Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

WCR - Regarding a Northern US super rugby conference, can anything be salvaged from the Pro Rugby USA set up (obviously without the CEO).

Probably not. I think it would be safe to say that PRO Rugby is effectively dead in the water as are its squads. But there is still interest in the Nth American market from investors providing the right format could be found. Personally I think a whole conference more alogned with their timezones would be more tempting than playing in Europe. And I do know there are at least half a dozen interested parties in the US alone.

 

[Omar Comin']

Probably not. I think it would be safe to say that PRO Rugby is effectively dead in the water as are its squads. But there is still interest in the Nth American market from investors providing the right format could be found. Personally I think a whole conference more alogned with their timezones would be more tempting than playing in Europe. And I do know there are at least half a dozen interested parties in the US alone.

The Americas Rugby Championship could potentially evolve into a Super Rugby conference.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Actually if we think about it afl and nrl are pitted against playing against the best in a strong domestic competition so hence able to be best in world against other nations. That is where our flaws are. We need to be more selfish and look after own interests by creating a strong domestic competition and then if that is achieved performances at international level will follow as happens in codes like nrl and football. Our super rugby involvement should be similar to Heineken cup as to be frank that would sustain our interest enough and test us against the best. I actually now realise where our problem is lies in belief we need super rugby as our main form of professional competition.

Our problem is our over Reliance on super rugby and our flawed thinking we need super rugby more than nz and south Africa who already have strong domestic competitions.

Nope we need to remove our Reliance on super rugby as that is what is our fundamental problem with rugby in oz is.

As clearly the answer does not lie for oz Rugby in super rugby or at least in its current format which negates and does not encourage a strong domestic completon in oz which maybe yes could be achieved with better conference structure in super rugby or new domestic competition.



Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately RN, without Super Rugby here the professional game will be dead. Premier rugby will not attract the crowds nor the TV interest to generate funds to pay any of the players a decent amount. That will then lead to us dropping very quickly down the international rankings and we'll become just a footnote in international rugby.

Not the same as comparing with NRL or AFL. They are the best in the world because the games are hardly played anywhere else but here. Were they full international sports, they might also become backwaters on the international stage because of the cannibalistic competition between codes in this country.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is it a good thing that the strength of rugby in this country is so reliant on the success of one team that plays 6 matches in Australia each year? Would anyone argue that rugby is stronger in Australia than it is in France? I don't think anyone could do it with a straight face, yet the Wallabies have been better than France at test rugby for a long time.

I think given the growth and increasing competitiveness of international rugby that it's just not realistic to expect the Wallabies to maintain a consistent top 2 or top 4 ranking over the long term. Rugby in this country has to get to a point where it can still be strong even if the Wallabies go through bad patches.

The Wallabies are the major financial driver for rugby in this country. I'm not saying it is a good or a bad thing. It is just the reality of the situation.

I also think that if the Wallabies dropped much lower in their international competitiveness and could no longer generate the revenue they do, the game would be in even more trouble here.

I don't think there is an Australian audience that is ready to drive the finances of the game here through a domestic league. We rely on substantial revenue streams from overseas and that is reliant on being competitive internationally.

We don't have the luxury of dropping back to a far lower revenue and therefore salary model because we compete for our players in an international market. If we can't pay our players what we do now, most of the best ones will go overseas where they can be paid better.

Playing for the Wallabies is a carrot for players but if the financial reward for that becomes too out of kilter with what they can get to play club rugby in Europe, then that carrot won't be enough.

One of my main concerns with dropping back to fewer teams is whether it will actually increase the overall quality of the remaining teams by any reasonable degree. Who gets squeezed out? Is it the worst professional players and everyone takes a pay cut depending on their newfound position in the pecking order, or is it players from across the spectrum because there is suddenly a bigger differential between what they are offered here versus what they are offered overseas.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Theres a fair argument that we should drop back to 3 teams.
In the past comps where teams split into higher and lower levels mid way through a season have only captured the imagination of the really rusted on supporters. It takes too much research and concentration to follow where your team is at.
If we stay at 5 then we get the japanese team presumably: thats not a ratings or performance winner for rugby in this country.
At 4 we need another team - one of the island nations? unlikely to drive revenue and their best players are elsewhere, as I understand it.
Head back to Super 15 and we have 3 teams and SA and NZ can each have 6.
That is the best hope for rugby in this country.

While I did start a thread discussing the cutting of teams I am actually not all that in favour of it. I tend to believe that with the advent of the NRC that we now have the necessary structures in place to ensure we remain competitive. It's just that it like many things in life, takes times. For this reason I don't actually want to see any of our teams cut.

I'm pretty down on the Rebels at present. But having watched their games again (yep, I know. Glutton for punishment) it's become very apparent that they are a team lacking direction and a solid fame plan. Bit like the Brumbies. People talk about the poor quality of the Reds-Force or even the Tahs-Force games but overlook a key ingredient in both. No not the humidity or rain (though they don't help) but the Force themselves. They play a game that defensively speaking is highly geared toward spoiling tactics. They have so far in both games have looked to make every contact situation as messy and disorganised as possible with a rush defence that pushes the offside line.

As for the Tahs. We played a 1/4 of the game with 14 men against last years finalists. We scored 5 tries against them. We didn't actually play all that badly. We were also understrength as a squad.

It's not as gloomy as many may think.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The Americas Rugby Championship could potentially evolve into a Super Rugby conference.

It would be a stretch purely from the point of view of it being highly questionable as to the preparedness of the likes of Chile, Ururguay and Brazil when it comes to playing Super Rugby.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

While I did start a thread discussing the cutting of teams I am actually not all that in favour of it. I tend to believe that with the advent of the NRC that we now have the necessary structures in place to ensure we remain competitive. It's just that it like many things in life, takes times. For this reason I don't actually want to see any of our teams cut.

I'm pretty down on the Rebels at present. But having watched their games again (yep, I know. Glutton for punishment) it's become very apparent that they are a team lacking direction and a solid fame plan. Bit like the Brumbies. People talk about the poor quality of the Reds-Force or even the Tahs-Force games but overlook a key ingredient in both. No not the humidity or rain (though they don't help) but the Force themselves. They play a game that defensively speaking is highly geared toward spoiling tactics. They have so far in both games have looked to make every contact situation as messy and disorganised as possible with a rush defence that pushes the offside line.

As for the Tahs. We played a 1/4 of the game with 14 men against last years finalists. We scored 5 tries against them. We didn't actually play all that badly. We were also understrength as a squad.

It's not as gloomy as many may think.

Probably not as gloomy as one thinks but after last season I guess peop

The Wallabies are the major financial driver for rugby in this country. I'm not saying it is a good or a bad thing. It is just the reality of the situation.

I also think that if the Wallabies dropped much lower in their international competitiveness and could no longer generate the revenue they do, the game would be in even more trouble here.

I don't think there is an Australian audience that is ready to drive the finances of the game here through a domestic league. We rely on substantial revenue streams from overseas and that is reliant on being competitive internationally.

We don't have the luxury of dropping back to a far lower revenue and therefore salary model because we compete for our players in an international market. If we can't pay our players what we do now, most of the best ones will go overseas where they can be paid better.

Playing for the Wallabies is a carrot for players but if the financial reward for that becomes too out of kilter with what they can get to play club rugby in Europe, then that carrot won't be enough.

One of my main concerns with dropping back to fewer teams is whether it will actually increase the overall quality of the remaining teams by any reasonable degree. Who gets squeezed out? Is it the worst professional players and everyone takes a pay cut depending on their newfound position in the pecking order, or is it players from across the spectrum because there is suddenly a bigger differential between what they are offered here versus what they are offered overseas.

Whilst agree we are probably not in the position to financially sustain our own domestic league we have to be working towards that. To my mind part of what NRC about....working towards that longer term goal of financially sustainable professional domestic league. A good compromise would be if we could rejig conference system so at least focus on first stage on domestic interconference competition, before moving to Champions League/Cup scenario as second stage. That would provide perhaps better long term springboard to long term ambition of having our own long form professional domestic league.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Lol and sorry for rant in above post, but I love rugby and really want it to do well here in Aus as well as in NZ

Dan, I am with you the whole way. Coaching is the biggest problem in Aus rugby imo, for all the reasons you highlighted.

There is no way rugby here will improve if we contract to an isolated structure which will simply reinforce the multitude of issues we currently are afflicted with. We need to continue to play the best and to aspire to be their equal or better. Better coaching is the key.

In short, persevere with all five sides in Super Rugby while long term changes are introduced into the structures below - give the NRC time to mature, and incidentally go back to full international laws for the competition too. But most importantly, fix the coaching situation at all levels.

 

[Omar Comin']

It would be a stretch purely from the point of view of it being highly questionable as to the preparedness of the likes of Chile, Ururguay and Brazil when it comes to playing Super Rugby.

Agreed, but maybe if the best Argentinian players could be spread through professional franchises in these countries, and mixed with the best local players it could be possible. At least for a South American conference.

As much as I'd like to see North America be part of that, or a separate North American conference be within Super Rugby, it just doesn't seem to be on the cards at this point.

 

[Omar Comin']

We don't have the luxury of dropping back to a far lower revenue and therefore salary model because we compete for our players in an international market. If we can't pay our players what we do now, most of the best ones will go overseas where they can be paid better.

Playing for the Wallabies is a carrot for players but if the financial reward for that becomes too out of kilter with what they can get to play club rugby in Europe, then that carrot won't be enough.

This is true, and I think the best of both worlds is achieved with a Trans-Tasman (potentially plus Asia) competition or conference, including our 5 existing teams, that makes up the bulk of our domestic season.

But if this isn't possible would it be better for rugby in the long term if we went back to 3 or 4 teams in a long form cross-continental super rugby tournament similar to Super 12 and 14, or to make a radical change and work on building a new mostly domestic competition that we control and where we can have teams in all the major markets that we want to build the game in? As you say this would clearly mean lower salaries, at least initially and we'd probably have to do away with our Wallabies eligibility criteria. But it's arguable that this will happen anyway at some point because the difference between the salaries in Europe and the salaries here continues to widen.

If we did this we'd no longer have truly world class domestic teams, but they'd still likely be pretty high standard, the salaries on offer would be enough to retain very good local players and attract others from overseas, including test players. It's not like there's unlimited space for players in the top European competitions. And more importantly we'd provide much more content locally and have a greater presence in more markets. Because we'd no longer be focused on providing the optimal test rugby selection trial it could be a longer competition too, closer in length to the NRL, AFL and A League.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This is true, and I think the best of both worlds is achieved with a Trans-Tasman (potentially plus Asia) competition or conference, including our 5 existing teams, that makes up the bulk of our domestic season.

But if this isn't possible would it be better for rugby in the long term if we went back to 3 or 4 teams in a long form cross-continental super rugby tournament similar to Super 12, or to make a radical change and work on building a new mostly domestic competition that we control and where we can have teams in all the major markets that we want to build the game in? As you say this would clearly mean lower salaries, at least initially and we'd probably have to do away with our Wallabies eligibility criteria. But it's arguable that this will happen anyway at some point because the difference between the salaries in Europe and the salaries here continues to widen.

If we did this we'd no longer have truly world class domestic teams, but they'd still likely be pretty high standard, the salaries on offer would be enough to retain very good local players and attract others from overseas, including test players. It's not like there's unlimited space for players in the top European competitions. And more importantly we'd provide much more content locally and have a greater presence in more markets. Because we'd no longer be focused on providing the optimal test rugby selection trial it could be a longer competition too, closer in length to the NRL, AFL and A League.

So how would a Trans Tasman competition work given 5 NZ sides would just thrash 5 oz sides. I really don't see this solving the problem as NZ sides just too superior to make it interesting contest that is why Champions League concept more of interest to see best oz sides competing against best Nz sides etc. Could someone please explain how they would see a Trans Tasman competition work given signficant gulf between oz and nz sides as I just can't see it myself

 

[Braveheart81]

I really think that a Trans Tasman competition is the only reasonable path away from Super Rugby and that is of course dependent on New Zealand agreeing that it is the best way forward for them as well.

If the majority of our rugby was domestic only I think the revenue would be nowhere near enough to make the quality decent and the interest from overseas would be low as a result. I also don't think we could create enough teams to make a viable competition. 10 seems like a minimum.

I don't think we have the interest domestically to make it viable either through TV deals or crowd sizes.

 

[Omar Comin']

So how would a Trans Tasman competition work given 5 NZ sides would just thrash 5 oz sides. I really don't see this solving the problem as NZ sides just too superior to make it interesting contest that is why Champions League concept more of interest to see best oz sides competing against best Nz sides etc. Could someone please explain how they would see a Trans Tasman competition work given signficant gulf between oz and nz sides as I just can't see it myself

I think to make the most value of a Trans-Tasman comp NZ would have to be willing to allow some Kiwi players to play for Australian teams and remain eligible for the All Blacks. Even if it was just say 20 players on the fringes. The thing is NZ have better player depth, while Australia has the bigger commercial markets so they should be able to compromise on something.

 

[Braveheart81]

So how would a Trans Tasman competition work given 5 NZ sides would just thrash 5 oz sides. I really don't see this solving the problem as NZ sides just too superior to make it interesting contest that is why Champions League concept more of interest to see best oz sides competing against best Nz sides etc. Could someone please explain how they would see a Trans Tasman competition work given signficant gulf between oz and nz sides as I just can't see it myself

We simply have to improve. There is no alternative.

Heading towards a competition structure with a lower standard doesn't seem like a good recipe for improving the ongoing financial stability of rugby in Australia.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agreed, but maybe if the best Argentinian players could be spread through professional franchises in these countries, and mixed with the best local players it could be possible. At least for a South American conference.

As much as I'd like to see North America be part of that, or a separate North American conference be within Super Rugby, it just doesn't seem to be on the cards at this point.

I wouldn't be so sure about Nth America not being a realistic options. There are a number of markets that could conceivably support a Super Rugby team on the West Coast. Which is better aligned with our interests. Vancouver is a hotbed as is San Francisco and San Diego. I think with the right planning and partners franchises in all three are doable.

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^
Piss off the Saffas, Argentina and Japan

OZ- NZ conference (time zones similar)

Drop one OZ franchise - probably, in this concept, the Force (because of time difference) although my initial thoughts would Rebels or Brumbies (if the current system stays). Maybe replace the OZ team with a couple of extra NZ teams (to even out their talent a bit)

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think to make the most value of a Trans-Tasman comp NZ would have to be willing to allow some Kiwi players to play for Australian teams and remain eligible for the All Blacks. Even if it was just say 20 players on the fringes. The thing is NZ have better player depth, while Australia has the bigger commercial markets so they should be able to compromise on something.

Hmm whilst in theory could be a solution I could not see NZ necessarily going to this. I remain skeptical on trans tasman concept - aligniing ourselves with best rugby brand/playing country makes lot of sense if could somehow make it work and have NZ to agree to it but reports I have read is they are not interested.

 

[No4918]

Another issue with the comp I see is the international windows. They make a bloody mess of things, even for a rugby fan. This year even worse as the Kiwis break for longer than the other sides. It's a great cash spinner for the ARU and other unions (usually) so don't think it will be tinkered with. But for the casual or would be fan I hear a lot of WTFs about why the comp stopping then restarting for.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^^^^^
Piss off the Saffas, Argentina and Japan

OZ- NZ conference (time zones similar)

Drop one OZ franchise - probably, in this concept, the Force (because of time difference) although my initial thoughts would Rebels or Brumbies (if the current system stays). Maybe replace the OZ team with a couple of extra NZ teams (to even out their talent a bit)

Keep the 5 Aus franchises and bring in another 2 NZ ones. Same overall result.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I was merely trying to concentrate our talent and diffuse a bit of NZ's