Where to for Super Rugby?

[TOCC]

I really cannot see this model working for Super Rugby. Those codes have budgets that just about every other sport can dream of. They would nearly be the three biggest codes globally. That much money has meant a much more professional environment. In comparison the people running Super Rugby clubs are complete amateurs.
.

I used them as an example since they arguably represent some of the most lucrative competitions in the world, they weren't always that way, and seemingly referencing a less successful competition wouldn't achieve the same effect.

The main point is having a body which is looking out to protect the competition and looking to serve the interests of the clubs and not governing bodies or political influence.

I just have zero confidence in the current SANZAAR construct... it's an archaic organisation that is rife with inefficiency, nepotism and political influence.

 

[Ulrich]

I still think there should be 2 tiers of Super Rugby with promotion-relegation. That way the tier 1 competition will house the best teams at all times. Even if they were 5 Kiwi teams, 3 Aus teams and 3 SA teams and the Jaguares for example.

The 6 remaining teams can hit it out against one another in the second tier fighting for promotion for the next season.

 

[TOCC]

We already have the mechanism. Match fee's.

I don't necessarily agree with match fees, reduce match day fees and place a greater emphasis on the actual contract.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We already have the mechanism. Match fee's.

The problem with Match fees is you pay your reserve TH who nobody else in the world wants, just as much as your star full back who is in demand across codes as well as around the Rugby World.

There's not a way to pay more to the stars to retain them - everyone gets paid the same. It's great for youngsters and journeymen, but a paycut for the big boys.

With the Wallabies playing 15 games a year (with much higher ratings and much bigger crowds than a super team) it's going to be a significant portion of a players yearly earn

 

[mudskipper]

At this point I like to know who owns the Brumbies trademark name?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

A 16-team, full round-Robin comp can only happen if SARU give up both the equal travel & two home QF concessions they fought so long for. They'll give up the latter more readily than the former. I'm also not sure how you reconcile ARU wanting as many derby matches as possible with NZR & SARU wanting the bare minimum so as not to detract from the M10 & Currie Cups. I think we're likely to end up replacing one convoluted structure with another, to no obvious gain.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If the franchises were to achieve independence and negotiate their own deal the monies they would otherwise recieve from the ARU be replaced by their share of the deal. The match fee's for international duty would be a bonus.

No rugby has been evolved on a wrong model which has restricted it's domestic growth. League should be an inferior game and only evolved and grown because other codes like rugby not evolved...

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[half]

Most are aware I want more teams not less.

I feel quite strange, reading posts on who should be in who should be out, how horrible the ARU are.

Its kinda a surreal feeling.

I can't believe the ARU is so close to cutting a side.

I actually never through it would come to this.

Part of me wants to burst into song and roar out the words to "You will never walk alone" in defiance of the decision as if by doing this it may in some way help. Then logic kicks in and I realise this is out of our hands.

The famous suits many have had a crack at me over the years for attacking are sitting in judgement and making decisions which I / we are hopeless to prevent or have any input.

For the love of the holy mother Mary no consultation with fans in any of the countries. We are being controlled by statistical trend analysis specialist running their excel programs to predict future patterns and viewership. Never are the suits questioning why the exist and the flaws in their own decision making. Never have they considered they are a large part of the problem and the fall in ratings etc is IMO largely their fault.

As I often say we have been totally out played in the board rooms and we are going to help league and especially the A-league if whats reported comes to pass.

I am deeply sadden nay I am not, I have reached a point of disbelief and am very close to walking away. There is no joy anymore its all political.

Maybe I feel different tomorrow .

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Anyhoo & FWIW I think the Force will be kept & replace whichever team SARU cuts in a re-named "Africa Group" & we'll get four four-team conferences, the winner of each will get a home QF.

The two four-team Australasian conferences could be arranged either geographically (North Island plus Queensland, South Island plus NSW plus ACT or Melbourne (or a hybrid thereof)) or odds-and-evens by results, hopefully over a period of several years.

Similarly the non-Australasian ones (sorry Force, that's what you get for being closer to Durban than Sydney) could be geographic (e.g. Sunwolves, Force, Sharks, Bulls & Lions, Cheetahs, Stormers, Jaguares) or results-based as for the Australasian Group.

Format-wise it seems to me that a full round-Robin isn't an option due to travel considerations & the broadcasters won't accept significantly fewer matches overall (& in similar time zones) than under the current format. So maybe home & away v everyone in your Conference (six matches) plus home OR away v everyone else in your Group (four matches) & everyone in one of the Conferences in the other Group plus two in the other Conference in that Group (six matches, total of 16) followed by the usual QF, SF, GF. (For better or (IMO) worse I think we're stuck with the Conference winners getting a home QF regardless of where they finish on the overall points table c.f. the wildcards).

All of the above is obviously predicated on a 16-team comp with SA & Australia each cutting a team based on a variety of factors that won't necessarily be the same for ARU as for SARU (or the broadcasters who I believe will have the ultimate say given they're paying for the comp).

 

[Wilson]

Whatever ends up happening I hope the use the opportunity to clean up some of the common sense issues that have come in recently. Things like returning to set geographical branding in all team names and ensuring they schedule in recurring special rounds like Anzac clashes and a history round.

These things won't make or break the competition but we really need every little bonus when it comes to actually selling the product. Ideally that'll come with no test break, but that's on world rugby at this stage.

 

[Benaud]

I'm anticipating in 2020, we'll be watching Super 12 again, and it will be the same 12 teams that contested the last Super 12 in 2005!

Whether that is enough to save the concept from extinction is another question. But I've already lost interest this year. The Kiwi teams are so much better than the rest there's no competition to get excited about. I suspect the only hope is to drastically reduce the number of teams elsewhere so the quality of what is left is competitive enough to make it worth watching again.

 

[Quick Hands]

Anyhoo & FWIW I think the Force will be kept & replace whichever team SARU cuts in a re-named "Africa Group" & we'll get four four-team conferences, the winner of each will get a home QF.

The two four-team Australasian conferences could be arranged either geographically (North Island plus Queensland, South Island plus NSW plus ACT or Melbourne (or a hybrid thereof)) or odds-and-evens by results, hopefully over a period of several years.

Similarly the non-Australasian ones (sorry Force, that's what you get for being closer to Durban than Sydney) could be geographic (e.g. Sunwolves, Force, Sharks, Bulls & Lions, Cheetahs, Stormers, Jaguares) or results-based as for the Australasian Group.

Format-wise it seems to me that a full round-Robin isn't an option due to travel considerations & the broadcasters won't accept significantly fewer matches overall (& in similar time zones) than under the current format. So maybe home & away v everyone in your Conference (six matches) plus home OR away v everyone else in your Group (four matches) & everyone in one of the Conferences in the other Group plus two in the other Conference in that Group (six matches, total of 16) followed by the usual QF, SF, GF. (For better or (IMO) worse I think we're stuck with the Conference winners getting a home QF regardless of where they finish on the overall points table c.f. the wildcards).

All of the above is obviously predicated on a 16-team comp with SA & Australia each cutting a team based on a variety of factors that won't necessarily be the same for ARU as for SARU (or the broadcasters who I believe will have the ultimate say given they're paying for the comp).

I suggested a while ago that the Force would be better off logistically playing in an SA conference. At the moment their travel is horrendous back and forth between the east coat and NZ to Perth and then over to SA. May even be better from a TV perspective. For example last week the Force played a 7.30pm game on Friday against the Brumbies. That's 4.30pm in Perth - many of their supporters would still be at work, or on the way home from work or school.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Mehrtens has suggested it should be a comp based roughly around Aus/NZ time zone, with Japanese other Asian and pacific island teams.
I suspect that's 2 rejigs away if it were to happen.

 

[Dan54]

It's called bargainning.

I agree WCR, it's not demanding but bargaining and in the set up we got noone can DEMAND anything, and I suspect while it takes 100% to agree it even makes bargaining difficult.

 

[p.Tah]

At this point I like to know who owns the Brumbies trademark name?

Probably Canberra Uni

 

[TOCC]

At the mercy of South African politicians... Christ what a mess, ARU needs to grow some balls and jettison South Africa

Perhaps that was for the best because the ARU is seemingly sidelined until there is some resolution from South Africa about what is to be done with the Southern Kings. The African National Congress and the South African government have been strong supporters of the predominantly black Kings but the side has won only three matches out of 18 since coming into the competition last year.

One of the questions to be ascertained, apparently, is how the government would react if SANZAAR moved to jettison it.

Self-generated chaos is the best way to summarise all this, SANZAAR have battered their own brands reputation due to their own poor decision making

It is understood that the Australian Super Rugby chief executives were both relieved and mystified at yesterday’s briefing from the ARU. “A load of nothing,” is how one CEO described it.

But there is also intense anger building that the whole issue of Super Rugby future has been so monumentally mismanaged. The Super Rugby brand has been trashed — and to what end?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[p.Tah]

^^^ it's the 13 broadcasters that can potentially veto any new proposal that's is troubling as well

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I suggested a while ago that the Force would be better off logistically playing in an SA conference. At the moment their travel is horrendous back and forth between the east coat and NZ to Perth and then over to SA. May even be better from a TV perspective. For example last week the Force played a 7.30pm game on Friday against the Brumbies. That's 4.30pm in Perth - many of their supporters would still be at work, or on the way home from work or school.

Not ever thought of Force in a Africa conference.

My first thought is we need more Oz local derbies and be part of a more local professional competition. But granted alas we are at this stage not big enough market demand wise to host our own...so hence Trans Tasman option found interesting option if could get traction.

If Force joining Africa conference as short term option might be better- as can't see Trans tasman set-up short term - but I really wonder if they would have put that option forward and how commercially viable that would be. Not about to dismiss it either as maybe has some merit.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Finally got to read Wayne Barnes article the other day...What he eloquently put if decision to cut Oz team is made how there is no clear cut answer which team it should be.

Rebels have bigger market to play and privately owned.....There was other reason as well which forgotten.

Brumbies one of most successful Franchises

And Force outside Reds and Waratahs have one of most fruitful pathway conversions of local talent to Super Rugby players with 43% of their squad local pathway players.

I can't believe we are sitting discussing the prospect of cutting a team as we want to grow the game and having less professional teams than NZ and SA who have professional competitions outside of Super Rugby means we only further widen the gap between OZ and NZ and SA.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I agree WCR, it's not demanding but bargaining and in the set up we got noone can DEMAND anything, and I suspect while it takes 100% to agree it even makes bargaining difficult.

In order to initiate the bargainning process you have to first issue some demands and then start from there.