Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not quite. If a (so called) commercial focus indicated a TT needed less Australian teams then I would close down the initiative completely.

We need to invest domestically, and to deny any third party having the opportunity to stop that happening. If a TT can't work to Australian requirements then the answer is simply no.

We may need to build, before looking to commercial dictators.

What we want is what is more valuable to the broadcasters - in the calm longer term. If the commercial input wishes to take that on board then good. Doubt this will happen with commercial arrangements that are in the first instance looking to NZR operating without obvious input from Australia.

Cut NZ clean if that is needed for Australia to set a National base. Those negotiations can then occur from Australia, not a non-negotiated fledgling NZR dominated TT.

The whole point of operating separately from the direct Union control is to allow the competition to make decision in its based on what is in its best interest. Not RA or NZR's. And a big part of that would be looking to develop our market long term. Which would mean that it will require more teams in Australia.

 

[Dan54]

Not quite. If a (so called) commercial focus indicated a TT needed less Australian teams then I would close down the initiative completely.

We need to invest domestically, and to deny any third party having the opportunity to stop that happening. If a TT can't work to Australian requirements then the answer is simply no.

We may need to build, before looking to commercial dictators.

What we want is what is more valuable to the broadcasters - in the calm longer term. If the commercial input wishes to take that on board then good. Doubt this will happen with commercial arrangements that are in the first instance looking to NZR operating without obvious input from Australia.

Cut NZ clean if that is needed for Australia to set a National base. Those negotiations can then occur from Australia, not a non-negotiated fledgling NZR dominated TT.

Not sure what you saying there dru , on one hand you saying don't get look to commercial dictators, then you say what will be is more valuble to broadcasters, which basically is the main commercial partner anyway. Look the bottom line is TV is the main commercial partner that sets what comp is played, as was shoen when Stan would only sign when they knew there was going to be a TT comp. I am not sure where any rugby board Aus or NZ can hope to survive without more commercial partners as te general feeling seems to be around world is that there is not really enough money to be made out of existing tv deals and certainly not ticket sales. Hence talk of Silver Lakes etc.
Even the want of some posters that there needs to be some comp started by a new identity without any involvement of RA or NZR is craziness. The teams are run by boards that basically come under RA etc. I doubt whethet any board is going to rip the whole shebang apart and start with no organisation, and neither do I think the vast majority of rugby people want that.

 

[Adam84]

, as was shoen when Stan would only sign when they knew there was going to be a TT comp..

I’ve seen you say this a couple of times now, and I’m not sure where you got it from because it’s twisting the story.

SANZAAR(RA in this case) went to the broadcasters with a product they had agreed on to sell, this includes the TRC and the Super Rugby TT tournament. If there wasn’t a TT tournament this year then both RA and NZRU would have had to renegotiate with their respective broadcasters since they aren’t delivering the product they originally sold.

 

[Dan54]

I’ve seen you say this a couple of times now, and I’m not sure where you got it from because it’s twisting the story.

SANZAAR(RA in this case) went to the broadcasters with a product they had agreed on to sell, this includes the TRC and the Super Rugby TT tournament. If there wasn’t a TT tournament this year then both RA and NZRU would have had to renegotiate with their respective broadcasters since they aren’t delivering the product they originally sold.

No Stan said before they signed agreement they wanted to know there was a TT going forward. Seems only sensible , you know what you buying. I think it also if there wasn't an agreement between NZ and Aus they wouldn't get the all NZ games as part of the agreement. That is all, nothing sinister or anything, but final sign off was not done until NZR and RA had agreed on a comp going forward.

 

[Joe King]

Are you talking a TT that follows domestic? I think not? SO then having a commercial merit base is better than having a SANZAR based merit base.

But we don't need it. We do need a domestic. Ideally a growing domestic comp (in terms of teams). If the TT proposed is likely to kill that opportunity - well it is not my preferred solution.

Having a full TT is not my preferred option either. I'm just worried if they go in that direction, it will end up Aus 5 v NZ 5 (plus the two new teams). This will bring all the joy and excitement I've had from domestic Super Rugby to an end. I really hope they have the courage to continue with Super Rugby AU for the near future at least.

Unfortunately, I just can't see NZR risking the AB's (performance and value) for a change in Super Rugby governance, no matter how viable Super Rugby promises to be. I could be wrong, but I can't see it. The current structure has served them so well. Hence, why I'm trying to think of another way forward if they go full TT.

 

[Rebel man]

Having a full TT is not my preferred option either. I'm just worried if they go in that direction, it will end up Aus 5 v NZ 5 (plus the two new teams). This will bring all the joy and excitement I've had from domestic Super Rugby to an end. I really hope they have the courage to continue with Super Rugby AU for the near future at least.

Unfortunately, I just can't see NZR risking the AB's (performance and value) for a change in Super Rugby governance, no matter how viable Super Rugby promises to be. I could be wrong, but I can't see it. The current structure has served them so well. Hence, why I'm trying to think of another way forward if they go full TT.

The 5 team comp is dead one side misses out every week. It truly is a crap structure.

 

[Braveheart81]

I can't see the 5 team structure continuing beyond this year. I don't think it is at all sustainable. In 2021 teams are only getting a guaranteed 6 or 7 home games if they don't make the finals.

 

[Joe King]

I can't see the 5 team structure continuing beyond this year. I don't think it is at all sustainable. In 2021 teams are only getting a guaranteed 6 or 7 home games if they don't make the finals.

With 6 teams each in Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao, each team would get a minimum of 8 home games if it remains domestic followed by the current TT concept.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

With 6 teams each in Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao, each team would get a minimum of 8 home games if it remains domestic followed by the current TT concept.

You have to take into account the financial implications for broadcasters. Who pay the bills. What more worthwhile. Two separate comps for the most part offering 2 to 3 games a week to sell. Or a single comp offering between 4-6 games featuring local teams for say 16 weeks? It's pretty easy in the end.

I can understand some of the positioning here. Which is why I want to see a TT competition run independent of the Unions. They should have a vote but they should be just one of a variety of actors. Each team should have one vote. So should the Unions in the form of RA and NZR. Any PE interests should at the very least have advisory positions. The structure of the competition should be in the direct hands of the majority vote. And very early in the piece there should be an agreed road map. Which from my perspective should involve provisions for inclusion of up to but not exceeding 4 new independent (of the Unions) teams in the future in order to bring the number of participants to 16 over a decided upon time frame. With strict criteria in terms of financial backing but not limited on their choice of talent source.

Now, of the nations involved in the future TT structure. Which one has the most room to grow? It just needs everyone to approach it from a distinct commercial perspective.

 

[Joe King]

You have to take into account the financial implications for broadcasters. Who pay the bills. What more worthwhile. Two separate comps for the most part offering 2 to 3 games a week to sell. Or a single comp offering between 4-6 games featuring local teams for say 16 weeks? It's pretty easy in the end.

I can understand some of the positioning here. Which is why I want to see a TT competition run independent of the Unions. They should have a vote but they should be just one of a variety of actors. Each team should have one vote. So should the Unions in the form of RA and NZR. Any PE interests should at the very least have advisory positions. The structure of the competition should be in the direct hands of the majority vote. And very early in the piece there should be an agreed road map. Which from my perspective should involve provisions for inclusion of up to but not exceeding 4 new independent (of the Unions) teams in the future in order to bring the number of participants to 16 over a decided upon time frame. With strict criteria in terms of financial backing but not limited on their choice of talent source.

Now, of the nations involved in the future TT structure. Which one has the most room to grow? It just needs everyone to approach it from a distinct commercial perspective.

Without an independent body running the TT as you suggest, I don't think the decision is so easy.

Six teams in Super Rugby AU with 3 games a week with 2-3 guaranteed good news stories somewhere in Australia every week is what rugby in Australia needs right now and into the near future until we maximise its potential.

With the current TT concept to follow Super Rugby AU each year, that gives you two seasons in one, with two peaks, two grand finals, two chances at glory.

The mistake of the broadcasters with old Super Rugby is that they only thought in terms of how many games they could sell each week rather than the bigger picture, particularly in Australia.

NZR has given every indication that they are not willing to change a system that has served their main purpose, which is the ABs. They would rather have less Australian teams than change their system. Although, I would be happy to be proved wrong on this.

But assuming they won't change, which seems more likely, if most Australian teams are getting beaten by NZ teams each week, it's going to feel like old Super Rugby for many spectators in Australia, and we won't be able to build the fan base.

Weirdly, I think Australian players have improved more under Super Rugby AU than they ever did under old Super Rugby. But what we need from playing NZ teams, we could still get with a post-season TT anyway.

 

[Rebel man]

With 6 teams each in Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao, each team would get a minimum of 8 home games if it remains domestic followed by the current TT concept.

8 games and two different comps is not going to drive interest into the game. Neither will 4 home games and the likelihood of a month lay off for another 2.

 

[hoggy]

8 games and two different comps is not going to drive interest into the game. Neither will 4 home games and the likelihood of a month lay off for another 2.

A two round domestic competition plus TT will give you 16/17 games, winners in each country, a genuine domestic competition, room for growth, independence, a TT competition, Champions league possibilities with other countries ie; Japan & SA.

However that does require forward thinking.

 

[Derpus]

Not quite. If a (so called) commercial focus indicated a TT needed less Australian teams then I would close down the initiative completely.

We need to invest domestically, and to deny any third party having the opportunity to stop that happening. If a TT can't work to Australian requirements then the answer is simply no.

We may need to build, before looking to commercial dictators.

What we want is what is more valuable to the broadcasters - in the calm longer term. If the commercial input wishes to take that on board then good. Doubt this will happen with commercial arrangements that are in the first instance looking to NZR operating without obvious input from Australia.

Cut NZ clean if that is needed for Australia to set a National base. Those negotiations can then occur from Australia, not a non-negotiated fledgling NZR dominated TT.

I guess the main issue is whether professional rugby in Australia is viable without NZ. As Dan points out, 9 were only interested with NZ involved.

It seems like we are in a somewhat precarious situation. A) we need NZ and probably private equity and B) NZ need us but are apparently completely oblivious to this fact, meaning they are entirely likely to make unreasonable demands and force us to choose between going it alone or going ahead weighed down by their bullshit. Kind of like financial ruin chicken.

I'd love an Australia wide domestic only comp. You sold me on the idea. I'm not sold on falling back into semi-professionalism for x years to achieve it though.

If that were the route i would probably just stop watching. Since i stopped playing i don't really have any connection with the non-professional side of the game.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I guess the main issue is whether professional rugby in Australia is viable without NZ. As Dan points out, 9 were only interested with NZ involved.

It seems like we are in a somewhat precarious situation. A) we need NZ and probably private equity and B) NZ need us but are apparently completely oblivious to this fact, meaning they are entirely likely to make unreasonable demands and force us to choose between going it alone or going ahead weighed down by their bullshit. Kind of like financial ruin chicken.

I'd love an Australia wide domestic only comp. You sold me on the idea. I'm not sold on falling back into semi-professionalism for x years to achieve it though.

If that were the route i would probably just stop watching. Since i stopped playing i don't really have any connection with the non-professional side of the game.

That's probably the only way I'd be willing to discount a combined concept. If we could somehow find an extra 3 professional teams. Not semi-professional. Professional teams to join. Now we could have had 6 if RA/NSW Rugby didn't go all protectionist with the Western Sydney GRR bid. Which would make achieving such a goal easier. But that's done.

 

[dru]

I'd love an Australia wide domestic only comp. You sold me on the idea. I'm not sold on falling back into semi-professionalism for x years to achieve it though.

Sure. What is needed though, is that any arrangements put in place do not prohibit that development. And DO prohibit a shrink in current numbers.

And ensure a roughly level playing field in terms of players strength.

And ensure enough domestic content to interest the domestic broadcaster.

Wait, I seem to be back on page 20.

 

[Derpus]

Sure. What is needed though, is that any arrangements put in place do not prohibit that development. And DO prohibit a shrink in current numbers.

And ensure a roughly level playing field in terms of players strength.

And ensure enough domestic content to interest the domestic broadcaster.

Wait, I seem to be back on page 20.

If private equity was serious i think all of that would be pretty obvious, though. What would they have to gain from the inverse?

But anyway yeah definitely retreading old ground.

 

[dru]

If private equity was serious i think all of that would be pretty obvious, though. What would they have to gain from the inverse?

PE will not look to the best financial performance in the longer run. They might be altruistic enough to think more than just the very short term (might have to for rugby inn Australia) but the best long term solution may not suit their timetable.

Trying to balance the number of teams in Aus to NZ, under an "only TT" arrangement doesn't work. And that would be the best offered.

But anyway yeah definitely retreading old ground.

<sigh>

Look, our wants won't come into it. We the rusted will just stay resilient, while rusting. TBF, the current RA I have more faith in than any previous version - though I do miss Castle.

 

[Rebel man]

A two round domestic competition plus TT will give you 16/17 games, winners in each country, a genuine domestic competition, room for growth, independence, a TT competition, Champions league possibilities with other countries ie; Japan & SA.

However that does require forward thinking.

But that is if we on our own subsidies a Fijian side. 17 games with finals is not enough

 

[Joe King]

The 5 team comp is dead one side misses out every week. It truly is a crap structure.

6 teams would be better, but fair point. More teams may be needed longer term.

But a worse structure in my mind, is going back to the conference system, where you play some teams more than others. I'm not sure if people are ready to stomach that again, particularly if one conference is perceived to be weaker than another, and one team has a harder path to the finals than another, etc. The conference system would be necessary with a full TT, otherwise you have too many or too few games to fit with the international season.

 

[Joe King]

8 games and two different comps is not going to drive interest into the game. Neither will 4 home games and the likelihood of a month lay off for another 2.

I believe it's a better bet to drive interest into the game in the near future, than anything else. Every game in both comps is fresh and exciting. As I said, two grand finals, two shots at glory, etc. It makes the season more interesting and eventful. But maybe that's just me.