Where to for Super Rugby?

[Bullrush]

You’ve missed the point Bullrush..
Unless its a two way street then this doesn’t work, especially flowing from NZ to Australia. This would have only further weakened Australian Super Rugby teams competitiveness. It’s not good enough to invest everything in the Wallabies, Australia needs success at Super Rugby level as well.

I’m happy for JOC (James O'Connor) to play for the Chiefs, if the NZRU allow Beauden Barrett to play for the Reds…What’s shortsighted is that this isn‘t supported right now.

Because NZ doesn't NEED it's players playing in Australia. JOC (James O'Connor) at the Chiefs may have weakened the Reds for one season but what might he have learnt playing in the NZ environment.

I think you and I both would like to see an open market in Super Rugby but let's not pretend that NZR are the only ones who aren't keen on it.

 

[Adam84]

Because NZ doesn't NEED it's players playing in Australia. JOC (James O'Connor) at the Chiefs may have weakened the Reds for one season but what might he have learnt playing in the NZ environment.

I think you and I both would like to see an open market in Super Rugby but let's not pretend that NZR are the only ones who aren't keen on it.

What NZRU NEEDS is a competitive and healthy Super Rugby competition, both countries treat each other as the enemy even in player recruitment and retention when they could be used to enhance both national teams.

Increasingly competitive Australian teams assists the development of Kiwi teams and players as well… further weakening one half of the tournament doesn’t achieve this.

 

[Bullrush]

Ahh of course, we’re back to the Aratipu Report, what a fucken disaster that was.

It was so naieve and shortsighted, it spent zero effort in understanding the Australian rugby supporter base or economic implications, its sole purpose was on how does Australia ’enable‘ New Zealand rugby, and made no effort at all to consider what is best for Australia.

You’ve made the same mistake, assuming that the only measure of where a team should go, or be based is made on the number of available players in that area right now. That is not the way to expand the game in the region! Just a look at the NRL and AFL, they have increased the value of their codes by growing into regions which have significant growth potential, in both players and economically. That’s how you grow a game, not by cutting teams from markets which represent 8million people and that’s what NZRU wanted to do.

Who gives a crap if the players are kiwi or Australian, open the flood gates and let it flow both ways. It works for NRL and fans don’t give a shit if its a kiwi/samoan/Tongan player In their team, they support the fact they have competitive teams to support.

Neither NZR or RA are keen to see player freedom so as much as we want to see it, its unlikely at least in the short term. You don't have to sell me on the idea, I think I was one of the first here to push it!

The NRL hasn't always expanded. The NRL cut teams and had mergers and have added only 2 teams in 21 years and even then, one was forced through legal action! So yeah - maybe RA does need to follow the NRL model a bit closer if that's the one you want to follow.

RA could do the hard yards and commit to domestic and local competitions to grow the game at the grass roots like the NRL and AFL. It's not NZRs fault that they haven't.

 

[Bullrush]

What NZRU NEEDS is a competitive and healthy Super Rugby competition, both countries treat each other as the enemy even in player recruitment and retention when they could be used to enhance both national teams.

Increasingly competitive Australian teams assists the development of Kiwi teams and players as well… further weakening one half of the tournament doesn’t achieve this.

I don't disagree with you and I have said that numerous times here. NZ NEEDS Australia.

Would JOC (James O'Connor) got more as a player and a Wallaby playing for the Chiefs than for the Reds?

 

[Adam84]

Neither NZR or RA are keen to see player freedom so as much as we want to see it, its unlikely at least in the short term. You don't have to sell me on the idea, I think I was one of the first here to push it!

The NRL hasn't always expanded. The NRL cut teams and had mergers and have added only 2 teams in 21 years and even then, one was forced through legal action! So yeah - maybe Australia does need to follow the NRL model a bit closer if that's the model you want to follow.

RA could do the hard yards and commit to a domestic competition to grow the game at the grass roots like the NRL and AFL. It's not NZRs fault that they haven't.

Hard yards cost money… money comes from selling marketable products like a healthy and competitive Super Rugby competition.

Its like the chicken and egg argument….

I’m not blaming NZRU for it at all, but i am saying if RA/NZRU cant achieve a competitive super rugby tournament with assistance and compromise, then RA needs to go its own way because losing teams is not a pathway for growth.

 

[Adam84]

I don't disagree with you and I have said that numerous times here. NZ NEEDS Australia.

Would JOC (James O'Connor) got more as a player and a Wallaby playing for the Chiefs than for the Reds?

Honestly i dont know, but i think NZRU/RA should still pay the Test players a top-up regardless of playing in NZ or Australia. Maybe it equates to 50% or 75% top-up if they opt to play across the Tasman but as long as they’re still playing for the test team and available for all camps etc, then it shouldn’t matter.

 

[Bullrush]

Hard yards cost money… money comes from selling marketable products like a healthy and competitive Super Rugby competition.

Its like the chicken and egg argument….

From what I understand, the NPC has lost money in NZ for years and it is propped up the success and income from the ABs.

Off on a bit of a tangent here but for an organisation that is desperate for local engagement, I haven't seen anything like 'desperate' from my Super Rugby team here - the Brumbies.

My son has been playing rugby for the last 4 years in Canberra through his school. Canberra is obviously not a huge area and only has 7 clubs and a few schools who play. In 4 years, I think the Brumbies have been around once. From what I have seen and heard, there isn't much involvement from them right through the grades. When Jake White was coaching, he implemented a policy where every player had to be connected to a club but I think that's gone by the wayside. I think some of the boys who come through Vikings are still involved there to some degree but to me, it's little wonder rugby plays 2nd or 3rd fiddle to NRL/AFL etc

 

[Dan54]

I think RA do what they can but also lack of choices means they don’t end up with the ideal. The lack of choices is funding related.

Come on Dan you yourself have admitted this is a largely kiwi designed competition. And every time you make excuses for nzru like with MP (Moana Pasifika). So why not have the same exemption given to Drua or oz super rugby sides as last time I checked they all have some challenges. Of course nzru can never do anything wrong in your eyes and no self interest behind any of this.

Hang on mate, I have been reading for the last few months (and you are one of posters that was for it) that Australia COULD go alone etc etc, and it would be a bloody great comp. Now you saying they can't . mate I no need to make excuses, but you have to admit that all we see is how hard done Aus rugby is done by, all it seems to be is we can't stand on our own feet, we need extra assistance , we can't be in a super comp because either the kiwi teams are too good etc etc. Now your own Rugby board have negotiated a comp that they indicate they are happy with, and all you got to say is it's not fair. So do you think your rugby board made correct decision to join the super comp, or do you think they are obviously not very good? You can't keep playing the victim mate, much as you sem to enjoy it.
We read all last year how Hamish was a Knight in shining armour who stood up to the NZR, so tell me what's changed? Just maybe it was never as bad as what some said? And why have the NZR not given same to Drua and Aus for AB players, you may have to ask Hamish or Leapfrog, as I have no idea. And I would add there are plenty of very good rugby players in NZ who can be employed by Australian teams if they wanted that aren't of AB quality, why aren't they picking them up?

And one other thing I would add RN, if this is a kiwi designed comp. you mind telling me what the Aussie designed comp looked like? See if there is not one and it is indeed a kiwi designed comp you must be grateful there is a board that actually put one forward!!

 

[Dan54]

I don't disagree with you and I have said that numerous times here. NZ NEEDS Australia.

Would JOC (James O'Connor) got more as a player and a Wallaby playing for the Chiefs than for the Reds?

Answer to that question is apparently both countries have same player budget, well according to Western force CEO who says that they have same constraints as NZ teams.

 

[Bullrush]

Answer to that question is apparently both countries have same player budget, well according to Western force CEO who says that they have same constraints as NZ teams.

Sorry bro - I wasn't talking about money.

 

[Joe King]

We need to be careful not to group NZR and NZ fans together, or RA and AU fans together. What they want isn't always the same.

Neither NZR or RA got their ideal, but I think both are happy with the outcome. The fans on the other hand...

The competition structure actually has the potential to be really great commercially and as a spectacle, but without equally competitive teams, it has the potential to be a disaster as a spectacle, and therefore, commercially.

There is no way RA could not be anticipating this and be working on a plan (although the ARU has been completely blinded by the commercial side of things before).

We can't hold it against NZR if they don't want player freedom. They need to be free to do what they think is best for the AB's if that's their highest priority. On the other hand, some recent noise has never sounded more positive towards this.

However, I don't think it's going to change quick enough to fix the problem. And even if there is a change after a couple of years, it will probably only be a tweak.

I'd be happy if the Super Rugby AU teams (minus test players) played a home and away from August - October with a final, in place of the NRC. It's probably the cheapest and easiest way to get some improvement in the AU teams. While most players are already contracted, it gives the fringe players a run, and more importantly, it develops greater cohesion. That's got to have some sort of positive impact leading into the following season of SRP (Super Rugby Pacific).

I wouldn't be surprised if Fijian Drua wanted the extra game time as well. That's 6 teams over 11 weeks. Any Wallabies needing a bit of game time between the RC and the November tour could easily jump in.

 

[Joe King]

Hey, does anybody know why the talk is Fijian Drua will play out of Qld instead of Western Sydney? Has NSWRU said they don't want them there?

 

[kiap]

I'd be happy if the Super Rugby AU teams (minus test players) played a home and away from August - October with a final in place of the NRC.

With the 5 (+ poss. Fiji) teams you suggest, that idea is OK.

Would be 80% the same as the NRC - in which case, rather than yet another name, keep a modicum of continuity and call it the NRC.

To me, having an Super Rugby AU means franchises playing with their test players (otherwise don't call it 'super rugby').

Would much prefer a 5 week round-robin of Super Rugby AU in late Feb-March which then leads into Super Rugby Pacific (11 rounds+bye, semis and final only).

Ship has sailed tho (for now).

 

[kiap]

Hey, does anybody know why the talk is Fijian Drua will play out of Qld instead of Western Sydney? Has NSWRU said they don't want them there?

Warmer climate closer to Fiji in distance and temperature? Dunno.

When is the possible start date, 2022?

Without covid, 2021 would be great. Kick off next month!

 

[Adam84]

Answer to that question is apparently both countries have same player budget, well according to Western force CEO who says that they have same constraints as NZ teams.

Source for this comment?

 

[Dan54]

Source for this comment?

Um I will see if I can find it, was in same report where supposedly Twiggy or someone has said theirs is NOT a limitless budget. Pretty sure I read it in last week or so.

 

[Adam84]

Um I will see if I can find it, was in same report where supposedly Twiggy or someone has said theirs is NOT a limitless budget. Pretty sure I read it in last week or so.

Yes I’m interested..
I’ve never seen the Western Force CEO say they have the same constraints as New Zealand teams, he has said they have the same constraints as Australian teams… However Australian and New Zealand teams have different player distribution requirements, grant distributions and salary cap constraints.

 

[MarkJ]

When Jake White was coaching, he implemented a policy where every player had to be connected to a club but I think that's gone by the wayside. I think some of the boys who come through Vikings are still involved there to some degree but to me, it's little wonder rugby plays 2nd or 3rd fiddle to NRL/AFL etc

All Brumbies players are still attached to a local club (club allocations listed against the players here - https://brumbies.rugby/news/2021/01/05/brumbies-super-rugby-squad-2021 )

 

[Bullrush]

All Brumbies players are still attached to a local club (club allocations listed against the players here - https://brumbies.rugby/news/2021/01/05/brumbies-super-rugby-squad-2021 )

I don't play club rugby anymore but the guys I know who are still involved have told me that the players are there in name only. That might not be true but it seems it is left up to each player to do as they want when it comes to clubs.

Again, in terms of school grade rugby, they are next to non-existent. That's not on the players, that's on the organisation.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Adam vs B.Ullrush In This Thread: