Where to for Super Rugby?

[The Honey Badger]

This thread moves way too quickly.

You go to the pub for lunch and come back and there are 10 more pages. Mostly rants against the Rugby administrators.

I am a bit fed up with it

The title of the thread is:

Where to for Super Rugby?

lets refocus and keep the discussion on this.

I have taken the liberty of posting a new thread: Rugby Administration

Please take the Rants about the ARU to that thread because it is really sidetracking discussion here,

 

[sidelineview]

Why? i thought the postings were very informative and all related to Super Rugby

 

[brokendown]

the ARU are just a little bit to do with super rugby,are they not?

 

[The Honey Badger]

So back to thread title.


I want to know why NZ gets off scott free.

AU and SA have to take all the pain in the restructure back to S15, NZ dont have to do anything.


It is in every ones interest that Super Rugby thrives, and we need stadiums full and TV viewership high.

When that happens the money starts to flow.


I will say for Super Rugby to be successful n the Southern Hemisphere we need both Melbourne and Perth and fully engage those markets,


My suggestion is, if the game must retract to 15 teams than maybe the it the NZ teams with the most to give.

Assuming the retraction is only temporary and Super rugby may expand again in the future, then why cant NZ cut a team or relocate one of its teams to Melbourne at least till the end of this broadcast deal?

Give Melbourne a team with a red hot chance of winning some games if not the title.

Lets see how the stadiums fill and the TV views fair then.

Just a thought, but NZ. Au and SA all have to make this work, and removing teams from big markets docent seem like a smart way forward

 

[The Honey Badger]

the ARU are just a little bit to do with super rugby,are they not?

too much personal shit about Pulver & co

 

[sidelineview]

This thread moves way too quickly.

You go to the pub for lunch and come back and there are 10 more pages. Mostly rants against the Rugby administrators.

I am a bit fed up with it

The title of the thread is:

Where to for Super Rugby?

lets refocus and keep the discussion on this.

I have taken the liberty of posting a new thread: Rugby Administration

Please take the Rants about the ARU to that thread because it is really sidetracking discussion here,

Are you a moderator HB?

 

[The Honey Badger]

the ARU are just a little bit to do with super rugby,are they not?

Of course, but too much discussion on mismanagement by ARU which not too many disagree with.

Not enough thought on how to improve things.

 

[I like to watch]

So back to thread title.


I want to know why NZ gets off scott free.

AU and SA have to take all the pain in the restructure back to S15, NZ dont have to do anything.


It is in every ones interest that Super Rugby thrives, and we need stadiums full and TV viewership high.

When that happens the money starts to flow.


I will say for Super Rugby to be successful n the Southern Hemisphere we need both Melbourne and Perth and fully engage those markets,


My suggestion is, if the game must retract to 15 teams than maybe the it the NZ teams with the most to give.

Assuming the retraction is only temporary and Super rugby may expand again in the future, then why cant NZ cut a team or relocate one of its teams to Melbourne at least till the end of this broadcast deal?

Give Melbourne a team with a red hot chance of winning some games if not the title.

Lets see how the stadiums fill and the TV views fair then.

Just a thought, but NZ. Au and SA all have to make this work, and removing teams from big markets docent seem like a smart way forward

NZ get off Scot free, cos the NZRU didn't volunteer to cut one of their teams.
The ARU did, that's why we are dropping a team, and that's why this thread is littered with derogatory statements about the ARU's CEO & Boards lack of competence.
That's obviously ignoring the fact, that the only 2 teams it's considered removing, have recently executed seperate agreements with the ARU guaranteeing their participation until at least the scheduled expiration of the current TV deal.

 

[ChargerWA]

So back to thread title.


I want to know why NZ gets off scott free.

AU and SA have to take all the pain in the restructure back to S15, NZ dont have to do anything.


It is in every ones interest that Super Rugby thrives, and we need stadiums full and TV viewership high.

When that happens the money starts to flow.


I will say for Super Rugby to be successful n the Southern Hemisphere we need both Melbourne and Perth and fully engage those markets,


My suggestion is, if the game must retract to 15 teams than maybe the it the NZ teams with the most to give.

Assuming the retraction is only temporary and Super rugby may expand again in the future, then why cant NZ cut a team or relocate one of its teams to Melbourne at least till the end of this broadcast deal?

Give Melbourne a team with a red hot chance of winning some games if not the title.

Lets see how the stadiums fill and the TV views fair then.

Just a thought, but NZ. Au and SA all have to make this work, and removing teams from big markets docent seem like a smart way forward

They got off scot free because they aren't a financial and on field basket case. And they've always had 5, they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they can support 5 teams.

And why would they help us out by relocating a team to Melbourne? Should Victoria quit the Sheffield shield and send a team to the Waikato? Pure madness.

 

[todd4]

When they decide who is going to be kicked out I wonder if they'll hire the United Airlines goons to drag them kicking & screaming out of the comp?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Benaud]

Cutting an NZ team would be crazy. We're already at a point where the Wallabies and Springbox could enter the ITM Cup and not be in the top 5 teams. We can't afford to strengthen them any further.

 

[chibimatty]

It's funny that the ARU haven't gone with the line of cutting a team "only temporarily" with the intention of bringing them back "in the near future."

 

[sidelineview]

Of course, but too much discussion on mismanagement by ARU which not too many disagree with.

Not enough thought on how to improve things.

What other suggestions do you have to improve things HB?
Or what suggestions do you have to sort this train wreck out?

 

[TOCC]

ARU and their ability, or lack there of, are pivotal to the future direction of Super Rugby... making a new thread does nothing but split the same discussion across multiple threads..

We can't pretend that the two issues aren't one and the same, that's wilful ignorance.

 

[sidelineview]

ARU and their ability, or lack there of, are pivotal to the future direction of Super Rugby. making a new thread does nothing but split the same discussion across multiple threads..

We can't pretend that the two issues aren't one the same, that's wilful ignorance.

I think old HB was a bit hasty in making that decision or rather venting that reaction .....
Better to keep all relevant discussions here.

 

[dru]

All Super Rugby teams should launch a class-action against SANZAAAR for the ongoing speculation damaging their bottom line, this debacle is now entering its 9th month.

Not SANZAAR in Aus, though. ARU.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's funny that the ARU haven't gone with the line of cutting a team "only temporarily" with the intention of bringing them back "in the near future."

That must be part of that strategic thinking stuff from the board.

 

[RedsHappy]

When I have re-read the Rebels statement there's an interesting refererence therein that the forecast $6m saving from a team cull should be routed back to the Super teams and that grassroots funding should be sourced instead from a better allocation of other ARU funds.

The thought has certainly occurred to me that Cox could well be angling in all this debacle for a higher amount and longer duration of ARU subsidy to the Rebels than that agreed in 2015. Rumours are strong that he foresees the investment required to sustain the Rebels as much larger and over a longer period than was first budgeted. What a surprise.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

NZ get off Scot free, cos the NZRU didn't volunteer to cut one of their teams.

The ARU did, that's why we are dropping a team, and that's why this thread is littered with derogatory statements about the ARU's CEO & Boards lack of competence.

That's obviously ignoring the fact, that the only 2 teams it's considered removing, have recently executed seperate agreements with the ARU guaranteeing their participation until at least the scheduled expiration of the current TV deal.

The bigger issue NZ has is that SA and OZ are likely (or at least should) be removing their focus on Super Rugby as the pinnacle and looking to strengthen their domestic competition and/or finding alternatives that better support their domestic teams. So NZ can't just sit there and think Super Rugby can continue to be beneficial to them without change as they will end up not having many others to play them or watch them outside of NZ.

Hence, NZ do seriously need to consider alternatives as Super Rugby in its current format is dead imo beyond this current broadcast deal.

 

[dru]

Does anyone know what the chat out of SA is ?

If the ARU is a train crash in slo mo, SARU is multiple train crashes going freeze frame by freeze frame.

SARU have called together a cutting criteria recommendation group. Think it is reps from the franchises. Criteria then go forward to another group to review the franchises performance against those criteria. Recomended back to the SARU general board for approval. In June by the planning.

Stack of steps open to interference. And each of those groups have different make up and power in the hands of the various rugby provinces. Generally though, the franchises have more voting power, then the larger unions, then the small fry.

There has also been a recent political head rolling session by the governing party of South Africa, or actually by President Zuma. The least important being a new Minister for Sport. This role is about radically pushing transformation. The new bloke is something of an unknown. As usual not much has transparancy, but it is understood that the Ministry of Sport has given reluctant tacit support for SARU to chase the RWC and SARU has given reluctant tacit support to make Eastern (Cape) Province a Super Rugby franchise.

Because of financial matters led by the infamous Cheeky Watson, EPRU (the rugby union that would have been behind the Kings except SARU found it cheaper to have them liquidated) do not have a vote at SARU and were recently kicked out of the Currie Cup. Or more accurately relegated from Premier to First Division where they play well known rugby stalwarts - like the Namibian Welwitschias.

So Kings being cut is a bit like Waratahs being cut but offered entry into Subbies, not Shute Shield. You'd be mad to think there wont be political out fall.

In the mean time, the presumption from the white press and the SA rugby world is that Kings go, Cheetahs go. The process smells of nothing more than a future justification with responsibility spread around, and heaps of opportunity for people to opt out or defer if it gets too hot.

Cheetahs, or more accurately Free State (Northern Cape) breed Springboks, have previous history of failing to merge with other franchises (remember the cats?) and won Currie Cup Premier last year.

But these presumptions of who get cut are yet to really hit the well-oiled machine of transformation.