Where to for Super Rugby?

[TOCC]

It would not matter who was on the Board, we are where we are as the result of twenty years of decisions.


Does anybody seriously believe that getting rid of the current admin and replacing it will achieve anything tangible?


What, precisely, would a new administration do to solve our current dilemmas and problems? Wave a fairy wand?

Fake news..
the current board agreed to expand to 18 teams, the current board were the ones who agreed to cull a team, the current board were the ones who sold the Rebels license, the current board are the ones who have mismanaged the super rugby debacle, 3 months ago they claimed this issue would be resolved in 72 hours.. 3 months ago. The lingering doubt over the future of the competition has eroded the fans passion for the game and stolen media space and headlines from the competition, the current board have caused ireepareable damage to the super rugby brand.

Quit apologising and defending the current board, they aren't the only reason for Rugbys current woes but they have certainly contributed to the demise and should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[half]

It would not matter who was on the Board, we are where we are as the result of twenty years of decisions.


Does anybody seriously believe that getting rid of the current admin and replacing it will achieve anything tangible?


What, precisely, would a new administration do to solve our current dilemmas and problems? Wave a fairy wand?

Would be interesting what you consider poor management to be or if you would accept cross comparisons with other codes.

To your two questions

1] Would a change in leadership achieve anything.

Yes.

2] What could they do.

Develop a plan B including expansion.

 

[TOCC]

Conducting due diligence before making rash decisions would be a start

 

[Dave Beat]

I over heard some one the other day talking about this great comp called the Super 18.

Just checked out recent results to see what they were talking about.

Whilst i new the Lions were new the top of the food chain - they obviosly took a liking to eating Wolves.

Is this comp competative, does it have the right animals playing in it?

94 - 7 - really, SANZAR you have nailed it with your team selection.

 

[amirite]

For goodness sake, I'm not going back over what I've already said.

Stay happy, bloke.

If it is a confirmed fact that the ARU decided to get rid of a team BEFORE Japan and Argentina existed in Super Rugby, how can these teams have caused it?

I acknowledge they didn't fix the situation and maybe made it worse, but that's not a cause. The decision was made behind closed doors already (within a year of the birth of the Rebels in fact).

In regards to your comment's tone ->

Is this condescension necessary?

"He who lives in a glass house".

 

[TOCC]

If it is a confirmed fact that the ARU decided to get rid of a team BEFORE Japan and Argentina existed in Super Rugby

Source?

 

[amirite]

Source?

The famous "48-72 hours" ARU press conference. I can't find the unedited video though, only clips.

The basic (though little reported) part of the press conference I'm talking about went:

• It was obvious within a year that the highly paid consultants of the ARU were right, Australia could not support 5 teams and would need to get rid of one to sustain Super Rugby.
• The reason it was not pursued earlier was because the option was not on the table. Now it is, so the ARU have gone with their plan.

I'm paraphrasing, but they did say they went for this solution at the first point it was on the table, after accepting it as a reality a long while ago.

The Japanese and Argentinian teams were not even at the pitching stage in early 2012 (the point they realised 5 teams wasn't sustainable), let alone making the league a less attractive product.

--

As a complete aside, the best option for Australia is a Trans-Tasman solution. This Trans Tasman solution would also have a Japanese team and possible one more Asian side. If you'r really ambitious, a Pacific side or two (but that's ambitious).

Why is this better for Australia? There's lots of Kiwis here to trigger interest and the time zones of away games works out really well. Unlike South African and Argentina.

Why keep Japan? It's attractive to our corporate partners and one dud team won't kill a competition. They also have money and whilst rugby isn't ALL about money, one team for financial reasons makes sense!

Why Pacific Nations? This is just helping out the development of rugby in the region. I don't think the economics stack up TBH, so it's not very realistic without a sugar daddy or a very generous World Rugby.

I don't think this'll happen though because the Kiwis don't want it and we have to accept that.

 

[TOCC]

No offence but your paraphrasing doesn't come across as it being a "confirmed fact", had the ARU come to the conclusion that 5 teams was untenable prior to the negotiating of the new broadcast right and competition structure then the ARU had the opportunity to alter the structure when the new tournament structure was negotiated.

Rather I think a more plausible scenario is that, whilst concerns were likely held, the ARU wrongly believed the additional revenue generated from the new broadcast agreement would be sufficient to paint over the cracks and keep 5 teams afloat in addition to funding other areas of the game.

 

[The torpedo]

Bit of a random observation (not disagreeing with you amirite) but the 'we realised in 2012 we couldn't support 5 teams (and the report in 2011)' seems awfully convenient..........................................

 

[amirite]

No offence but your paraphrasing doesn't come across as it being a "confirmed fact", had the ARU come to the conclusion that 5 teams was untenable prior to the negotiating of the new broadcast right and competition structure then the ARU had the opportunity to alter the structure when the new tournament structure was negotiated.

Rather I think a more plausible scenario is that, whilst concerns were likely held, the ARU wrongly believed the additional revenue generated from the new broadcast agreement would be sufficient to paint over the cracks and keep 5 teams afloat in addition to funding other areas of the game.

I'll try to find the unedited footage, but I'm only paraphrasing because I can't quote it off the top of my head.

The ARU did not have the opportunity to remove a team when the new structure was negotiated, apparently. However, that is a logical point to raise.

Bit of a random observation (not disagreeing with you amirite) but the 'we realised in 2012 we couldn't support 5 teams (and the report in 2011)' seems awfully convenient..............

Sorry, I'm not following.

 

[The torpedo]

Sorry, I'm not following.

I was saying that the whole 'we realised in 2012 we couldn't support 5 teams (and the report in 2011)' seemingly popped up when they said there was going to be a team cut

 

[Sully]

Again why aren't the ARU trying to get a team into another comp!

 

[cyclopath]

Again why aren't the ARU trying to get a team into another comp!

Such as? Can't think of a decent comp in a favourable time-zone to make it worthwhile.

 

[amirite]

I was saying that the whole 'we realised in 2012 we couldn't support 5 teams (and the report in 2011)' seemingly popped up when they said there was going to be a team cut

Yeah, but I don't think it's on purpose because it does make them look rather silly to pay for advice, not take it, and then have that advice be correct.

 

[The torpedo]

Yeah, but I don't think it's on purpose because it does make them look rather silly to pay for advice, not take it, and then have that advice be correct.

Yeah TBH I was probably looking too far into it.

Either way it reflects badly on the ARU

 

[GaffaCHinO]

Such as? Can't think of a decent comp in a favourable time-zone to make it worthwhile.

Force to the Japanese comp same time zone

 

[cyclopath]

Force to the Japanese comp same time zone

Same quality???

 

[amirite]

Force to the Japanese comp same time zone

I would say that would be a pretty undesirable outcome for the Force.

Imagine playing in summer in Perth, being away from home for 50% of the season, and how unattractive of a product that would be for consumers.

Do Western Australians really care that WA beat the Toyota corporation team but lost to the bastards from the Toshiba corporation team?

Not to mention it'd be pretty hard to back a bloke like Hardwick into a test jersey off the basis of him playing well against mostly blokes not good enough to make the Japanese national team 3 months earlier.

South Africa are very lucky they have the Pro12 available to them based on time zone and corporate interest. Still, I can see the Pro12 repeating mistakes Super rugby has made, so good luck to them.

 

[kiap]

I would say that would be a pretty undesirable outcome for the Force.

Yep, a bad outcome.

To say nothing of the desirabilty of it from the Japanese point of view. It's an industrial league for company teams.

 

[BLR]

Not existing compared to playing against Japanese teams?

We'll take the Japanese teams thanks.