Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

This just got twittered but its out of Sth Africa
Georgina Robinson Retweeted


1 NEWS - Sport‏Verified account @1NewsSportNZ 21m21 minutes ago

​

More​

#BREAKING: Three teams to be cut from @SuperRugby, including Southern Kings https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/rugby/exclusive-three-teams-cut-super-rugby-including-southern-kings…

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spo...eams-cut-super-rugby-including-southern-kings

I wonder if we will see a 3x5 team conference (play own conf twice and other teams once), this will also keep broadcasters happy as the 18 week comp would make up for the loss in content through the loss of 3 teams.

Or

A straight round robin of only 14 weeks!

Thoughts?

 

[Omar Comin']

If we were to lose a franchise I would hope that the ARU would use any savings tp better resource and expand the NRC. Double its length and a greater level of promotion would go a long way.

I doubt that would work out, it's too confusing and too obviously a development competition. Any genuine professional national comp here has to contain the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force.

 

[half]

This just got twittered but its out of Sth Africa
Georgina Robinson Retweeted


1 NEWS - Sport‏Verified account @1NewsSportNZ 21m21 minutes ago

​

More​

#BREAKING: Three teams to be cut from @SuperRugby, including Southern Kings https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/rugby/exclusive-three-teams-cut-super-rugby-including-southern-kings…

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spo...eams-cut-super-rugby-including-southern-kings

A scary way of reading that, is has the SA team going been named meaning two other sides not from SA are to go.

Does it in a coded way say two Australian teams to go.

Given the SA rating and the Australian rating I always wondered if cutting two SA teams would be achievable.

 

[Rebels3]

I doubt that would work out, it's too confusing and too obviously a development competition. Any genuine professional national comp here has to contain the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force.

What about (if the comp is only a 14 week round robin) we play a smaller domestic competition after the Super season has finished. The 4 remaining teams play a 6 week (each team twice) domestic competition in place of the NRC? 8 weeks if you add the proposed Fijian team in the NRC.

It would be missing wallabies stars but would provide to be more engaging to fans than the NRC, plus the youngsters would be getting a run around anyway and offers home matches to appease the franchises. Would also solve some issues with the Shut Shield etc as the NRC wouldn't be impacting the finish etc, they remain 3rd tier. Obviously the lack of wallabies stars would impact gates, so perfect opportunity for the Reds to play these games out of Ballymore or take a match the the Gold Coast/Cairns. Tahs could play a game away from the SFS, perhaps Western Sydney or some Shute Shield locations to help their coffers. Rebels Geelong, Hobart, Adelaide or some of their Dewar Shield locations. Brumbies out at Viking park. Same with the Force.

Plus it'd be a nice change to know an Australian team would be guaranteed a piece of silverware. I am sure having the super brands would also be more appealing to Fox than the NRC brands.

 

[Rebels3]

A scary way of reading that, is has the SA team going been named meaning two other sides not from SA are to go.

Does it in a coded way say two Australian teams to go.

Given the SA rating and the Australian rating I always wondered if cutting two SA teams would be achievable.

The first line clearly says 2 teams from the Republic and 1 from Australia. All a grain of salt until something formal comes out.

 

[zer0]

A scary way of reading that, is has the SA team going been named meaning two other sides not from SA are to go.

Does it in a coded way say two Australian teams to go.

Given the SA rating and the Australian rating I always wondered if cutting two SA teams would be achievable.

The linked article says that "the other sides will be decided by the Australia and South Africa rugby unions. Both unions are deliberating about which teams to drop, taking into consideration possible mergers." Which implies that one each of the other two teams will be from Australia and South Africa. So, if this is the case, then only one Australian team would be cut/merged.

 

[Joe King]

What about (if the comp is only a 14 week round robin) we play a smaller domestic competition after the Super season has finished. The 4 remaining teams play a 6 week (each team twice) domestic competition in place of the NRC? 8 weeks if you add the proposed Fijian team in the NRC.

It would be missing wallabies stars but would provide to be more engaging to fans than the NRC, plus the youngsters would be getting a run around anyway and offers home matches to appease the franchises. Would also solve some issues with the Shut Shield etc as the NRC wouldn't be impacting the finish etc, they remain 3rd tier. Obviously the lack of wallabies stars would impact gates, so perfect opportunity for the Reds to play these games out of Ballymore or take a match the the Gold Coast/Cairns. Tahs could play a game away from the SFS, perhaps Western Sydney or some Shute Shield locations to help their coffers. Rebels Geelong, Hobart, Adelaide or some of their Dewar Shield locations. Brumbies out at Viking park. Same with the Force.

Plus it'd be a nice change to know an Australian team would be guaranteed a piece of silverware. I am sure having the super brands would also be more appealing to Fox than the NRC brands.

I think they use to do something like this, didn't they? Don't know how well it went though.

I've wondered if the NRC should have teams like the Sydney Waratahs and the Brisbane Reds, etc. to keep some sort of link with the brand name, but recognise it's not the full strength Super Rugby team. I was just going off the obvious link between the domestic teams and Super Rugby teams in SA and NZ. But Oz is coming at that structure from a different direction, so not sure how it would go.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What about (if the comp is only a 14 week round robin) we play a smaller domestic competition after the Super season has finished. The 4 remaining teams play a 6 week (each team twice) domestic competition in place of the NRC? 8 weeks if you add the proposed Fijian team in the NRC.

It would be missing wallabies stars but would provide to be more engaging to fans than the NRC, plus the youngsters would be getting a run around anyway and offers home matches to appease the franchises. Would also solve some issues with the Shut Shield etc as the NRC wouldn't be impacting the finish etc, they remain 3rd tier. Obviously the lack of wallabies stars would impact gates, so perfect opportunity for the Reds to play these games out of Ballymore or take a match the the Gold Coast/Cairns. Tahs could play a game away from the SFS, perhaps Western Sydney or some Shute Shield locations to help their coffers. Rebels Geelong, Hobart, Adelaide or some of their Dewar Shield locations. Brumbies out at Viking park. Same with the Force.

Plus it'd be a nice change to know an Australian team would be guaranteed a piece of silverware. I am sure having the super brands would also be more appealing to Fox than the NRC brands.

That's not a bad idea. Often wondered why they didn't go ahead with a variation of that to start with. The Currie Cup operated with just 6 squads for several years and it was arguably the best quality competition it has been.

I think if they could manage a 6th squad they could run it over 10 weeks. Would also allow for teams to move games around a bit.

 

[Omar Comin']

What about (if the comp is only a 14 week round robin) we play a smaller domestic competition after the Super season has finished. The 4 remaining teams play a 6 week (each team twice) domestic competition in place of the NRC? 8 weeks if you add the proposed Fijian team in the NRC.

It would be missing wallabies stars but would provide to be more engaging to fans than the NRC, plus the youngsters would be getting a run around anyway and offers home matches to appease the franchises. Would also solve some issues with the Shut Shield etc as the NRC wouldn't be impacting the finish etc, they remain 3rd tier. Obviously the lack of wallabies stars would impact gates, so perfect opportunity for the Reds to play these games out of Ballymore or take a match the the Gold Coast/Cairns. Tahs could play a game away from the SFS, perhaps Western Sydney or some Shute Shield locations to help their coffers. Rebels Geelong, Hobart, Adelaide or some of their Dewar Shield locations. Brumbies out at Viking park. Same with the Force.

Plus it'd be a nice change to know an Australian team would be guaranteed a piece of silverware. I am sure having the super brands would also be more appealing to Fox than the NRC brands.

Maybe but it'd just be an NRC third tier competition with fewer teams. I think it would generate a little more interest than the NRC does now, but it would still leave the region with the cut Super Rugby team abandoned. And it would still be seen as a short development competition.

Ultimately I don't think any of these compromises work for Australian rugby. Cutting a team should lead to revolt.

 

[Joe King]

I wonder if we will see a 3x5 team conference (play own conf twice and other teams once), this will also keep broadcasters happy as the 18 week comp would make up for the loss in content through the loss of 3 teams.

Or

A straight round robin of only 14 weeks!

Thoughts?

Yeah, my moneys on a 3x5 conference structure, as long as SA agree to drop 2 teams. I wonder if that's what the hold up is all about before they make any announcements.

I think it will be: play everyone in your own conference twice, and 3 out of 5 teams from the other two conferences. Each team will get 7 home games and 7 away games + 1 bye. And with 3 weeks of finals = 18 weeks all up.

Of course, SA may not get the agreement to cut two teams, and we will be back to square one, or a 16 team comp, to which the ARU may have a an alternative proposal.

But it's only a guess based on speculation and hearsay.

 

[Twoilms]

I really wish they'd put us out of our misery already.

 

[Braveheart81]

I wonder if that's what the hold up is all about before they make any announcements.

They have to work out which teams will be cut and then get agreement from the broadcasters that they can proceed with that plan.

They presumably also need to determine what the legal ramifications are of cutting the teams both from the team perspective and the players.

If I was the team being cut I would be investigating the prospect of suing SANZAAR, the ARU, the NZRU, the SARU and any other parties to the decision.

 

[Joe King]

That's not a bad idea. Often wondered why they didn't go ahead with a variation of that to start with. The Currie Cup operated with just 6 squads for several years and it was arguably the best quality competition it has been.

I think if they could manage a 6th squad they could run it over 10 weeks. Would also allow for teams to move games around a bit.

Then maybe there would be less need/demand for extra derbies between the Oz teams during Super Rugby!

Fans would be hungrier for the local derbies during the NRC! Could raise the profile of that comp!

Worth a thought...

 

[The Snout]

Sitting here, I"d rather it be announced that 5 teams are being dropped from Australia than 1. Maybe I'm just bloody minded and ready for a complete rebuild.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Sacrifice Auckland

 

[Rebels3]

I think they use to do something like this, didn't they? Don't know how well it went though.

I've wondered if the NRC should have teams like the Sydney Waratahs and the Brisbane Reds, etc. to keep some sort of link with the brand name, but recognise it's not the full strength Super Rugby team. I was just going off the obvious link between the domestic teams and Super Rugby teams in SA and NZ. But Oz is coming at that structure from a different direction, so not sure how it would go.

I wouldn't even call them Sydney, etc. I'd just leave it the Reds, etc. we all know where the Australian teams come from or go back to QLD Reds, ACT Brumbies. As for the team who misses out, what about the Australian u20s being selected and playing out of that town to make another team to the comp. It would be one hell of a learning curve and give the players a genuine shop door to display their talents.

Actually this would just cheapen it. I'd rather just a game of super rugby taken there from another team and a game from a competition like this, then maybe a guarantee from the aru to have a wallabies game there each year.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spo...eams-cut-super-rugby-including-southern-kings

Speculating about this until May shouldn't harm the game in Australia

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What are your guys thoughts on a possible merger between the Brumbies and the Rebels. Seems to make a lot of sense: The Brumbies are weak financially, the Rebels aren’t. The Brumbies have a lot of history that would be a shame to get rid of. Canberra has a relatively small population meaning less chance for growth, Melbourne doesn’t have this problem. Canberra is a traditional Rugby heartland, Melbourne is all AFL at the moment. The two cities could really thrive with a combined professional team playing good footy and winning games. Plus I’m sure less games in each city would lead to bigger crowd totals.
Even call them the Southern Brumbies. Play 4 home games in Melbourne each year and 4 in Canberra. Wouldn’t even have to change the colours much, use the brumbies current strip and change the yellow to red. 1 team needs to go in order for us to remain competitive but it would be a real shame to lose Rugby in one of our major cities/heartlands. 2018 The Southern Brumbies champions of the Super Rugby – you heard it here first

If we have to get rid of a team then a merger between brumbies and rebels would make sense but let's get real it more likely be a takeover by stronger party which financially is rebels

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

But how are the Rebels financially?

Despite the private ownership, the ARU still pump money into them correct?

And they're still without a sponsor for the second year in a row........

From last year..........

The Australian Rugby Union has given the Melbourne Rebels’ private owner Andrew Cox financial support worth more than $6 million for five years to stop the bleeding from a club that has cost the game between $15 million and $20m since its inception.

Because the deal is front-end loaded, it is understood the Rebels are being paid $2.6m for 2016, the initial year of the deal, but that payments are reduced considerably in value over the remaining four years.

The other four Australian Super Rugby clubs — the Waratahs, Brumbies, Queensland Reds and Western Force — are allocated $1.7m a year for the five-year term of December’s $285m broadcast agreement with Fox and Ten, rising by $50,000 a year. This is over and above the $3.9m that all five clubs, Melbourne included, were allocated last year under the previous broadcast deal to run their club and fund their players.

The Brumbies have brought on a few big sponsors recently, and are apparently set to be back in the black this year after last seasons diabolical off field dramas.........

Anyways, I'm just curious.

 

[p.Tah]

I think we should merge all the Australia teams into one and base it in Alice Springs, because that's pretty close to the centre and fair for everyone to get to.
Rather than the points table being based on winning, I think it should be alphabetical order. Therefore let's name them the Alice Spring Aardvarks. Hard to beat a team with a double 'a. Guaranteed a finals position each year with that name. Winning.