Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

If Australian teams are getting panned in the Trans-Tasman, I don't see how the solution is to go to a competition where we're getting panned for a full year.

The Rebels don't get anyone going to their games because frankly, we've been shit for most of our existence. Teams build up fanbases by winning. That's going to be a hell of a lot easier in an Aussie only competition.

Plus even if one Australian team is losing, another is winning. That's not guaranteed in Trans-Tasman.

I have a terrible feeling the TT may undo all the positive vibe our super rugby au competition created as rugby standard was good enough and people for once stopped caring so much that we were not as good as kiwi sides. I have a feeling the conclusion at end of this years TT that the competition as it is designed (5 kiwi sides and no open borders policy) is there is no way we should be committing to an all in TT competition only. I am frustrated as do feel TT could work to create more opportunities for kiwis as well as help establish stronger rugby footprint across Asia pacific if had open borders policy. As without it I feel we are destined to eventually realise is nzru unwillingness to consider open borders policy is for us to have no other choice but to create and grow our own domestic competition and leave games with nz sides to champions league style competition.

 

[hifflepiff]

The irony for both Australia and New Zealand is that they need each other. Almost equally. This is due to the geography and time zones we sit in. There are not obvious alternative competitions.
Australia needs New Zealand because of their heritage, their standing in the game, the gravitas the bring to any competition. Were they located in Europe, New Zealand would be an unstoppable juggernaut on and off the pitchy. However New Zealand needs Australia because they cannot go alone, they need Australia’s population and resources and dollars and the competition.

Why do we need New Zealand? Don't get me wrong I love playing the Kiwis but if all they bring is 'gravitas' and 'reputation' whilst Australia brings 'population, resources and dollars', it seems like we'd be better to go it alone.

We played over two decades in a competiton that had New Zealand 'gravitas' and 'reputation' and it did precisely dick shit for the game here. The Australian public don't care.

Australia needs to have its own competition because the needs and interests of the Australian market are eminently different to the needs and interests of the Kiwi market.

We need to have the autonomy to design the best possible competition to engage the broader Australian public, without having to accommodate the desires of the NZRU, which are frequently detrimental to our own.

As the say, "if you try to appeal to everyone, you will end up appealing to no-one".

 

[dru]

The irony for both Australia and New Zealand is that they need each other. Almost equally.

Sure. But unfortunately the power in dictating how things work has been far from equal.

The best thing we can all hope for is some kind of 12 team Super Rugby with 5 Aussie teams, 5 Kiwi teams and a couple of others.

It is well to premature to think that the NZRU get's this really truly. Push forward with the domestic as our tier 2, and do it strongly. We really do need to develop from here in Australia. Too long propping up the game elsewhere to our disadvantage. It is time to focus on here. If the Kiwis can fit into that, then good. They won't though, and we should proceed without them.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Sure. But unfortunately the power in dictating how things work has been far from equal.



It is well to premature to think that the NZRU get's this really truly. Push forward with the domestic as our tier 2, and do it strongly. We really do need to develop from here in Australia. Too long propping up the game elsewhere to our disadvantage. It is time to focus on here. If the Kiwis can fit into that, then good. They won't though, and we should proceed without them.

Yep and what we have shown Dru with super rugby Au is we can push on without the kiwis if we need to (or at least look at just champion league style competition with them as add on to our domestic competition).

Irony is due to covid we finally got an answer whether we could have support for our own domestic competition and the answer is a clear yes.Hence RA need to negotiate hard for conditions for TT participation in 2022 and if our conditions not met go it alone and then get back to the table to look at other collaboration opportunities with kiwis alongside our own competition (e.g. champions league)

 

[Brumby Runner]

Why do we need New Zealand? Don't get me wrong I love playing the Kiwis but if all they bring is 'gravitas' and 'reputation' whilst Australia brings 'population, resources and dollars', it seems like we'd be better to go it alone.

We played over two decades in a competiton that had New Zealand 'gravitas' and 'reputation' and it did precisely dick shit for the game here. The Australian public don't care.

Australia needs to have its own competition because the needs and interests of the Australian market are eminently different to the needs and interests of the Kiwi market.

We need to have the autonomy to design the best possible competition to engage the broader Australian public, without having to accommodate the desires of the NZRU, which are frequently detrimental to our own.

As the say, "if you try to appeal to everyone, you will end up appealing to no-one".

I would hazard that the NZ gravitas and reputation is at the All Blacks level only for most people here in Aus. Apart from the rusted on fans, very few others probably know who the NZ Super Rugby teams are or where they represent.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Why do we need New Zealand? Don't get me wrong I love playing the Kiwis but if all they bring is 'gravitas' and 'reputation' whilst Australia brings 'population, resources and dollars', it seems like we'd be better to go it alone.

We played over two decades in a competiton that had New Zealand 'gravitas' and 'reputation' and it did precisely dick shit for the game here. The Australian public don't care.

Australia needs to have its own competition because the needs and interests of the Australian market are eminently different to the needs and interests of the Kiwi market.

We need to have the autonomy to design the best possible competition to engage the broader Australian public, without having to accommodate the desires of the NZRU, which are frequently detrimental to our own.

As the say, "if you try to appeal to everyone, you will end up appealing to no-one".

I had a lot of confidence in Hamish and Rob, I hope to have equal confidence in Hamish and Andy to make the tough decisions to do what is best for Australian Rugby. I think for many of us got caught up in the joys of super rugby Au and anticipation of playing kiwi team’s in TT are now coming back to quick reality that the TT as per current design has not addressed the bigger issue of nz rugby depth vs our own depth, and that reducing our teams / footprint is not the answer (as super rugby au has confirmed). Particularly as RA are largely left to 2022 TT under the complete design and construction of by nzru. If alarm bells not going off in RA ranks on that I would be surprised.

 

[zer0]

Why do we need New Zealand? Don't get me wrong I love playing the Kiwis but if all they bring is 'gravitas' and 'reputation' whilst Australia brings 'population, resources and dollars', it seems like we'd be better to go it alone.

And you can reasonably expect that to translate to more broadcast viewers globally. You can get a general idea of this on Reddit's r/RugbyUnion (>150k subscribers and heavily skewed towards a NH/European audience) where SRA match threads will, with only a few exceptions that I can recall seeing, out rate/have more replies than their SRAu counterparts. For e.g. SRA final clocked in @ 2,158 comments vs SRAu final @ 762 comments. Indeed, with 961 comments there was more interest in the second Blues/Crusaders match than there was the SRAu final. While Australia may well have more people, and thus potential viewers than NZ, I suspect the SRA broadcasting deal is worth much more than the SRAu deal on account of that reputation and gravitas.

It stands to reason, then, that NZ's involvement would bring with it a sprinkling of those global viewers who are bedazzled by that reputation and gravitas to matches involving Australian teams. More viewers obviously means larger broadcasting deals.

Will be interesting to see how the Reddit TT match threads rate vs SRA and SRAu.

 

[hifflepiff]

And you can reasonably expect that to translate to more broadcast viewers globally. You can get a general idea of this on Reddit's r/RugbyUnion (>150k subscribers and heavily skewed towards a NH/European audience) where SRA match threads will, with only a few exceptions that I can recall seeing, out rate/have more replies than their SRAu counterparts. For e.g. SRA final clocked in @ 2,158 comments vs SRAu final @ 762 comments. Indeed, with 961 comments there was more interest in the second Blues/Crusaders match than there was the SRAu final. While Australia may well have more people, and thus potential viewers than NZ, I suspect the SRA broadcasting deal is worth much more than the SRAu deal on account of that reputation and gravitas.

It stands to reason, then, that NZ's involvement would bring with it a sprinkling of those global viewers who are bedazzled by that reputation and gravitas to matches involving Australian teams. More viewers obviously means larger broadcasting deals.

Will be interesting to see how the Reddit TT match threads rate vs SRA and SRAu.

I definitely get your point here, and agree that we should have a Trans Tasman competition, but for the reasons outlined above, it should only be post-domestic season.

To my mind, having a domestic competition, which we have full control over and can craft to the Australian market to generate positive press, wins and fan engagement for Australian teams, followed by a Trans Tasman competition which will undoubtedly generate more broadcast dollars, is the best of both worlds.

But importantly, having a domestic season that rolls into Trans Tasman also increases the value of the games against the Kiwis by ensuring that we are not oversaturated with them, as happened previously. By keeping the games against the NZ teams until later in the year, we can increase fan interest in them.

This structure also allows you to open up the post season competition to more markets (e.g. Japan, South Africa, Argentina, the US even?), thereby increasing broadcast revenue, whilst maintaining a core domestic product that appeals to the Australian audience. Previously attempts to open the competition to to foreign markets simply made the game untenable here as teams would spend half the regular season playing games in unwatchable time zones against teams Australians don't care about.

This is the only structure that logically meets our short term, long term, domestic and commercial interests.

 

[zer0]

Fair enough. I've not read back past this page so have no real idea what the context is, and was just autistically dealing with a single point of order.

 

[Derpus]

And you can reasonably expect that to translate to more broadcast viewers globally. You can get a general idea of this on Reddit's r/RugbyUnion (>150k subscribers and heavily skewed towards a NH/European audience) where SRA match threads will, with only a few exceptions that I can recall seeing, out rate/have more replies than their SRAu counterparts. For e.g. SRA final clocked in @ 2,158 comments vs SRAu final @ 762 comments. Indeed, with 961 comments there was more interest in the second Blues/Crusaders match than there was the SRAu final. While Australia may well have more people, and thus potential viewers than NZ, I suspect the SRA broadcasting deal is worth much more than the SRAu deal on account of that reputation and gravitas.

It stands to reason, then, that NZ's involvement would bring with it a sprinkling of those global viewers who are bedazzled by that reputation and gravitas to matches involving Australian teams. More viewers obviously means larger broadcasting deals.

Will be interesting to see how the Reddit TT match threads rate vs SRA and SRAu.

I personally don't think the edge gains of 'international viewers' are worth the cost. Getting spanked constantly and having it a near certainty that you will never have a home final (fuck the Crusaders).

We tried chasing the international dollar and it resulted in the absolute steaming pile of rancid shit that was the four conference Super 57 or whatever the fuck.

skyrocketing local viewers and 42k at the final have me firmly in the domestic only camp at the moment. See how TT pans out i shpose.

Edit: chasing international viewers also lead to some interesting results in the kickball. Surely something to be learnt from that.

 

[dru]

I personally don't think the edge gains of 'international viewers' are worth the cost. Getting spanked constantly and having it a near certainty that you will never have a home final (fuck the Crusaders).

We tried chasing the international dollar and it resulted in the absolute steaming pile of rancid shit that was the four conference Super 57 or whatever the fuck.

skyrocketing local viewers and 42k at the final have me firmly in the domestic only camp at the moment. See how TT pans out i shpose.

Edit: chasing international viewers also lead to some interesting results in the kickball. Surely something to be learnt from that.

In the mean time through Super we have aided ABs/NZ and their international viewers without much return. Let the domestic build, see what happens from there. Either way we are not heading down the same failed path.

 

[Dan54]

In the mean time through Super we have aided ABs/NZ and their international viewers without much return. Let the domestic build, see what happens from there. Either way we are not heading down the same failed path.

Did you not think that Australian rugby got as mush out of Super as NZ or SA? If not please explain. The Brumbies , Force and Rebels are all really a result of Super .

 

[hoggy]

Did you not think that Australian rugby got as mush out of Super as NZ or SA? If not please explain. The Brumbies , Force and Rebels are all really a result of Super .

No, without Super Rugby the game here would have pursued a club based domestic competition. Right now we would probably have 8-10 teams, and I would argue a much healthier grassroots base.
Yes we got those teams but we could have got so much more by choosing something 90% of Australians preferred and would have supported.

 

[Dan54]

If you really thought RA was in the position to have a professional based comp in Australia in 1996 when the game went professional, you were certainly in a different place to where I was. Australia started with 3 teams, because it didn't have the money or interest to have a professional club based comp. And I not just guessing that, most of the ones I met involved in Qld rugby at that stage were saying without the likes of Pacific 10 etc rugby that was lead in to Super comp rugby in Australia would of withered even more than it did. And then in Australia there was basically Queensland and NSW that had decent rugby comps.
Mate you have to stop the we are the victims oh woe is us metality, which I though was holding back rugby in Australia when I was first there. There was always a reason why things couldn't be done.

 

[dru]

No, without Super Rugby the game here would have pursued a club based domestic competition. Right now we would probably have 8-10 teams, and I would argue a much healthier grassroots base.
Yes we got those teams but we could have got so much more by choosing something 90% of Australians preferred and would have supported.

Super provided a professional avenue for rugby in Australia which is a great thing. It was a fabulous initiative with some great success. But across the whole experiment Australian rugby went palpably backwards. SANZAAR was simply too many chefs in the kitchen.

Super TT can be great for Australia but only if it allows the domestic rugby scene (including domestic professional) to develop and build. Those domestic requirements are different in Australia than New Zealand and I think the two are incompatible. Which is disappointing but realists simply move on. Unfortunately we may not (move on) and problems inevitably follow.

A solid domestically driven competition is the answer, with the Australian authorities determining things like how many teams, where, rule amendments, pathways for refs, coaches and players. A follow-on TT in an agreed format (not a format pre-approved by NZ for Australia endorsement) is a cherry on top. But we do not need to commit to the Kiwis in any way in a comp they design to suit Kiwi requirements. And we should not just be prepared to, but actually be determined to see them fly solo if the proposal does not 100% suit. Come back to discussions in a year, 2 or 5 maybe.

Nurture the roots and the bling may follow. Nurture the bling only and the whole kaput dies.

 

[Dan54]

Super provided a professional avenue for rugby in Australia which is a great thing. It was a fabulous initiative with some great success. But across the whole experiment Australian rugby went palpably backwards. SANZAAR was simply too many chefs in the kitchen.

Super TT can be great for Australia but only if it allows the domestic rugby scene (including domestic professional) to develop and build. Those domestic requirements are different in Australia than New Zealand and I think the two are incompatible. Which is disappointing but realists simply move on. Unfortunately we may not (move on) and problems inevitably follow.

A solid domestically driven competition is the answer, with the Australian authorities determining things like how many teams, where, rule amendments, pathways for refs, coaches and players. A follow-on TT in an agreed format (not a format pre-approved by NZ for Australia endorsement) is a cherry on top. But we do not need to commit to the Kiwis in any way in a comp they design to suit Kiwi requirements. And we should be not just be prepared to, but actually be determined to see them fly solo if the proposal does not 100% suit. Come back to discussions in a year, 2 or 5 maybe.

Nurture the roots and the bling may follow. Nurture the bling only and the whole kaput dies.

Couldn't agree more, where the NRC was supposed to going. I think you are still playing the victim by saying NZR are the ones saying how the TT is being run, both are. That is just a copout to say NZ are setting format, not sure if you have been on any board, but you always have somone who does the footwork so the whole board can sign off. As for RA (or NZR) going alone , it won't happen as both need each other to have the muscle in WR (World Rugby) etc. Don't forget in this great idea of Aus having this imaginary single comp, RA is basically broke, operating off an adavnce form WR (World Rugby), and going to market to get 40 Mill supoosedly.You need money to operate all these comps, and I guessing RA and NZR both know this and although NZR have 90 mill in bank they don't want to blow that either I am guessing. So both boards want a structure that works!

 

[Joe King]

I think Super Rugby AU has improved the Australian team's confidence and competitiveness, making Super Rugby TT quite exciting. Which is of course, a good reason to keep both omps separate.

 

[dru]

I am in no way talking NRC or similar when using the term "domestic professional comp". I am talking what is currently the top 23 at Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies, Force, Rebels. Playing here in a domestic comp in Australia. The second tier. If our second tier then develops in a way that is not compatible with expectations in NZ, then so be it.

If that comp evolved to be the same number of teams, in the same locations, as the NRC it would still involve all the top 23 players, including the Wallabies, played at the premier season scheduled prior to the internationals.

If a TT is compatible with that, fabulous. Squeeze it in between domestic and the international season.

It seems to me that what we have now is close to the ultimate compromise between:
a) wanting to maximise the value, timing and duration of that domestic comp
b) wanting a TT that is more than a quick dash between countries
c) the Kiwis wanting strong teams from Australia

So keep it to 5 domestic teams, add Fiji subject to commercials. Home and away + Finals. Followed by round robin TT if that is easy enough to fit between Domestic and international programmes.

If it doesn't suit NZ, fine, that's OK.

 

[Joe King]

Here’s another potential reason to keep the current format I've been thinking about.

The way to think about growing rugby in the competative Australian landscape is not by aiming to steal spectators from the NRL and AFL, as if spectators have to choose one or the other. The aim is to make spectators realise they can enjoy more than their other code. Like having both Netflix and Stan, or enjoying both Test and T20 cricket.

It’s not about rugby directly aiming to get a bigger share of the pie. It’s about directly aiming to make people realise they can actually enjoy the whole pie, including the rugby slice. Then, if they like how the rugby slice tastes, they’ll want more.

People will choose to watch Stan or Netflix depending on what’s on offer that night. Rugby needs to be able to offer people a meaningful event-like product more often. Test matches do this by nature, but Super Rugby, especially in Australia, also needs to be able to provide this if it is to be a tasty slice of the pie.

This event-style comp is what made original Super Rugby so tasty in the very beginning before it expanded. Super Rugby AU (with 6 teams) followed by Super Rugby TT is the best way to achieve this event-style product again.

Super Rugby AU is short and sharp. Every game feels competitive, unpredictable, and meaningful. Even when your team is on the bottom of the table, you never feel too far gone to make the finals. Another top-of-the-table clash is never far way. Your team vs the top-of-table is also never far away. And when Super Rugby AU is followed by Super Rugby TT, it gives you two grand finals in one season. Two peak events, with all the anticipation and intense drama leading up to them.

The same argument can be made for keeping Super Rugby Ao in NZ. When Super Rugby TT follows on from Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao, spectators are interested in it because they anticipate the best of one comp going up against the best of another. It’s mysterious and exciting. It’s imperative to keep that aspect in order to keep viewers engaged.

The slight increase in broadcast revenue gained by offering more games with a full season Super Rugby TT isn’t worth it in the long run. This is the mistake old Super Rugby made. It went for the increase in broadcast revenue and lost the exciting event-like product. And so in the end, it lost the broadcast revenue too.

Just give Super Rugby AU a few more years to see what its potential is.

 

[RebelYell]

I think the key is that an all-in Super Rugby cannot be the only competition that these teams play in.

Like in the North, they need to play in their own domestic comps too - e.g. Super Rugby AU, Aotearoa, Japan Top League - and then treat Super Rugby like a round-robin Champions Cup concept that kicks off every May.