Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

Where are you going to find another 5 teams from?

I'd rather us play in a proper comp than have us play in the competition equivalent of "everyone who participates gets a award". Frankly I don't really care who won Super AU, we could have played the final straight off the bat, we knew who the two teams in the final where going to be. What we don't know is how we will fare against Kiwi teams, that's the exciting part.

HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMM gee wizz that's a hard one.

I wonder if any other code has similar issues.

Wait wait wait wait it's coming, yes I read about this, it's said its successful. Its called a Champions League were the best teams from domestic competition play each other in a knock out competition.

Danny Boy, you can't be serious, everyone knows those missing teams are hidden under the grandstand at Woy Woy Oval.

Danny, just an example of the Woy Woy under the grandstand teams, ever heard of a company called Rio Tinto.

Well Rio Tinto, are not what you call soccer fans or supporters. but guess what they have the naming rights and have had for years for an MLS team Real Salt Lake.

Business loves to invest in sport, its a combination of the asking price and the operational framework.

 

[Dan54]

In the same way that most other competitions do, by opening the league up to offers from private investors that pay a franchising fee.

That said I think 5 is slightly too many for the time being. I would look at getting an investor/group of investors for a Western Sydney team (like what Twiggy had lined up a few years ago) + Drua.

That would bring us to 7 teams which would be fine for the time being. We could then open ourselves up to offers for a second QLD team in a few years time.

This is how nearly every other professional sporting league in the country and the world operates.

I don't understand why Rugby administrators keep trying to reinvent the wheel with structures that don't work and have never been shown to work.

Well well well, do you not get the irony? Suggesting a 8-10 team comp? Supposedy thet made NZR the evil empire last year. My my !

 

[barbarian]

Well that's the great thing about having the TT comp be post-domestic season: we both get what we want. Fans that want domestic derbies + an Australian champion get that in Super AU, fans that want to see how we perform against NZ get to see that in the post-domestic TT comp. Best of both worlds.

I tend to agree with this.

Super AU into Super TT may not be viable long term, but for now it's the best option we have. And that's fine.

We don't have to have all the answers now, especially with COVID still around. Who knows when 'normal' will resume. And there are other factors too, such as RA revenue, RWC 2027 bid, private investment etc which may affect the options we have in the next couple of years.

I think RA are making all the right noises, being open to all options without making any hard calls.

The reason I'm skeptical about a local only option is about to hit us this weekend - I'm really psyched to watch some rugby this weekend, more than I've been in a long while. And it's all because I want to watch us against the Kiwis. I dare say I am not alone in that regard.

 

[Dan54]

If we lose all our games in TT, surely that's an argument towards putting more focus on a domestic only competiton? Why would we want to lock ourselves into a competiton where our teams are going to get shit on and well never get a team in the final?

We have nothing to prove to the Kiwis. The only thing we need to care about is making Union more popular in this country.

.

Australia has never had anything to prove to NZ, I presonally have never heard a NZ rugby person say you have.

 

[hifflepiff]

Well well well, do you not get the irony? Suggesting a 8-10 team comp? Supposedy thet made NZR the evil empire last year. My my !

I'm confused as to what you're arguing?

People didn't like the 8-10 team comp because NZR were asking Australia to reduce the number of teams in the country. This is the exact opposite of that?

 

[Bandar]

Australia has never had anything to prove to NZ, I presonally have never heard a NZ rugby person say you have.

No - they constantly tell us we are inferior

 

[Dan54]

HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMM gee wizz that's a hard one.

I wonder if any other code has similar issues.

Wait wait wait wait it's coming, yes I read about this, it's said its successful. Its called a Champions League were the best teams from domestic competition play each other in a knock out competition.

Danny Boy, you can't be serious, everyone knows those missing teams are hidden under the grandstand at Woy Woy Oval.

Danny, just an example of the Woy Woy under the grandstand teams, ever heard of a company called Rio Tinto.

Well Rio Tinto, are not what you call soccer fans or supporters. but guess what they have the naming rights and have had for years for an MLS team Real Salt Lake.

Business loves to invest in sport, its a combination of the asking price and the operational framework.

Yeah fair enough ,I forgot about Woy Woy Oval, how could I of after being in Aus and following etc Aus rugby for 24 years
I will immediately give myself an uppercut.

 

[hifflepiff]

I tend to agree with this.

Super AU into Super TT may not be viable long term, but for now it's the best option we have. And that's fine.

We don't have to have all the answers now, especially with COVID still around. Who knows when 'normal' will resume. And there are other factors too, such as RA revenue, RWC 2027 bid, private investment etc which may affect the options we have in the next couple of years.

I think RA are making all the right noises, being open to all options without making any hard calls.

The reason I'm skeptical about a local only option is about to hit us this weekend - I'm really psyched to watch some rugby this weekend, more than I've been in a long while. And it's all because I want to watch us against the Kiwis. I dare say I am not alone in that regard.

I definitely get there's a subset of fans that are more excited to play NZ teams. But as Super AU has shown, there are also a lot of fans that are more than happy to only play Australian teams.

Additionally, Super AU actually compliments TT Super Rugby. By creating hype around Australian teams in the domestic competition, you increase the appetite for games against NZ teams because they're an unknown. Compare this to previous years where 80% of the Australian teams seasons were over after 4 rounds of being pasted by the Kiwis. No more mystery, all interest was lost

Domestic followed by international makes both stronger.

 

[sendit]

Well that's the great thing about having the TT comp be post-domestic season: we both get what we want. Fans that want domestic derbies + an Australian champion get that in Super AU, fans that want to see how we perform against NZ get to see that in the post-domestic TT comp. Best of both worlds.

If you want Aussie derbies plus Australian champion why wouldn't you just have a full TT home + away season and crown the top Aussie side the Super AU champion with a first past the post system

Achieves the same objectives without the monotony of Super Rugby AU

 

[Dan54]

No - they constantly tell us we are inferior

Tell me who in NZ has told you Aus are inferior. I will be happy to hear. I am a kiwi and continually say that those in here who say Aus teams won't compete with NZ teams are crazy. And check all my posts and the post by Aus poaters if you care to.

 

[hifflepiff]

No - they constantly tell us we are inferior

As recently as last year, NZ wanted us to cut down to 3 teams because they didn't think we were good enough. Because it suited them if there were less teams in Aus.

This is the whole point, NZR don't give a shit about what's good for rugby in Aus, as much as they might claim otherwise. And I don't expect them to either. They like everyone else are looking out for their own best interest, just like we should be.

But by the same token, we need the autonomy to operate in our own best interest without being tied to NZ. Only a domestic competition provides that.

Where our interests align is in playing a TT competition of some description. Amazing, we should do that. But it should never come at the expense of what is best for Rugby in this country.

 

[dru]

If you want Aussie derbies plus Australian champion why wouldn't you just have a full TT home + away season and crown the top Aussie side the Super AU champion with a first past the post system

Achieves the same objectives without the monotony of Super Rugby AU

Why not call the first the domestic comp and the second the TT? It's not just semantics. In one you have handed control to outside of Australia, in the other we retain it. In one commercial success is dictated to the NZ brand, the other we retain it. In one the casual fan can understand what is going on, in the other not so.

 

[Dan54]

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

Please explain why it has been far from equal. I mean that, please tell me where NZ has had more say in super rugby than Australia.

 

[hifflepiff]

Please explain why it has been far from equal. I mean that, please tell me where NZ has had more say in super rugby than Australia.

We literally cut a team from the competition because it was thought we couldn't have 5 teams and compete with NZ. In an instant a whole segment of the country, its clubs, its development pathways and its fans were lost to Australian rugby so that we could, maybe, compete with NZ. From the point of view of developing rugby in this country, that's completely insane.

 

[Dan54]

We literally cut a team from the competition because it was thought we couldn't have 5 teams and compete with NZ. In an instant a whole segment of the country, its clubs, its development pathways and its fans were lost to Australian rugby so that we could compete with NZ. From the point of view of developing rugby in this country, that's completely insane.

Bollocks , Force were cut from Super because RA was going broke. Actually Australia increased teams whenever they wanted and I never once saw NZR say they shouldn't. Neither did I ever see NZR say Aus should drop Force. But if you have seen it please tell me where. To try and blame NZR for RA's decisions is exactly why I say perhaps too many on here play the victim .

 

[Rugbynutter39]

So can I rain on the parade for just a second?

Super AU final was great, but I wonder if it's a one-off phenomenon. Firstly because it happened in the one place it ever could happen - Brisbane. The only other place that might be able to produce a similar crowd/atmosphere is Perth, and realistically a GF in Perth is still a few years off if it happens at all.

So I can't help but wonder if the 2021 Super AU final is very much the right place at the right time. Post-COVID Brisbane, good young Reds team, hardened Brumbies, dismal Broncos season, etc etc.

The Big Bash is an interesting comparison, because it's shine has progressively worn off each year of running. And yes there are a bunch of reasons why, and yes the crowds are still decent, but nonetheless the format has gotten a bit tired.

How long can we sustain interest in Super AU with the same five teams running around year after year? Will it be the same when the Reds loft the trophy next year?

I am willing to believe it has legs in the short-medium term, but I'm not sure about it beyond five years. Happy to be proven wrong though!

Which is why I like foot in both camps braveheart. The fact is why it is in vogue we keep it...and if we shorten it to six nations style Comp that would be another way of not making stale by going too long. Hopefully TT successful so less reliance on it.

I think the reality is with today sports market you will need to continue to invest in refreshing your products to meet market needs in 5 to 10 year cycles. Again what I support is investment in both domestic and TT as portfolio of products to reduce our risks. And accept we may need to refine / refresh super rugby au product as time goes by. Heck it could be refreshed as early as next year to short form 6 week comp to accomodate TT. But what should be clear while a product is working to not abandon it too early. Again it may help to keep interest whilst we improve our competitiveness in TT and give us more breathing space.

 

[Derpus]

Bollocks , Force were cut from Super because RA was going broke. Actually Australia increased teams whenever they wanted and I never once saw NZR say they shouldn't. Neither did I ever see NZR say Aus should drop Force. But if you have seen it please tell me where. To try and blame NZR for RA's decisions is exactly why I say perhaps too many on here play the victim .

I thought it was an RA endorsed SANZAAR decision, no?

Ultimately, RA endorsed it because they were broke and tried to sell it as 'increasing competitiveness' which no one bought. A sordid tale of incompetence we should all be in a hurry to move on from.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Bollocks , Force were cut from Super because RA was going broke. Actually Australia increased teams whenever they wanted and I never once saw NZR say they shouldn't. Neither did I ever see NZR say Aus should drop Force. But if you have seen it please tell me where. To try and blame NZR for RA's decisions is exactly why I say perhaps too many on here play the victim .

RA was going broke propping up super rugby teams as there was massive disinterest in super rugby competition. This is why more people are advocating our focus on domestic competition or better TT competition design. We keep coming back to questions of should we go it alone due to scepticism the TT can meet the needs of oz rugby due to nzru demands / desires for the competition which are not compatible with oz interests.

 

[hifflepiff]

Bollocks , Force were cut from Super because RA was going broke. Actually Australia increased teams whenever they wanted and I never once saw NZR say they shouldn't. Neither did I ever see NZR say Aus should drop Force. But if you have seen it please tell me where. To try and blame NZR for RA's decisions is exactly why I say perhaps too many on here play the victim .

This argument is completely tangential to the broader debate about a domestic+trans tasman v only trans-tasman, but Australia absolutely tried to maintain the Force by proposing to NZ that they only play Trans-Tasman. NZ rejected it outright because they wanted to keep playing South Africa, forcing Australia to cut a team. Also the vast majority of the arguments in favour of cutting the Force were 100% around the idea it would make us more competitive with NZ.

More recently, NZRU tried to push Australia to cut down to three teams because it was in their interest to do so.

But its pointless to debate these events, its all well trod ground.

And to be clear, I don't blame NZRU for trying to push Super Rugby in a way that benefits them. They need to look out for their own best interest.

But this does feed into my broader point. Neither of these two events would have occurred ( or at least would have occurred differently) if Australia had complete control of its own professional structures, just like every other professional sporting code in this country. We can't grow the game in this country if we're also having to run everything by NZRU as well. Its just not doable.

 

[sendit]

To be fair if we do follow with the two competitions model, we are really stitching up the TT comp

By the time it takes place we already know who the teams that are going to be good to watch are

For example let’s say it took tahs supports 3 weeks of Super AU to realise their team was trash and wernt going to win anything, that’s 3 weeks less of fair weather fan eyeballs that TT isn’t going to get

The comps already behind the 8ball and everyone gunning for Super AU will point to skewed data to support their arguments