Where to for Super Rugby?

[Adam84]

^ so you're advocating for a six-team SRAu (five Au plus Drua) & SRAo (five NZ plus Moana Pasifika which will be NZ-based for probably five years), followed by a Super Rugby Pacific (can't really call it T-T after Drua & MP (Moana Pasifika) come on board)? Wouldn't be my preference but I could live with it if that were to happen (which I doubt it will, 12-team single-round plus playoffs seems to be what the stakeholders incl broadcasters want).

Aren’t the fans one of the key stakeholders, and didn’t they vote with their feet and eyes this season during Super Rugby AU?

 

[hifflepiff]

There you go BR - seems someone else on the open border policy as a solution for TT competition.

See the link below to the Roar Article


https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/05/...-trans-tasman-tournament-lets-go-all-the-way/

This is still only a band-aid solution:

(a) NZ are unlikely to give up control of their player development to Australia

(b) We likely couldn't attract top tier NZ players as they would be playing for worse teams with less airtime in NZ, therefore lowering their chances of selection for the ABs

(c) Even if we could attract current top tier NZ players, they would cost an arm and a leg (even more than top tier wallabies for the above reasons). This is money that would be far better spent on ensuring we can retain our young players that would otherwise go to League.

(d) It still doesn't solve the problem that Australia wouldn't have control over its own professional league, and would therefore have to handicap our ability to craft the best possible competiton for the Australian market in order to keep NZ happy.

(e) It doesn't stop Australian teams from still losing regularly (three or four All Blacks spread across all the teams are unlikely to make that much of a difference) meaning we won't get the media breakthrough that comes from having
successful teams + home grandfinals.

(f) It doesn't solve the problem that in a solely Trans Tasman league we're spending half the season playing against teams the majority of Aussies don't really give a shit about. Most people in Aus don't even know where the NZ teams are from let alone feel any inherent rivalry like that which exists between the Australian states. At the end of the day, the only NZ rugby brand that matters in Australia (beyond kiwi expats) is the All Blacks.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for maintaining Trans Tasman games to a certain extent, but we need to restructure our format to one where AU is the focus (as it has the most growth potential in the Australian market) and reconceptualise Trans-Tasman as a purely post-season champions league (which we can include Japan in for larger broadcast dollars, without affecting the core domestic competition).

 

[Dan54]

There you go BR - seems someone else on the open border policy as a solution for TT competition.

See the link below to the Roar Article


https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/05/...-trans-tasman-tournament-lets-go-all-the-way/

Isn't it up to RA to have an open border's policy? Like letting teams get players from anywhere in world, there are SA, Argies, Fijian, French etc etc. That is what open borders is surely. And if they allow it why is noone going and buying them?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Aren’t the fans one of the key stakeholders, and didn’t they vote with their feet and eyes this season during Super Rugby AU?

As Eric Blair no doubt once said, all stakeholders were created equal but some have evolved to be more cashed-up than others & consequently have a greater say in these matters. Not saying that's right but it's reality.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Isn't it up to RA to have an open border's policy? Like letting teams get players from anywhere in world, there are SA, Argies, Fijian, French etc etc. That is what open borders is surely. And if they allow it why is noone going and buying them?

No it is about keeping players close to home and supporting our players olaying in strong TT/AP competition.....and allowing them to play for a team in the competition and still being able to be selected for their national team. Twiggy was trying to get RA to agree any oz player playing for GRR team could still play for the wallabies so not a new idea. Anyhow I don't need to rehash this as this as all discussed before and just one option to consider to create a more level playing field and promoting the growth / footprint of strong TT competition. I don't want to get into debate of merits of the option (or otherwise) as this has already been discussed to death here.

Was only wanting to make mention of article posted on the roar about this with same arguments played out here now being played out in comments on this article on the roar.

 

[kiap]

Wouldn't be my preference but I could live with it if that were to happen (which I doubt it will, 12-team single-round plus playoffs seems to be what the stakeholders incl broadcasters want).

There is more than one way of fitting together that particular puzzle, WOB (that I'd suspect they and you wouldn't be too unhappy with). If time permits, I might have a stab at something myself.........

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This is still only a band-aid solution:

(a) NZ are unlikely to give up control of their player development to Australia

(b) We likely couldn't attract top tier NZ players as they would be playing for worse teams with less airtime in NZ, therefore lowering their chances of selection for the ABs

(c) Even if we could attract current top tier NZ players, they would cost an arm and a leg (even more than top tier wallabies for the above reasons). This is money that would be far better spent on ensuring we can retain our young players that would otherwise go to League.

(d) It still doesn't solve the problem that Australia wouldn't have control over its own professional league, and would therefore have to handicap our ability to craft the best possible competiton for the Australian market in order to keep NZ happy.

(e) It doesn't stop Australian teams from still losing regularly (three or four All Blacks spread across all the teams are unlikely to make that much of a difference) meaning we won't get the media breakthrough that comes from having
successful teams + home grandfinals.

(f) It doesn't solve the problem that in a solely Trans Tasman league we're spending half the season playing against teams the majority of Aussies don't really give a shit about. Most people in Aus don't even know where the NZ teams are from let alone feel any inherent rivalry like that which exists between the Australian states. At the end of the day, the only NZ rugby brand that matters in Australia (beyond kiwi expats) is the All Blacks.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for maintaining Trans Tasman games to a certain extent, but we need to restructure our format to one where AU is the focus (as it has the most growth potential in the Australian market) and reconceptualise Trans-Tasman as a purely post-season champions league (which we can include Japan in for larger broadcast dollars, without affecting the core domestic competition).

Basic principle is to me make the game stronger - generates more dollars - grow a stronger foortprint - creates more opportunities for more teams and competition against nrl and afl and more fans watching and more money in the game. Everyone wins. I think an open borders policy for TT would support all the latter but I also hear same arguments you have posted here and don't think worth debating as at least short term I agree I can't see this as option pursued.

 

[kiap]

some have evolved to be more cashed-up than others & consequently have a greater say in these matters.

Only thing I might add is that, mid-to-long term, don't assume that will be enzed.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Aren’t the fans one of the key stakeholders, and didn’t they vote with their feet and eyes this season during Super Rugby AU?

I reckon the broadcasters will go for a shortened domestic comp before TT comp because I think the short form domestic comp also adds to the TT comp...I agree they would want to likely accommodate full season TT comp so hence the domestic short form comp as only likely option.

 

[Joe King]

I can imagine private equity firms favouring a TT/AP, but I can't imagine them favouring one that runs the risk of going the way of old Super Rugby among viewers in Australia.

If we're going to have any sort of TT/AP, surely PE would be looking at ways to somehow increase the depth of the Australia teams, wouldn't they?

 

[hifflepiff]

I can imagine private equity firms favouring a TT/AP, but I can't imagine them favouring one that runs the risk of going the way of old Super Rugby among viewers in Australia.

If we're going to have any sort of TT/AP, surely PE would be looking at ways to somehow increase the depth of the Australia teams, wouldn't they?

Private investors are more likely to put money into a competition/team that protects their invesent and offers the potential for future growth.

For Australia, Super AU (and AU followed by a short TT comp) offers this where as solely or majority Trans-Tasman does not. Why would you want to invest in an Australian team if they were playing in a competition where they have a high likelihood of not winning a trophy or even avoiding getting regularly blown out in the foreseeable future? As we've seen in the past, playing NZ teams too regularly will only negatively affect Australian teams, both in terms of fan/media engagement and long-term market value.

Maybe Super AU starts from a lower base (although judging by viewership statistics this might not even be true) but it has far more potential to grow the value of Super Rugby in the Australian market. On the other hand, any investment in an Australian team involved in a solely Trans Tasman competition will likely only stagnate or devalue given what we've seen over the past two decades.

If RA don't make Super AU their focus, they will only be contributing to the long running devaluation of Australian Rugby, both in domestic and international markets.

 

[Joe King]

What would it be like if we could have Super Rugby AU, and from that, pick 3 rep teams (a NSW and Qld SoO style team + a best-of-the-rest/barbarians team) to play in the TT/AP?

I can see some issues with it, but I'm just trying to think of how they can make the TT/AP feel like original Super Rugby.

 

[mst]

I reckon the broadcasters will go for a shortened domestic comp before TT comp because I think the short form domestic comp also adds to the TT comp.I agree they would want to likely accommodate full season TT comp so hence the domestic short form comp as only likely option.

Strong evidence now merging to suggest that an AU domestic competition is not only viable but could grow our game and revenue.

 

[hifflepiff]

What would it be like if we could have Super Rugby AU, and from that, pick 3 rep teams (a NSW and Qld SoO style team + a best-of-the-rest/barbarians team) to play in the TT/AP?

I can see some issues with it, but I'm just trying to think of how they can make the TT/AP feel like original Super Rugby.

Nah, that's unnecessarily complex. Just have the the top 3 teams in Aus, NZ and Japanese (so this year for Aus: Reds, Brumbies and Force) play eachother post season ala Champions League. It makes the most sense logically, competitively and comercially.

It also means the AU and post season comps naturally benefit each other as compared to the current structure where there's no logical or narrative flow between the two competitions.

 

[Joe King]

Nah, that's unnecessarily complex. Just have the the top 3 teams Aus, NZ and Japanese teams (so this year Reds, Brumbies and Force) play eachother post season ala Champions League. It makes the most sense logically and competitively.

It also means the AU and post season comps naturally benefit each other as compared to the current structure where there's no logical or narrative flow between the two competitions.

Or, as much as I love my Kiwi cousins, if we can't make it work with them, maybe we could just have a full season Super Rugby AU (with a view to increasing to 7 teams so there's an inbuilt bye) and then have a 3 week SoO type series with those 3 rep teams I suggested in order to pick the Wallabies.

 

[hifflepiff]

Strong evidence now merging to suggest that an AU domestic competition is not only viable but could grow our game and revenue.

I'd imagine Channel 9 would also be pushing for Super AU, at least in some capacity. As we saw, viewership was strong throughout the season and the all Australian grand final gives them another big sporting event to drive Ad revenue. A TT final with two NZ teams (as the majority over the last decade have been) isnt going to garner anywhere near as much Australian viewership.

Its also a competiton they can have a hand in crafting from the ground up, as compared to a TT comp where they'll have comparatively less influence.

 

[Rebel man]

Private investors are more likely to put money into a competition/team that protects their invesent and offers the potential for future growth.

For Australia, Super AU (and AU followed by a short TT comp) offers this where as solely or majority Trans-Tasman does not. Why would you want to invest in an Australian team if they were playing in a competition where they have a high likelihood of not winning a trophy or even avoiding getting regularly blown out in the foreseeable future? As we've seen in the past, playing NZ teams too regularly will only negatively affect Australian teams, both in terms of fan/media engagement and long-term market value.

Maybe Super AU starts from a lower base (although judging by viewership statistics this might not even be true) but it has far more potential to grow the value of Super Rugby in the Australian market. On the other hand, any investment in an Australian team involved in a solely Trans Tasman competition will likely only stagnate or devalue given what we've seen over the past two decades.

If RA don't make Super AU their focus, they will only be contributing to the long running devaluation of Australian Rugby, both in domestic and international markets.

If they do make super rugby AU their focus they will run the game into the ground 8 games and playing 4 other sides is simply not sustainable people will get over it very quickly

Also if you are looking to make an investment in sport you are looking to grow the game we aren’t going to grow anything with a 5 team comp.

 

[hifflepiff]

If they do make super rugby AU their focus they will run the game into the ground 8 games and playing 4 other sides is simply not sustainable people will get over it very quickly

Also if you are looking to make an investment in sport you are looking to grow the game we aren’t going to grow anything with a 5 team comp.

As has been stated previously, we could grow the number of teams in the same way that nearly every other competiton in the world does, by offering franchising licenses to private investors for a fee.

 

[Rebel man]

As has been stated previously, we could grow the number of teams in the same way that nearly every other competiton in the world does, by offering franchising licenses to private investors for a fee.

Yeah because private ownership has worked so well her previously and the provincial model that rugby takes doesn’t lend itself to franchisers

 

[dru]

As Eric Blair no doubt once said, all stakeholders were created equal but some have evolved to be more cashed-up than others & consequently have a greater say in these matters. Not saying that's right but it's reality.

This is exactly the attitude that says Australia must treat very bloody carefully with NZ.

I'm happy to see a TT run, with or without the Pacific teams (I think Fiji is a go outside that less so), but NOT as the comp. Domestic not only must stay but must be the primary gig in town.

If it doesn't work for NZ I'm happy to run without Kiwi input in our pro rugby.