Where to for Super Rugby?

[BLR]

Where is the talent equalisation? The Highlanders did win the comp with what was essentially a no name squad. That year the Crusaders would have had an overall salary level that was massively higher than the Highlanders which is the exact situation everyone is complaining about in Australia.

Likewise the Chiefs who had a big group of All Blacks.

It doesn't matter about All Blacks or Wallabies, it is overall equalisation of talented players. Like when around 5 years ago the Brumbies had warehoused some of the best flyhalfs in the country and the Force had to look at has-beens, call that bad recruiting perhaps but this still needs to be looked at.

From what I understand the NZRU essentially tell the franchises what they want to be done and if a player in Auckland is being misused or not playing, well let him go, that's why the Highlanders with a team of supposed nobodies won, because they were seen as surplus to requirements elsewhere. I don't see this as being an opportunity in Australian rugby as the top ups are so ridiculously high that the salary cap can perhaps accommodate a reducing of these mass top ups so the hoarding of talent continues.

The ARU's view is that concentrating talent in a couple of teams will form combinations etc. so the top ups are centralised in a lucky few, but that causes the other teams to starve.

The NZRU makes it known how they want NZ Rugby to be and that is what is done for all teams, so the success is based on how the team runs itself, from the wasteful Blues system to the outstanding Crusaders management system, but they are given the OPPORTUNITY to succeed which has not yet been afforded to the Rebels or the Force, when you look at things such as top up figures and how expansion teams are dealt with in other sports and how weak NZ teams have been dragged up by the bootlaces despite some of the provinces having weak local catchments.

 

[cyclopath]

Watching Super Rugby Kick and Chase (not sure why), and they're all over Cheika re the "uncertainty" for players and what he thinks of Turinui's statements today. I'm not sure he's really involved with the process of deciding which team goes, and a bit poor trying to get him to endorse or otherwise Turinui's quite valid beef with the ARU. He looked pretty uncomfortable. A bit awkward really.

 

[biggsy]

Watching Super Rugby Kick and Chase (not sure why),

Because there was no Rugby Podcast last week and like myself you resorted to 2nd best...

 

[cyclopath]

Because there was no Rugby Podcast last week and like myself you resorted to 2nd best.

He he. I'm not sure it's second!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Watching Super Rugby Kick and Chase (not sure why), and they're all over Cheika re the "uncertainty" for players and what he thinks of Turinui's statements today. I'm not sure he's really involved with the process of deciding which team goes, and a bit poor trying to get him to endorse or otherwise Turinui's quite valid beef with the ARU. He looked pretty uncomfortable. A bit awkward really.

Geez he lost me with that.
Suggesting the players have the key to certainty in their own heads or hands.
Condescending rubbish and lacking empathy.
Did he also hint that maybe no oz team is gone?

 

[BLR]

Geez he lost me with that.
Suggesting the players have the key to certainty in their own heads or hands.
Condescending rubbish and lacking empathy.

Well they do, they can get certainty from signing with the Tahs.

 

[cyclopath]

Geez he lost me with that.
Suggesting the players have the key to certainty in their own heads or hands.
Condescending rubbish and lacking empathy.
Did he also hint that maybe no oz team is gone?

Yeah, it was an odd response. As I said, I'm not sure why they felt it was a good idea to put him on the spot about the whole process since he neither has a role in it, nor is he going to want to bag his employer on television. He looked like he was really winging that answer, and it was a busted wing!

 

[cyclopath]

Well they do, they can get certainty from signing with the Tahs.

Or the Reds, or the Brumbies.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well they do, they can get certainty from signing with the Tahs.

Only wallabies!

 

[Quick Hands]

The players we lose overseas who hurt us the most are the young ones who have played some tests, have a big future ahead of them but are just outside the Wallaby top up system and so have the most to gain financially by heading overseas.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

These are the ones we can keep by letting the older ones go and not paying the Giteaus, Mitchell's, et al for coming back.

If the young guys know that no matter what they do, it's always possible for the Wallabies to bring an overseas player back, then it provides no real incentive for them to stay. On the other hand, if they see the older guys sign overseas (without the option to come back for the Wallabies), it gives them a big incentive to stay. Perhaps some short term pain, but long term it's a better way to operate IMO. (And this has been my consistent postion since the rule was first mooted)

 

[Quick Hands]

The ARU currently gets about 60 million a year in tv rights in total of which about half is relative to Wallaby matches so it's very hard to see how a comp of this nature would attract anywhere what's needed especially if you consider how much of the current TV money comes from SA and NZ

But all of the super money is eaten up by expenses - it doesn't actually lead to any of the teams making a profit.

 

[Gnostic]

I know for a fact big bad Billy P wanted to sack KB (Kurtley Beale) but, as any astute leadership would do in a sensitive situation with accusations of partisan treatment being thrown around, the ARU hired an independent panel to review the situation and the rest in history.



The KB (Kurtley Beale) incident opened up a can of worms, and not everything they eventuated can be pinned upon him.



Remember, Ewen didn't have to resign. He chose to, for specific reasons, and the burden of that decision rests with him.



Now for fuck sake can we never talk about it again.

The ARU would love that, a key indiscretion and a prime example of the total lack of integrity could be swept under the carpet.

This is a big part of the problem in Australian Rugby, a lack of accountability for the roles that people have filled and behaviours of people at all levels. Integrity is vital to the long term health of the game. I have been banging on about integrity for years, the lack of it in the systems and personnel. As far back as the 2003 RWC as I've stated and the lack JON displayed in dealing with the NZRU, the Tiquiri incidents, the sophistry of the signing of players for a following season to make them eligible for selection despite not giving service to the local game in THAT year. The Beale/Patston was ONE of the latest examples of the ARU's total lack of integrity in systems and management, and the "independent" panel was not and was window dressing on the sham gave them the outcome that allowed the dirty laundry to be locked in the cupboard, until the next payout that is. AND Link resigning, well when you have been in a couple of untenable situations you can "choose" to resign and minimise damage, not just to yourself but to others, and leave or you can hold on and make them sack you which may just have a massively high price tag attached to it in terms of outcomes for others. I am sure the burden probably rests on him, but in a system with integrity we could have faith that the decision was warranted.

All these issues can be discussed in isolation but they are symptoms of what is actually wrong. and until the managerial issues are addressed and reformed we should not forget the fundamental failures that have characterised the ARU in the professional era.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

^^^
fuck me i'm tired of hearing about Beale/Patston.

I haven't heard it mentioned for years.
I think this thread just jumped the shark - how did it become relevant? The title is where to not where from

 

[BLR]

I haven't heard it mentioned for years.
I think this thread just jumped the shark - how did it become relevant? The title is where to not where from

The answer to both is Kurtley Beale?

 

[D-Box]

The problem with the spread of talent across the 5 super rugby teams is not at the top end, but rather the next level down. I don't understand how the ARU allows for consecutive seasons the situation when player number 1 in a position in the country is starting and the nominated successor is sitting on the bench. Yes it may happen that the new kid on the block pushes up into that position but the next year one should be shared out. Surely we are better having players like to be in the wallaby squad starting regularly, not getting 20 off the bench.

Even worse is when the next great thing is warehoused and getting no game time. We all seem to agree our coaches ate crap so the players aren't getting better holding tackle bags. We should be letting them go to a club where they are needed and getting game time.

A lot of this may be fixed by centralisation but currently the clubs are just looking out for themselves

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

I haven't heard it mentioned for years.

I think this thread just jumped the shark - how did it become relevant? The title is where to not where from

You can't really change the destination of the road you are on. You need to change roads. A road starts somewhere and the road we have been on has taken us slowly from a worlds best rugby nation in the late 80s through to the retirement of the amateur players in the early 00's to one that outperformed in 2015 to maintain a WR (World Rugby) ranking far beyond its actual performances deserve in 2016. To understand where we want to go we have to understand why the road we are on turned to so much shit, or the road less travelled will turn out to be the same as the road we are on.

 

[James Pettifer]

Well they do, they can get certainty from signing with the Tahs.

Or by going overseas.

If I was a player who was unsure of a position in Australia, I'd definitely be going overseas at this point.

 

[James Pettifer]

I haven't heard it mentioned for years.
I think this thread just jumped the shark - how did it become relevant? The title is where to not where from

I think we were talking about the complete inability of the ARU to manage any sort of public relations issue. That was a pretty good example of another case where they didn't exactly control the media messaging very well and was for an issue which was a lot more contained. This is of course worse, but what would we expect.

 

[James Pettifer]

It's a really complex issue and you can't solve one without causing issues to the other.

I agree with pretty much all of your points and this one most importantly. It is a really really complex issue. If it was simple, then I am sure someone would have come up with a solution which works. But that then goes back to is Super Rugby in Australia for generating Wallabies or a club competition.

And obviously the fundamental issue of where should Australian rugby is also extremely complex.

I just can't see going down to 4 teams helping. It might get us through the next couple of years but after 2020, we will see a massive reduction in revenue from TV rights as I am sure that we won't get the same proportion of the overall deal and it is very likely that the overall deal will be lower in value (due to a combination of the downturn in ratings and the overall expected downturn in broadcast right dollars).

I'm still for biting the bullet. Going to a domestic league and taking control of rugby in Australia. Accepting that we are going to lose some more players in the short term but that we will have something that we can grow the game from.

Ice Hockey has managed to have a league in Australia for 16 years - why on earth can't rugby do the same (yes, their players aren't paid, but 28 games a year per team can't be cheap).

 

[oztimmay]

Another twist in this whole saga...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk