Where to for Super Rugby?

[mst]

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.

IMHO the whole PE thing for the NZRU needs to be considered in a different light to PE to stand up teams or a competition or what is going on with RA.

What NZRU are seeking to do (raise cash) generally is to expand or refinance as you are going backwards. Its clear they are going backwards and cash wont help that in the long term as not much other than using the AB's playing in external markets generates sufficient income. Thats now limited or has been redefined by COVID.

In simple terms it looks like NZRU have splashed the cash they had in the bank to retain players where RA don't have the cash and are trying to live within their means. Now NZRU has an expensive revenue generation model which is consuming their cash.

Its not hard to see that the cash in the bank argument is not really a sliver bullet. Take a look at the O/S rugby competitions they are all suffering from similar woes, even the ones that had huge cash reserves.

https://lastwordonsports.com/rugby/2020/04/16/bankruptcy-usa-rugby-reorganization-of-sport/
https://www.goffrugbyreport.com/news/financial-crisis-here-says-usa-rugby
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news...body's finances,only two Six Nations fixtures.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200526-top-14-rugby-clubs-financial-bubble-bursts-due-to-covid-19
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...id-19-pandemic-financial-crisis-restart-plans
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ru...hquake-for-european-rugby-is-coming-1.4219036
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ble-lessons-from-european-super-league-fiasco

AFL, NRL and other large sporting codes have come close to the edge and cash in the bank helps but will not save anyone. Revenue is the key and PE can help grow that via building a product to yield more revenue.

What I do find interesting is the NZRU have been the first to flinch. IMHO, RA is actually in a better position than NZRU right now. RA revenue is on the up from a low base and there is room to grow. With low overheads and access to a bigger TV market and revenue stream RA, if smart can build a ship in contrast to the NZRU who are trying to patch and convert at the same time.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

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.

I do get frustrated that the point of creating a competition where teams can attract more quality players is a better competition means we actually get more fans watching, more dollars, and hence hopefully further expansion which creates opportunities for our players. I have always said I prefer 100 Aussie players and 20 imports playing for 5 teams then 100 aussie players and no imports playing 4 teams as short term we are challenged to support a footprint and need some help whilst try to grow the game (e.g. relying on imports to keep quality up) and part of growing the game is having a base level footprint to stop NRL, AFL and A-league (continuing) to encroach on rugby territory (who mind you have continued to expand whilst until recently rugby shrank its footprint).

 

[Rugbynutter39]

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.

I am expecting my computer to crash when I try to log on to view DP's updated post on this (graphics overload).

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I do get frustrated that the point of creating a competition where teams can attract more quality players is a better competition means we actually get more fans watching, more dollars, and hence hopefully further expansion which creates opportunities for our players. I have always said I prefer 100 Aussie players and 20 imports playing for 5 teams then 100 aussie players and no imports playing 4 teams as short term we are challenged to support a footprint and need some help whilst try to grow the game (e.g. relying on imports to keep quality up) and part of growing the game is having a base level footprint to stop NRL, AFL and A-league (continuing) to encroach on rugby territory (who mind you have continued to expand whilst until recently rugby shrank its footprint).

And I might add Hamish has previously supported by view of better to have imports and sustain a footprint of 5 teams and now apparently our CEO Andy Marinos does too. To me you got to build success short term and sustain the footprint to grow the game and if that means we have to bring in imports to improve the quality of our teams short term whilst rebuild then that is a sensible strategy in the face of ongoing strong and expanding national footprint other footy codes have and threaten rugby's survival with.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...r-depth-problems-marinos-20210517-p57sok.html

 

[Adam84]

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.

Dan read the posts mate.
Posters on here have said over and over that it wouldn’t just be a 5 team competition. They’ve said a domestic competition followed by a trans Tasman. Or if it is to be a straight domestic comp, then grow the numbers, firstly starting with the Drua.

And you seem to think more teams equals more entertainment, this simply isn’t true, and there’s plenty of evidence of where this doesn’t work.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Dan read the posts mate.
Posters on here have said over and over that it wouldn’t just be a 5 team competition. They’ve said a domestic competition followed by a trans Tasman. Or if it is to be a straight domestic comp, then grow the numbers, firstly starting with the Drua.

And you seem to think more teams equals more entertainment, this simply isn’t true, and there’s plenty of evidence of where this doesn’t work.

What is interesting is speaking to other rugby people who are more connected in rugby (ie coach clubs, play rugby for clubs, kids playing rugby) and asking what feedback is on super au from there circle is that definitely appears appetite to retain a domestic competition (although concerns of course raised about tahs as Sydney people speaking to) but beyond that get divergent views on whether domestic only or domestic followed by TT. Most though I have spoken with favour a domestic followed by TT. No one I have spoken to (people in the 30-50 age group) have given any feedback that people are clambering for a TT only. Be interesting to get a survey on this as I am sure there are those that favour a TT only...

 

[Rebels3]

I think people fail to understand that a fully fledged TT comp won’t be 22 weeks home and away plus finals. It’ll be 16 rounds play your own country teams twice plus one pacific team twice and then play the other countries teams once. Which is exactly what we have this year (minus pacific teams).

So we might as well have the positive news story of a separate Aus comp at some stage during the year to raise fan engagement.

There is absolutely no way NZ are signing up to home and away.

Personally I think it’ll end up TT (single round) = 11 weeks
SRAU (single round plus Fiji) = 5 weeks

No matter how it’s packaged it’s going to end up the same amount of games against the same teams. So the conversation needs to be on what’s the most engaging

The 3 formats are probably

1) SRAU (home and away) + TT Which is what we have this year
2) TT (16 weeks)
3) SRAU (single round) + TT (single round)

They all have exactly the same fixtures just different packages

 

[hoggy]

Option 1) is by far the best moving forward from an Australian prospective, IMO.

I would presume then that you would add a pacific team to each country which also makes sense Drua (aus) Pacifika (nz)

It would also make sense to have the domestic component first, this allows for build up of a local fan base, tribalism and the ability to look at scheduling (currently miles behind the other codes)

Also it still incorporates the NZ teams but a single game each year, which helps maintain fan engagement.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

So what everyone here is proposing is close to the same flawed, compromised, 'everyone gets a prize' model that brought us into this whole mess.

 

[hoggy]

So what everyone here is proposing is close to the same flawed, compromised, 'everyone gets a prize' model that brought us into this whole mess.

No, You get a domestic winner and a TT/Champions league winner each year, what part of that is everyone gets a prize.

What we're proposing is a way out of the whole unholy mess that everyone gets a prize got us into.

 

[Rebels3]

So what everyone here is proposing is close to the same flawed, compromised, 'everyone gets a prize' model that brought us into this whole mess.

Previously nobody got a prize

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Australian pool tournament, New Zealand pool tournament, mediocre Australian team/s getting into 'champions league' final/s with better New Zealand team/s missing out (or maybe one day vice-versa). Sounds a lot like the painful Super Rugby tournaments that lead to the pre-COVID disaster.

Just keep it simple and easy to follow instead of dicking around with fragmented structures. It's meaningless games and confusion over what comp they're watching that will keep supporters away ('does this count towards trans tasman or is this only an Au match? I'll watch the UFC instead. No doubting who wins and loses then'). Every team plays each other once, reverse fixture next season. Everyone knows where everyine else stands. Finals series. Not having to watch the Rebels twice in a season (sorry guys, can't help myself). It worked so well before, the only missing ingredient was access outside of Foxtel (thank fuck! We have Foxtel at home and I dread reaching for that remote).

The beauty of the Au tournament over the last two seasons is that the format is easy to follow, and it actually rewards merit. The downside is that there are only 5 teams. If just ONE team is non-competitive, that's a huge chunk of games that are switch-offs with empty grounds. It's been a great recovery from the double whammy of Australian rugby's self-made quagmire as well as the pandemic, but it just doesn't seem sustainable, both for viewers or player development. Expanding Australian teams risks diluting talent and either losing more players overseas or wage bill blowouts, and we saw what a dog's breakfast NRC was in the NSW market.

A simplified Trans-Tasman comp just makes sense once we return to a post-pandemic norm.

 

[Bullrush]

No, You get a domestic winner and a TT/Champions league winner each year, what part of that is everyone gets a prize.

What we're proposing is a way out of the whole unholy mess that everyone gets a prize got us into.

Does this get you a better Wallaby team?

Does SRAU produce better players and coaches that can consistently keep the Wallabies in the top 5 ranked teams?

 

[Dctarget]

Does this get you a better Wallaby team?

Does SRAU produce better players and coaches that can consistently keep the Wallabies in the top 5 ranked teams?

Did the old Super?

 

[hifflepiff]

Does this get you a better Wallaby team?

Does SRAU produce better players and coaches that can consistently keep the Wallabies in the top 5 ranked teams?

The way to get Australia to be a top 5 team is to get more people in Australia watching Union and by extension more kids playing Union.

As we've seen, getting beaten by the Kiwis all year and never having a home grandfinal doesn't do that.

On the other hand, as we saw with Super AU, having a professional domestic competition which Australia has full control over allows us to better engage the Australian market and therefore get more people watching Union.

And to be clear the argument that we'll get worse if we don't play the Kiwis all year doesn't make any sense.

(a) We've got progressively worse anyway despite regularly playing the kiwis for over 20 years.
(b) We would still be playing the Kiwis post season, so who cares?

 

[Dctarget]

As hifflepiff says, it's just a numbers game: more kids, more talent to choose from, better players, better Wallabies.

 

[barbarian]

Australian pool tournament, New Zealand pool tournament, mediocre Australian team/s getting into 'champions league' final/s with better New Zealand team/s missing out (or maybe one day vice-versa). Sounds a lot like the painful Super Rugby tournaments that lead to the pre-COVID disaster.

How is that like Super rugby? The old Super Rugby conference format is very different to the Super AU format, surely that's easy to see.

One is a seperate, self-contained tournament in its own right, the other is just a system of qualification in a larger round robin format. There wasn't a prize for winning the Aussie conference. There wasn't a final.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Did the old Super?

1999 RWC win and 2003 and 2015 finals would suggest 'yes'.

 

[sunnyboys]

RE: the playing kiwi's bit - between Super Rugby and extended Bled series Australia has played nz teams more than any other country over the past 25 years. We've waited and waited but the pay off never came!

Time to try a different strategy - 5 weeks of SRTT and 3 Bleds a year is surely enough exposure.

SRAu has been a great success. RA mgmt surely can't screw this up - the solution is here.

We desperately need fans watching games. SRAu (and FTA/Stan) is getting that headed in the right direction

 

[Teh Other Dave]

How is that like Super rugby? The old Super Rugby conference format is very different to the Super AU format, surely that's easy to see.

One is a seperate, self-contained tournament in its own right, the other is just a system of qualification in a larger round robin format. There wasn't a prize for winning the Aussie conference. There wasn't a final.

Except there's either a 'champions league' with NZ teams which is tantamount to a finals series, or are we dropping the NZ matches ad trying to go it alone with 5 teams?