It will raise their finishing position by 3 places! Duh!
Retaining the Sunwolves is clearly all about the money. They provide neither a competitive team nor a logical travel schedule.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
It will raise their finishing position by 3 places! Duh!
Retaining the Sunwolves is clearly all about the money. They provide neither a competitive team nor a logical travel schedule.
M
Moono75
Guest
I think you have missed the point if you think I am pushing further expansion. How you got that i don't know. I suggested the expansion to 5 OZ Super teams was the correct decision and now needs to be maintained to reap the long term benefits......and they will come.
The millenial comment is totally valid. It is referencing an ever growing philosophy that everything needs a payoff right NOW! Things take time.
Quoting firepower money, well hell we needed that money to try and get some quality players to move 5,000km out of their comfit zone and take a chance on a new team in the West. The ignorance people have regarding the difficulties of getting a new team up and running in a new market is mind blowing.
Retraction, cutting teams in Australia will do noting. It is the overall structure of the competition that is the problem.
No it's about wanting something to succeed at any time. The Force have been around 10 years and haven't given us much at all. I don't think criticism of the venture can be put down to 'impatient millennials'.
My fundamental reluctance to really get behind the #StrongerAsFive or the #OwnTheForce is that I can't see a time where either side is competitive.
I'm just not optimistic that the local talent produced in the West will ever be enough to see them lift the trophy, or even get to the finals.
I like a lot of what is happening out West, and I don't want them to be cut. But I find it difficult to argue for their retention with any energy, either.
.
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
Again, just trying to think outside the box in such a difficult situation…
Assuming NZ and SA don’t want a Champions Cup model, why can’t Australia have it’s own conference? It’s been suggested that SA have their own. So why not Australia?
The other 11-12 Super Rugby teams (assuming SA axe 1-2) could play a straight round robin, just like the NZRU would love, with the top 5 teams (regardless of where they are from) moving through to the finals + 1 team from the Australian conference = 6 teams.
But from an Australian viewing perspective, our conference is simply a revamped NRC (which includes our 5 Super Rugby teams + a Fiji team). The revamped NRC is followed by a State of Origin involving NSW, Queensland and a ‘Best of the Rest’ team. The winning State of Origin team is the team Australia then offers for the Super Rugby finals (and we’re happy to be ranked as the 6th team and play an away game).
If reducing teams really does make teams more competitive, then the team from the Australian conference would be a pretty good team! And surely, the kiwis would love that challenge!
Everyone benefits: NZ get a round robin format, with the chance that all of their teams could make the finals if they’re good enough. Travel is a lot fairer for SA. They no longer need to travel to Australia, which puts them on a level playing field with NZ. Fiji gets a professional team set-up. And once they’re up to it, a further pathway is found for them.
Importantly, no Super Rugby team from Australia needs to be axed. Instead, Australia gets the chance to compete with the other codes in their own uniquely competitive back yard.
Here is a refined version of my previous idea that might work a bit better.
The revamped NRC would involve the following teams:
ACT Brumbies
Western Force
Melbourne Rebels
+
Sydney Waratahs*
Brisbane Reds*
+
Fiji**
The revamped NRC is home and away with the top two playing in a final = 11 weeks
This then moves into a State of Origin involving a proper NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds and a ‘Best of the Rest’ representative team. This is a round robin = 3 weeks
The winning State of Origin team then plays in the Super Rugby finals = 3 weeks (if they go all the way)
Australia introduces no extra teams into the revamped NRC so there are no extra set-up costs. And there really shouldn’t be too much of a reduction in revenue. Any reduction in revenue is countered by a significant decrease in travel costs, perfectly scheduled time-slots for Australian audiences, pure local content**, the benefits that come with winning staying within Australia, the NRC final, and a terrific new State of Origin concept. And as I said previously, all the best players outside of NSW and Queensland get the chance to play State of Origin too.
*As the ‘Sydney Waratahs’ and ‘Brisbane Reds’ they are linked to the current Super Rugby teams, carrying the same brand names, but they are not recognised as the state representative team, allowing for a proper State of Origin concept to co-exist.
**Fiji could play from home if they are ready. If not, they could be based in Western Sydney until they are. Australia is home to the largest Fijian population in the world outside of Fiji, and a large percentage of them live in Western Sydney. This may even partially solve the ‘Western Sydney’ problem!
Assuming NZ and SA don’t want a Champions Cup model, why can’t Australia have it’s own conference? It’s been suggested that SA have their own. So why not Australia?
The other 11-12 Super Rugby teams (assuming SA axe 1-2) could play a straight round robin, just like the NZRU would love, with the top 5 teams (regardless of where they are from) moving through to the finals + 1 team from the Australian conference = 6 teams.
But from an Australian viewing perspective, our conference is simply a revamped NRC (which includes our 5 Super Rugby teams + a Fiji team). The revamped NRC is followed by a State of Origin involving NSW, Queensland and a ‘Best of the Rest’ team. The winning State of Origin team is the team Australia then offers for the Super Rugby finals (and we’re happy to be ranked as the 6th team and play an away game).
If reducing teams really does make teams more competitive, then the team from the Australian conference would be a pretty good team! And surely, the kiwis would love that challenge!
Everyone benefits: NZ get a round robin format, with the chance that all of their teams could make the finals if they’re good enough. Travel is a lot fairer for SA. They no longer need to travel to Australia, which puts them on a level playing field with NZ. Fiji gets a professional team set-up. And once they’re up to it, a further pathway is found for them.
Importantly, no Super Rugby team from Australia needs to be axed. Instead, Australia gets the chance to compete with the other codes in their own uniquely competitive back yard.
Here is a refined version of my previous idea that might work a bit better.
The revamped NRC would involve the following teams:
ACT Brumbies
Western Force
Melbourne Rebels
+
Sydney Waratahs*
Brisbane Reds*
+
Fiji**
The revamped NRC is home and away with the top two playing in a final = 11 weeks
This then moves into a State of Origin involving a proper NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds and a ‘Best of the Rest’ representative team. This is a round robin = 3 weeks
The winning State of Origin team then plays in the Super Rugby finals = 3 weeks (if they go all the way)
Australia introduces no extra teams into the revamped NRC so there are no extra set-up costs. And there really shouldn’t be too much of a reduction in revenue. Any reduction in revenue is countered by a significant decrease in travel costs, perfectly scheduled time-slots for Australian audiences, pure local content**, the benefits that come with winning staying within Australia, the NRC final, and a terrific new State of Origin concept. And as I said previously, all the best players outside of NSW and Queensland get the chance to play State of Origin too.
*As the ‘Sydney Waratahs’ and ‘Brisbane Reds’ they are linked to the current Super Rugby teams, carrying the same brand names, but they are not recognised as the state representative team, allowing for a proper State of Origin concept to co-exist.
**Fiji could play from home if they are ready. If not, they could be based in Western Sydney until they are. Australia is home to the largest Fijian population in the world outside of Fiji, and a large percentage of them live in Western Sydney. This may even partially solve the ‘Western Sydney’ problem!
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
So are we to take it that going back to the old three team model from the S12 days would be OK with you? I ask, because after your remarks about the Force and Rebels not being competitive that's the implication that I get.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Tweak this a little. Do as you suggest with adding Fiji to our conference. If the NZRU want Japan involved as much as some say they can have the Sunwolves and SA can look to cut just one team and take the Jaguares into their conference.
From there, each conference plays as their own 'league'. Do as the A-League does and play each other not twice but three times for 15 games. Team with the most points at the end wins their 'league'. From there, top 2 progress into the new Super 6 format. Two pools of 3. Home and away for 4 more games. Top team from each pool plays in the final Championship game. Host based on total points first. Then points difference if needed.
If the likes of the NZRU want more teams in the second phase. Then make it the first 4 teams that progress for 4 pools of 3. Again top team from each pool progresses to the Final 4 and so on.
Could also work with the current 18 if need be. This way Super Rugby is in effect maintained but with each conference gaining games that matter to them. SA may make noises about the derbies but as per Aus and NZ their derbies tend to be big draws as well.
We still have the international aspect and overall Champion as well. Should run for now more than 20-21 weeks.
No. I think a four team solution is probably the best one.
While I know it won't make a huge difference, I think it will provide the non-affected side (Force or Rebs) with that little bit more depth that will help them compete.
I acknowledge it's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's probably the least worst option if we stay in SANZAAR.
.
T
TOCC
Guest
How does this scenario play out where the teams get more depth:
Lets say a team is cut and the 20 or so played who are contracted for 2018 are redistributed, thats around 5 players per team. What happens in 2018 when players who were previously starting decide to head to Europe, likewise in 2019... By 2020, the benefits in depth created by the 5th team are all but dissipated as those who were getting game time elsewhere decided to head to Europe.
We are then back to square one, however this time there are 20% less player contracts on offer offer in Australia.
What is player depth if it isn't the ability to promote a player who is experienced enough and developed enough to compete at the Super Rugby level? By cutting a team we don't solve this issue, the NRC is a small step, but its still not producing the output to that of the ITM or Currie Cup. We shouldn't pretend that cutting a team will automatically mean inexperienced players are suddenly experienced, it doesn't work that way.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Barbarian, I respect our views are different here. But I suspect we may be happy with the same result. I just want a plan to get there with some proper foresight. How do we cut rep teams at Super without cutting the fan support or actual rugby being played? The current SANZAR proposal fails in this very important regard. IMO.
How about we head to a Super Comp and be really aggressive to concentrate talent - target two teams? NOT BY CUTTING but by building.
Smarter minds than mine at the ARU (or at least there should be). For me though, get there with the current 5 teams. Inside Super Rugby, or outside. I no longer care. Meld these teams into an expanded domestic format. NRC style but hopefully with SS and Premier support. Target maybe 8-10 teams.
Then for Super (which might need to be morphed to a Champions league style system) we select rep teams with coaching based from the WBs system. Two teams selected from that improved base. Talent actually concentrated, not lost.
So if they don't want a Champions League or just dont want us back quickly, let the rep tems play SOO style at season end. I imagine it wont be long till they want us back. Or SANZAR wakes and realises the proposal doesnt not suit Aus, and allows a smarter plan towards concentrating talent without killing Aus rugby. Or at least chunks thereof.
Or do the above with three rep teams, Qld, NSW, and the Great Australian Bite (ie the rest ACT/Vic/WA).
I'm cutting harder than your proposal, down to two or three "Super" teams - but not removing rugby support in a key area or wasting the investment to date.
By all means "cut" - but be creative and don't fail Aus rugby for now. To lose Perth or Melbourne now will be close to an irrevocable step.
It simply is not the time to simply dissect Aus Rugby and carve a chunk into the League or Aussie rules rubbish heap. Put together a proper plan for crying out loud.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Don't lump us all into that category. The vast majority of the people who I know (those who still have any interest in super rugby anyway), are very supportive of the Force.
I've said a number of times on this thread that from my observations and enquiries, that the Force and/or WARU have the best involvement of any state union in grass roots programmes. Keep it up.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Barbarian, I'm pretty sure the ARU has already said they will allocate (in some fashion) the displaced contracted players to all other franchises, not just the one out of the Force or Rebels that survives this cut. Time and player preferences will again come to the fore and the surviving franchise will more than likely again struggle to attract the quality NSW/QLD players who come through, and will find themselves inevitably in the same situation if they can't produce their own crop in sufficient numbers. Add to that, the almost certainty that many of the better players will find opportunities overseas rather than stay with an underperforming side, so I think any move to reduce to four franchises now will lead to a further cut to three if Super Rugby continues.
I still can't accept that any one of our franchises should be cut while the Sunwolves survive, regardless of the money they are supposed to bring in.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
as i posted above it boils down to what the pre-eminent issue is for the ARU - Rugby in Australia or Super rugby (and the possible survival of rugby in Australia from Super Rugby revenue), hard choice but thats what they are supposedly there to do. i'm not that confident they have the expertise to sort it out.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
My feeling is that all four teams will lead to is a bunch of blokes going overseas, but obviously I don't know that for sure.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Unlikely, but we know that no one involved in rugby in Australia bears any responsibility for this. It's our predetermined fate
half
Dick Tooth (41)
MEMO TO THE ARU
I hate doing this but what the fuck you just can't hide.
Social media and some soccer journalist are having a go at FFA over they want them to expand and introduce things faster, lots of chatter. Mild by what we are experiencing.
How about the ARU communicate like this, its not that hard to explain what you are doing. This is where we are so out played in the board room.
Read and ask why can't we do something like this.
Head of A-League and W-League Greg O’Rourke has revealed Football Federation Australia is just 60 days away from confirming a free to air broadcast partner.
Speaking exclusively on Friday’s Daily Football Show, O’Rourke confirmed every major free to air network is interested in securing the A-League broadcast rights, with further interest in the W-League.
O’Rourke discussed other pressing issues on the show, including expansion, the state of FFA and brand management.
He hinted the league could not expand unless the current operating model changes.
Here’s what else he had to say:
On expansion:
The expansion work has just about been completed, but … one of the reasons the expansion debate or expression of interest was delayed is not because it was kicked down the road, because we weren’t up for it or weren’t prepared for it, but actually a lot of work had been done which actually stood out to say that if we expand now in the existing operating model, the existing financial models in the A-League, it wouldn’t be successful.
Therefore, we then had to go back to a situation and say ‘how will expansion be successful?’ because we all want the same thing, we all want do want it to expand.
So all this work around the new operating model about how do you attract international investment, as well as local investment into an expanded A-League which makes it not only sustainable for another two clubs but for another four, another six clubs.
They actually have to apply some business acumen … it’s not just about saying ‘let’s name two geographies’, let’s get going’. it’s about saying ‘what’s the model? How does it attract?’
The operating model has to come first. The governance model and the operating model could come hand in hand. Once those two things are sorted, then expansion will be quite an easy thing to do because we know exactly what we want to do.
On FFA:
The FFA is not stepping away from the fact that it moves slowly … if we were to drive a strategy solely without consultation, you wouldn’t have any chance of implementing it. You have to bring in multiple stakeholders who might not agree with you 100%.
My history in the game… that’s the sort of shackles that this game has suffered for a long time, which I’m confident we’re pulling away from.
But there’s still a few anchors out the back of the boat, frankly.
On big brand management:
That name (Red Bull) has been bandied around, but I can assure you there’s another three or four big brand organisations that have reached out to us.
There’s also another three or four football brands from around the world which would be of second nature to anyone who loves the game who would go ‘really? They’re interested?’
You’ve got big brand organisations, you’ve got big football brand organisations and you’ve got quite a lot of Australian-based corporate and commercial interest.
We need to make sure that we set up something that just doesn’t tick the box of ‘yes’. I don’t want business acumen to be confused with just saying ‘yes, we’re going to expand’. I want business acument that actually reflects ‘let’s do this properly’ and that’s what we’re right in the middle of.
On the TV deal:
We’re actually right in the middle of negotiations … we’ll leave that (a deal figure) a bit open-ended.
I can confirm that we’re probably 60 days away from being able to secure and announce a free to air partner. At this point in time, I think it’s fair to say that every major commercial network in Australia and non-commercial free to air broadcaster is genuinely interested, not just against A-League, but potentially against W-League.
What’s the value? The market will determine that and the negotiations between us and the free to air people will determine that, but we’re no more than two months away from being able to lock that away.
LISTEN to Friday’s FULL Daily Football Show HERE.
I hate doing this but what the fuck you just can't hide.
Social media and some soccer journalist are having a go at FFA over they want them to expand and introduce things faster, lots of chatter. Mild by what we are experiencing.
How about the ARU communicate like this, its not that hard to explain what you are doing. This is where we are so out played in the board room.
Read and ask why can't we do something like this.
Head of A-League and W-League Greg O’Rourke has revealed Football Federation Australia is just 60 days away from confirming a free to air broadcast partner.
Speaking exclusively on Friday’s Daily Football Show, O’Rourke confirmed every major free to air network is interested in securing the A-League broadcast rights, with further interest in the W-League.
O’Rourke discussed other pressing issues on the show, including expansion, the state of FFA and brand management.
He hinted the league could not expand unless the current operating model changes.
Here’s what else he had to say:
On expansion:
The expansion work has just about been completed, but … one of the reasons the expansion debate or expression of interest was delayed is not because it was kicked down the road, because we weren’t up for it or weren’t prepared for it, but actually a lot of work had been done which actually stood out to say that if we expand now in the existing operating model, the existing financial models in the A-League, it wouldn’t be successful.
Therefore, we then had to go back to a situation and say ‘how will expansion be successful?’ because we all want the same thing, we all want do want it to expand.
So all this work around the new operating model about how do you attract international investment, as well as local investment into an expanded A-League which makes it not only sustainable for another two clubs but for another four, another six clubs.
They actually have to apply some business acumen … it’s not just about saying ‘let’s name two geographies’, let’s get going’. it’s about saying ‘what’s the model? How does it attract?’
The operating model has to come first. The governance model and the operating model could come hand in hand. Once those two things are sorted, then expansion will be quite an easy thing to do because we know exactly what we want to do.
On FFA:
The FFA is not stepping away from the fact that it moves slowly … if we were to drive a strategy solely without consultation, you wouldn’t have any chance of implementing it. You have to bring in multiple stakeholders who might not agree with you 100%.
My history in the game… that’s the sort of shackles that this game has suffered for a long time, which I’m confident we’re pulling away from.
But there’s still a few anchors out the back of the boat, frankly.
On big brand management:
That name (Red Bull) has been bandied around, but I can assure you there’s another three or four big brand organisations that have reached out to us.
There’s also another three or four football brands from around the world which would be of second nature to anyone who loves the game who would go ‘really? They’re interested?’
You’ve got big brand organisations, you’ve got big football brand organisations and you’ve got quite a lot of Australian-based corporate and commercial interest.
We need to make sure that we set up something that just doesn’t tick the box of ‘yes’. I don’t want business acumen to be confused with just saying ‘yes, we’re going to expand’. I want business acument that actually reflects ‘let’s do this properly’ and that’s what we’re right in the middle of.
On the TV deal:
We’re actually right in the middle of negotiations … we’ll leave that (a deal figure) a bit open-ended.
I can confirm that we’re probably 60 days away from being able to secure and announce a free to air partner. At this point in time, I think it’s fair to say that every major commercial network in Australia and non-commercial free to air broadcaster is genuinely interested, not just against A-League, but potentially against W-League.
What’s the value? The market will determine that and the negotiations between us and the free to air people will determine that, but we’re no more than two months away from being able to lock that away.
LISTEN to Friday’s FULL Daily Football Show HERE.
L
Leo86
Guest
So the tahs entered in 96 won the title in 2014, that gives the force who entered in 2006 to 2024 to equal your glorious tahs. If the force get it earlier, the math would mean they are more successful than the tahs. Just saying you had 18 years to get it right, did you regard the tahs as consistently shithouse?
Tahs only beat the force by 6 in round 1 your home game
Tahs only got ahead of the rebels in round 5 at the end of the game.
The force after helping grow rugby in WA are finally showing "depth and talent and just need go put it all together."
All i ask is you give us a chance to continue growing, adding to Australian rugby
It was dubbed "Curse of the tahs" but in your 1 eyed outlook any other team doing what your team did is failure
M
Moono75
Guest
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
FFS I think most of what Barbarian writes and says is absolute shit, but HTF do you get this out of that from what he wrote? The constant victimhood must get wearing.
The ARU and every single rugby administration in Australia has been totally incompetent for all of professional Rugby history in this country except for the bright shining light that was the Reds between 2010 and 2012. You know that includes WA Inc. and the whole Firepower saga which couples in nicely with everything the NSWRU has done and not done, the Brumbies property deals, the Rebels burning money and the Reds squandering perhaps the greatest fan base growth the game has seen in a short time for the sake of arrogance.
Tahs came 6th in 1998. Force or Rebels have never beaten that.
Made finals in 2002. Force or Rebels have never been close.
Made the GF in 2005 too, which is a pipe dream for all Aussie teams, let alone the Force and Rebels.
But really the whole argument is irrelevant. Just because one team was shit at one point, doesn't really make a difference to the current discussion.
.
Made finals in 2002. Force or Rebels have never been close.
Made the GF in 2005 too, which is a pipe dream for all Aussie teams, let alone the Force and Rebels.
But really the whole argument is irrelevant. Just because one team was shit at one point, doesn't really make a difference to the current discussion.
.
- Status