but they are not the majority.

You underestimate the level of obsession people have with football. Rugby can't even begin to imagine. It can only wish.

 

[TahDan]

I would argue the vast majority are fans through and through. Sure there are bandwagoners / scukers and millions of them but they are not the majority.

You underestimate the level of obsession people have with football. Rugby can't even begin to imagine. It can only wish.

I don't underestimate it at all; soccer is synonymous with riots, bashings and murders due to the level of insanity present in the fan base.

I just draw a line between people who are fans through an actual association, and those that like winners and the colour red.

 

[Omar Comin']

The NZRU have a complete focus on the All Blacks. Everything else is geared towards them. It works because NZ is a small market with little competition and the All Blacks is by far the biggest brand in world rugby. And that will not change in the foreseeable future.

The problem with Australian rugby is we've copied that model and it doesn't suit us. In the sense that it doesn't help us become more than a niche sport. We're trying to use a weaker brand (the Wallabies) to hold up the sport in a much bigger and spread out market with a lot more competition. It worked okay in the late 90's to early 2000's when we were the best team in the world, won a world cup then hosted the next. It hasn't worked at all while we've been the 3rd best team in the world (which shows the strategy is unsustainable because we can't expect the Wallabies to be the number 1 team in the world for any extended period). Under that we only have 5 pro teams and have just two local matches on each weekend. We simply don't produce enough top quality product. It's not a good structure.

Rugby shouldn't accept niche sport status. When it offers significant events with teams playing exciting rugby people in Australia watch. I'm not sure if it still holds the record but the 2011 super rugby final won by the Reds had an audience of over 500,000 on fox sports - which smashed the previous record on Foxtel for any sporting code. With an Australian competition at least you'd be guaranteed a final in Australia each year!

 

[Blue]

I don't underestimate it at all; soccer is synonymous with riots, bashings and murders due to the level of insanity present in the fan base.

I just draw a line between people who are fans through an actual association, and those that like winners and the colour red.

We actually agree in principle but not applicability.

 

[Blue]

The NZRU have a complete focus on the All Blacks. Everything else is geared towards them. It works because NZ is a small market with little competition and the All Blacks is by far the biggest brand in world rugby. And that will not change in the foreseeable future.

The problem with Australian rugby is we've copied that model and it doesn't suit us. In the sense that it doesn't help us become more than a niche sport. We're trying to use a weaker brand (the Wallabies) to hold up the sport in a much bigger and spread out market with a lot more competition. It worked okay in the late 90's to early 2000's when we were the best team in the world, won a world cup then hosted the next. It hasn't worked at all while we've been the 3rd best team in the world (which shows the strategy is unsustainable because we can't expect the Wallabies to be the number 1 team in the world for any extended period). Under that we only have 5 pro teams and have just two local matches on each weekend. We simply don't produce enough top quality product. It's not a good structure.

Rugby shouldn't accept niche sport status. When it offers significant events with teams playing exciting rugby people in Australia watch. I'm not sure if it still holds the record but the 2011 super rugby final won by the Reds had an audience of over 500,000 on fox sports - which smashed the previous record on Foxtel for any sporting code. With an Australian competition at least you'd be guaranteed a final in Australia each year!

Omar I'll give you one thing.

You brim with optimism.

 

[Omar Comin']

Omar I'll give you one thing.

You brim with optimism.

I'm just the type of person that likes change and a bit of risk!! I also think rugby at its best is way better than the other football codes. I find it frustrating they're all prospering in Oz while rugby is struggling. And I honestly believe that could change with a different structure and some innovation.

What's the worst thing that can happen?

The ARU go insolvent leading to a total clean out of the current regime and a new start? Because that's where we're heading anyway. While it sounds pretty bad it was the best thing to ever happen to Australian soccer.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I don't underestimate it at all; soccer is synonymous with riots, bashings and murders due to the level of insanity present in the fan base.

I just draw a line between people who are fans through an actual association, and those that like winners and the colour red.

You are overlooking some of the genuine reasons sports fans gain an "association" with some sporting teams and it has nothing to do with the postcode.

I lived in Melbourne as a kid. Our family loved basketball, still does. But we weren't Tigers, Spectors or Saints fans. The ol' man was a Giants fan, but the rest of us loved the Hobart Devils. Whenever they were in town we'd go to the games, Glasshouse, Albert Park, we'd even travel down to Geelong when they played the Supercats. We were huge fans of the way the team played. Their imports in the mid to late 80s were a big reason for that great style - Coleman, Steve Carfino, Paul Stanley, Joe Hurst, etc. Now the Devils are long gone and right up until their final season there was still a strong affinity.

I've never lived in Hobart, been there twice for business and that's it. But during those years I wouldn't have missed a televised game or wasn't waiting up for ABC news or Sports Tonight to post the results.

They never won a championship, they never even got to a grand final series, but they were for some time my team.

 

[Dan54]

Why is New Zealand then not pushing for another team? Or are they?

There was a little noise about another one in NZ a couple of years back, based in the Naki, but I think NZRU are of the opinion that 5 teams work for them and say I agree, with the ITM feeding the Super teams, I know we have some pretty reasonable players in NZ that struggle to make Super rugby, I am quite happy for players to find teams (a la Harris with Reds etc) than teams picking players not up to it to get numbers!!

 

[BaysideBird]

Why is New Zealand then not pushing for another team? Or are they?

NZRU haven't said anything, but a few unions have stated they are interested - most notably Hawkes Bay, Taranaki and North Harbour. However two or more unions would need to be involved for it be to be successful, hence why I stated that a Central North Island Team should be established.

I think the biggest problem with South Africa having another team is lack of balanced talent between franchises. If another South African team is to be successful they should implement an annual draft for excess players at certain provinces to even out the talent, instead of all the players going to the Bulls, Sharks and Stormers. Sometimes the Lions and Cheetahs seem like feeder teams to those 'major' franchises. Australia seems to have sorted out its player balance now which is why we are seeing such an even conference.

 

[BaysideBird]

Yes but most of the pricks support Man U, Man City, Liverpool, or Chelsea. Why? Because they're the winningest!

I support Man Utd because my family is historically from there (still have family there), and one of my cousins played reserves there for two years when I was little. He sent me a jersey and I've supported them ever since.