Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

Nothing wrong with a 5 team comp if you play another 5-6 teams during the year in another comp.

 

[hifflepiff]

Nothing wrong with a 5 team comp if you play another 5-6 teams during the year in another comp.

Definitely. Super AU is currently the perfect length. We can absolutely maintain the current structure for a few more years while we sort out expansion teams for Super AU, at which point we can look at making it run longer.

Either way everyone's playing everyone home and away, its just the current structure gives RA a level of autonomy over the structure of Super AU that wouldn't exist in an only TT comp.

 

[Dan54]

You could argue that current set-up forces us into using players who will never be Wallabies just to put teams on a field - I'd rather increase overall competitiveness then continue throwing contracts at Kyle Godwin or Alex Newsome?

So?Why do you need NZ players to start. SA and Argentine players can play anywhere and still play test rugby, NSW already seemingly told arguably one of best loosies in world , no thanks so he gone to Crusaders. Look RA is living on borrowed money, so where is all this money coming to pay for them. Didn't RA sell Rebels to someone and had to take it back? There aren't a lot of Twiggy's around, regardless of what we all hope. I keep reminding you , look at how strong the French team is liable to be because club owners won't realease players early enough to allow them to play. England's clubs with the Lions is the same.
And also never forget what happened to Gold Coast soccer club that Clive Palmer had, Soccer Aus upset him, he withdrew money and no team. We all know that RA is walking a tightrope with Twiggy, they can't afford to upset him. And that is no insulting Twiggy, but I think he would be almost as powerful as Hamish in Aus rugby, he pulls the pin and the whole castle falls down! Do we want that with all teams?

To build a proper good Aus (or NZ) rugby comp you need 7-8 teams at least, or boredom will set in, and you have to build it within the structure of Australian rugby, and then it would be great!
I keep asking who can show me a sucessful domestic comp in the world with 5 teams, just tell me where they are!

 

[hoggy]

Well we have 5 teams already, if you add the Drua to Sydney it is 6 teams. You can start a two round domestic competition, with a 5/10 year plan for 8 teams.
Look at champions league style comps with the Kiwis & Japan to placate the boredom brigade and earn a few extra bucks while your at it.

In fact with a weakened French team coming, and with European club rugby depleting the ability of nations to field first string Test teams outside of a World cup cycle, I would say it is now more important than ever to focus on growing a sustainable domestic product in Australia as there is every chance those mid-year test tours will become a thing of the past.

 

[Adam84]

So?Why do you need NZ players to start. SA and Argentine players can play anywhere and still play test rugby, NSW already seemingly told arguably one of best loosies in world , no thanks so he gone to Crusaders. Look RA is living on borrowed money, so where is all this money coming to pay for them. Didn't RA sell Rebels to someone and had to take it back? There aren't a lot of Twiggy's around, regardless of what we all hope. I keep reminding you , look at how strong the French team is liable to be because club owners won't realease players early enough to allow them to play. England's clubs with the Lions is the same.
And also never forget what happened to Gold Coast soccer club that Clive Palmer had, Soccer Aus upset him, he withdrew money and no team. We all know that RA is walking a tightrope with Twiggy, they can't afford to upset him. And that is no insulting Twiggy, but I think he would be almost as powerful as Hamish in Aus rugby, he pulls the pin and the whole castle falls down! Do we want that with all teams?

To build a proper good Aus (or NZ) rugby comp you need 7-8 teams at least, or boredom will set in, and you have to build it within the structure of Australian rugby, and then it would be great!
I keep asking who can show me a sucessful domestic comp in the world with 5 teams, just tell me where they are!

If there are no other 5 team tournaments out there how can you be so adamant it will lead to boredom? I was one of 41k people at Suncorp Stadium and the atmosphere there definitely wasn't boredom. How many teams in the 6 Nations?

I can point you in the direction of plenty other 10/12/14/16/18 team tournaments which carry their own baggage and issues, so this idea that more teams = more entertainment is flawed.

Also, i don't think anyone who is pushing for a domestic Australian comp believes it should stop at just 5 teams, in time that can increase, and New Zealand can continue to do their own thing. If New Zealand fans and players get bored playing the same kiwi teams, then maybe NZRU should have considered that before releasing the Aratipu Report.

 

[Joe King]

Many good points mate, but you hit it on the head when you pointed out Top 14 (that do get blow outs at times), and my main problem is remedied in title Top 14, show me any top successful rugby or almost any comp that has 5 teams. NZ has same problem that I keep saying to those here who wouldn't care fo Aus being involved for same reasons you saying.
The reason Ireland, Wales and Scotland etc have joined is that they know that their comps with only 4-5 teams can't be substained so they stared with Celtic League than now pro 14. England have stand alone premiership (12 teams) and top teams play what was Heineken cup, now I not sure what.
Let's face it even in International rugby (the peak or our game) the RC between 4 teams is getting a little tired because we play each other twice (and NZ-Aus 3) times a year. The crowds are starting to drift off there to and this pinnacle of our game!
I can't believe anyone thinks a 5 team comp can survive. It needs I reckon 8 teams at least to be viable in the medium long term.
I still wait to see a decent 5 team annual comp at domestic level anywhere in world, but maybe rugby in Aus is popular enough to buck the trend, I doubt it though.

Dan, are you saying a 5-6 team Super Rugby AU will not be enjoyable to fans, or that it won't be financially viable? Or maybe a bit of both?

If you are saying it won't be enjoyable to fans, I don't think you can say that with such certainty after this year.

I don't think the RC and Bledisloe have dwindled a bit because we're playing each other too many times, but more because Australian rugby has been down in the dumps for a while. When Australian rugby is going well again, the RC and Bledisloe will sky rocket in Australia again, I reckon.

The SoO has thrived with only two teams. And look at the 6 Nations. Likewise, a six team Super Rugby AU would still be enjoyable in 2 years time if it is short and sharp.

But I think everyone on here would agree with you that a 6 team Super Rugby AU wouldn't work if it needed to be three rounds, or if they tried to make 6 teams fill the whole window before the July Inbounds. But that's not what's being suggested.

So I think you must just be saying that it won't be financially viable. Is that right?

 

[hifflepiff]

Dan54, it looks like you've got Eastman and myself confused as you start by responding to their argument but then transition to arguing against points I've made. Regardless:

There aren't a lot of Twiggy's around, regardless of what we all hope.

The majority of privately owned teams aren't owned by singular individuals but by groups of investors. We don't need 8 billionaires to own every Aussie team.

I keep reminding you , look at how strong the French team is liable to be because club owners won't realease players early enough to allow them to play. England's clubs with the Lions is the same.

That's why we have an international release window for tests. Sure it's annoying for France and England, but despite that rugby in those countries is far far more healthy than it is in Aus.

If RA want certain players to be available outside the international window they can orgnaise something with the team owners. Maybe they can maintain the current 'top up' system for certain Wallabies where they subsidise their wages in return for allowing them to play outside the international window.

And also never forget what happened to Gold Coast soccer club that Clive Palmer had, Soccer Aus upset him, he withdrew money and no team. We all know that RA is walking a tightrope with Twiggy, they can't afford to upset him. And that is no insulting Twiggy, but I think he would be almost as powerful as Hamish in Aus rugby, he pulls the pin and the whole castle falls down! Do we want that with all teams?

And yet despite Clive pulling out, professional soccer in Australia survived. That's the great thing about having a competition where all the teams are separately owned, it diversifies the risk. In fact almost every competition has owners pull out at some point (eg. MLS, NHL even the AFL and NRL in the past), but by having a diverse ownership group no one person pulling out causes the whole thing to fall down. It also makes it far easier to replace teams that do pull out.

On the other hand, the current professional set up of Rugby in Aus is entirely reliant on the (fucked) financials of RA and the managing unions. That's no more sustainable than the alternative. By having the professional teams be owned by private individuals or groups of investors, RA and the Unions can save a fuck load of money that they should be spending on grassroots and development structures.

Even in the rugby world, look at the MLR. Yes its small but its growing rapidly with private investors putting up substantial amounts of money to invest in Rugby specific stadiums etc. This is despite the USA governing union literally going bankrupt some years ago. Again, diversified risk.

The MLR has also had teams pull out because of their owners, but the competition is still going strong. And why? Because its adopted a tried and proven funding/competition structure, as opposed to the former Super Rugby structure which has never proven to work.

 

[Dan54]

Dan, are you saying a 5-6 team Super Rugby AU will not be enjoyable to fans, or that it won't be financially viable? Or maybe a bit of both?

If you are saying it won't be enjoyable to fans, I don't think you can say that with such certainty after this year.)
I know that, question how enjoyable what was last year's like?

(I don't think the RC and Bledisloe have dwindled a bit because we're playing each other too many times, but more because Australian rugby has been down in the dumps for a while. When Australian rugby is going well again, the RC and Bledisloe will sky rocket in Australia again, I reckon.)

The SoO has thrived with only two teams. And look at the 6 Nations. Likewise, a six team Super Rugby AU would still be enjoyable in 2 years time if it is short and sharp.)
So you think SoO could stand as the main comp in RL? Ok well why they wasting their time on the rest? It works because like 6N it is a representative so called high end comp with fans having tie in with comp below.

(But I think everyone on here would agree with you that a 6 team Super Rugby AU wouldn't work if it needed to be three rounds, or if they tried to make 6 teams fill the whole window before the July Inbounds. But that's not what's being suggested.

So I think you must just be saying that it won't be financially viable. Is that right?

Basically that's what I saying, look for both NZ and Aus I believe we got a chance to reset to a long term set up, neither country will survive without other I don't believe, and I saying that with NZR having 94 Mill in bank and Aus living on begged money, they still both important to each other.

 

[Dan54]

Dan54, it looks like you've got Eastman confused.




And yet despite Clive pulling out, professional soccer in Australia survived. That's the great thing about having a competition where all the teams are separately owned, it diversifies the risk. In fact almost every competition has owners pull out at some point (eg. MLS, NHL even the AFL and NRL in the past), but by having a diverse ownership group no one person pulling out causes the whole thing to fall down. It also makes it far easier to replace teams that do pull out.

Sorry mate if I answered wrong question, but anyway I agree that Soccer Australia survived when Clive pulled money, but they had more than 5 teams, I can assure you if Twiggy pulled the Force Super Au would not continue. So as I said Twiggy is as powerful in RA as Hamish etc because of that.

 

[hifflepiff]

Sorry mate if I answered wrong question, but anyway I agree that Soccer Australia survived when Clive pulled money, but they had more than 5 teams, I can assure you if Twiggy pulled the Force Super Au would not continue. So as I said Twiggy is as powerful in RA as Hamish etc because of that.

I agree, which is why we should be:

(a) Moving to a franchise model

(b) Expanding the number of teams to diversify the risk of one owner pulling out.

(c) Ensure the australian professional competiton is run separately to the governing union.

Again this is how the majority of successful professional sports leagues are run, including those in this country. I don't understand why this is such a scary prospect for the rugby fraternity.

 

[Dan54]

I

Also, i don't think anyone who is pushing for a domestic Australian comp believes it should stop at just 5 teams, in time that can increase, and New Zealand can continue to do their own thing. If New Zealand fans and players get bored playing the same kiwi teams, then maybe NZRU should have considered that before releasing the Aratipu Report.

Agree mate and as I say time and again, a 7-8 team tournament will work well.
And there are few here in NZ saying what you saying, who needs the Aus team? The games are on at not good times, some at midnight (you know how everyone moaned about SA times) etc etc, and I say the same to them, ours will not last either.
It's not about NZ fans getting bored, as they ot I not, but how long can we last like this?
But anyway it not up to us, so I guess we will get what we will get from our rugby boards, and I hope they set one that will last.
And original Super was very very successful regardless of what any of us say. Was well watched on TV and very very good crowds at not just one game ,but most games.

 

[Dan54]

I agree, which is why we should be:

(a) Moving to a franchise model

(b) Expanding the number of teams to diversify the risk of one owner pulling out.

(c) Ensure the australian professional competiton is run separately to the governing union.

Again this is how the majority of successful professional sports leagues are run, including those in this country. I don't understand why this is such a scary prospect for the rugby fraternity.

Agree with all you say in that post, enough teams etc to keep it going. Lovethe idea of franchise models, they don't have to have owners , just a seperate franchise model under RA will work great, works here in NZ quite well. Can still be run under umbrella of RA etc (and should be to keep Aus rugby's interest) but if it all franchises you stop conflict anyway.
As an example none of the franchises in NZ have a say on the NZR board , or run any club comps etc.

 

[dru]

^ there are two flaws in that argument:

[Argument being freeing up ABs across the comp.]

There are flaws. But not those two, WOB.

The issue fundamentally is that rugby as a commercial product needs more teams. In Australia. So opening borders is fine but is unlikely to counterbalance what has to happen here. SO the quality gap is going to increase.

I get that New Zealand is unlikely to commercially handle more than 5 teams but Australia actually needs more than 5 to be commercial.

NZ pro Rugby and Australia pro Rugby are incompatible. It's sad but a conclusion that more are coming to.

If we want a TT, and we do, the trick is how to condense an Australian domestic comp to match NZ quality. For NZ the trick is that issues prohibit a full season Super TT as Australia needs it's domestic.

The TT becomes a champion league where NZ franchises play against Aus rep teams, not the clubs.

I've very little concern if this doesn't work for NZ.

 

[Adam84]

Agree mate and as I say time and again, a 7-8 team tournament will work well.
And there are few here in NZ saying what you saying, who needs the Aus team? The games are on at not good times, some at midnight (you know how everyone moaned about SA times) etc etc, and I say the same to them, ours will not last either.
It's not about NZ fans getting bored, as they ot I not, but how long can we last like this?
But anyway it not up to us, so I guess we will get what we will get from our rugby boards, and I hope they set one that will last.
And original Super was very very successful regardless of what any of us say. Was well watched on TV and very very good crowds at not just one game ,but most games.

Sweet so don't sweat it then

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Always been a big fan of the Super Rugby...

Tame DP - I was expecting stars and exploding rockets next to 1. Blues

 

[Rugbynutter39]

[Argument being freeing up ABs across the comp.]

There are flaws. But not those two, WOB.

The issue fundamentally is that rugby as a commercial product needs more teams. In Australia. So opening borders is fine but is unlikely to counterbalance what has to happen here. SO the quality gap is going to increase.

I get that New Zealand is unlikely to commercially handle more than 5 teams but Australia actually needs more than 5 to be commercial.

NZ pro Rugby and Australia pro Rugby are incompatible. It's sad but a conclusion that more are coming to.

If we want a TT, and we do, the trick is how to condense an Australian domestic comp to match NZ quality. For NZ the trick is that issues prohibit a full season Super TT as Australia needs it's domestic.

The TT becomes a champion league where NZ franchises play against Aus rep teams, not the clubs.

I've very little concern if this doesn't work for NZ.

Really this is the constant quandry. NZ commercially can't look at more than 5 sides whilst we need (at least long term) more than 5 sides...all the other footy codes have encroached on rugby because they have a national decent footprint, even A-League which gets way lower TV rating etc.

That is why I favour a franchise model where any player can play for any TT team and still represent their country. But I understand and respect NZ have likely zero interest in this (begrudgingly but seen nothing to suggest this would be on the table for NZRU and don't need the reasons explained why as heard it countless times).

So what then is the option if above is completely out...probably struggling along with TT for a couple of season, and building up our domestic and eventually going to a champions league format (as to quote BR let it be the icing on the cake but I dare say important icing as we need some pro competition with NZ - that I accept as gives us something AFL, NRL can't compete with - not so much A-League as they have equivalent Asian Champions league but does not attract as much interest as AB's do.).

 

[Dctarget]

Tame DP - I was expecting stars and exploding rockets next to 1. Blues

What have you done, he's furiously working away now in his basement on some mutated GIF monster involving some car chase from a 70s cop show and the Moon Landing.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It'll also cost insane amounts of money to attract top tier All Blacks because the players that do come would be lowering their chances of being selected for the AB's by playing for what would likely be a worse team outside of NZ.

Thats money that would be far far better spent on ensuring we can retain young Australian players that would otherwise go to League.

And at the end of the day, 1 or 2 Kiwis aren't going to suddenly make Australian teams win substantially more than they are already. What's more likely to happen is that these 'star Kiwis' just force young up and coming Australian stars out of the starting side, stunting their development.

To me it is also actually about attracting NZ players who don't have to jump ship when they suddenly become good. To me if you had more a franchise model and had investors prepared to invest in team they would be attracted to bringing in marquee players. As I would agree if you had open borders policy would the Tahs try to attract a top AB player...unlikely...but would a twiggy..maybe..and moreso would someone been more prepared to invest in oz rugby knowing they could go for some marquee star power.

I think people also underestimate how much marquee star players do to attract fans...Folau before his shit went down was example of star power who brought people to games. I actually appreciate some of the arguments raised here but I also find it too one side to suggest their is no benefits of having a quota of marquee players to tap into.

As you think All Blacks go to Japanese teams because they are worse teams! Point being yep you obviously would have to be very selective but Australia also has selling points as very liveable place if can at least match the money.

Anyhow won't ever happen so why debate this.....

 

[Rugbynutter39]

^ there are two flaws in that argument:

1. How many of the say 40 players in genuine contention for AB selection will want to play in Aus (& what if the answer is none)? And
2. How many of the other say 150 who'll never be AB's will represent a significant enough upgrade on what's already available to the Au teams to make them worth signing (& what happens to any displaced Au-eligible guys)?

I'd suggest 2. above is already possible but hardly ever happens, why is that?

Edit: was replying to Bullrush but equally applies to eastman's subsequent post. AFAIK Au already spends more on player payments than NZ so presumably they'd have to spend more again to make it worth David Havili's while to move to Au. Where does the money come from? Does everyone else at DH's new Club take a pay cut do they stay within the budget/ salary cap?

Actually on 2 we get a reasonable amount of kiwis but I would suggest a lot more would come if they knew they would be under AB selection but they don't as they know they won't be selected (as they may not ever be in the running for AB but I am sure most pro players would still have the aspiration and dream they could one day make it). We also have had a host of good players who have gone back to NZ (despite in some cases living nearly all their life in Australia e.g. Lomax) because they want to represent the ABs and know playing in oz will stop them from achieving that dream.

p.s not saying only thing need to do as no magic silver bullet but I do believe in long term would help to grow the game across the Asia Pacific region by more free movement of players (across the competition boundaries of countries involved without affecting their national selection chances).

 

[Dan54]

[Argument being freeing up ABs across the comp.]

There are flaws. But not those two, WOB.

The issue fundamentally is that rugby as a commercial product needs more teams. In Australia. So opening borders is fine but is unlikely to counterbalance what has to happen here. SO the quality gap is going to increase.


I've very little concern if this doesn't work for NZ.

Probably there is the difference, I actually care what happens and works for Aus rugby. I have been involved with administration etc in Aus at club level for too long to see the game go backwards.
But we see the problems, some posters think a 5 team comp can work, you agree with me obviously that it can't, so really and think , which I have been saying since day 1.
I suppose we can seee the problems that our rugby boards have, we have what a dozen posters on here, and even the ones who say a Aus only comp is good can't agree on size that is needed.