• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
recent examples where I think people are pushing the barrow a bit far:
Fair call.

South African games should be broadcast at times better suited to Australian viewers.
SA priority is SA. No argument there.

NZRU should allow their players to sign for Australian teams while retaining their All Blacks eligibility
To be fair, this was first raised in NZ - not the other way round.

A Trans-Tasman competition should comprise 'x'

What NZ does is up to them. Stick to your NPC/Mitre 10. It's good for what it is.

And personally, I don't think a Trans-Tasman option (as a 4 to 6 month comp) will be the replacement for Super Rugby. Unlikely to be competitive in the short term/next 2-3 years.

A better Australian option would be to play the 5 Aus teams + Fiji and/or maybe a Japanese side for 50-60% of the season in our own comp.

Best of those teams (or even a few combined) get to play in a next level champ cup (supe 2.0, low fat). Two months duration max, NZ teams involved, and SA/Arg/Aus/Fij/Jpn and perhaps other teams competing.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
No money in Fiji so don't think a team out of there is practical in the short term. But I want their players.

10 team trans-tasman comp - 5 each
40 player squad
Open selection to national duty for Aus/NZ/Pacific Islands
Each squad must have minimum 5 and maximum 8 foreign players
Full home/away format
Top 4 finals
 

Jimmy_Crouch

Peter Johnson (47)
No money in Fiji so don't think a team out of there is practical in the short term. But I want their players.

10 team trans-tasman comp - 5 each
40 player squad
Open selection to national duty for Aus/NZ/Pacific Islands
Each squad must have minimum 5 and maximum 8 foreign players
Full home/away format
Top 4 finals


WR (World Rugby) to come to the party for Fiji with the $$$
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
No money in Fiji NZ so don't think a team out of there is practical in the short term. But I want their players.

Fixxed ;)

10 team trans-tasman comp - 5 each
I just don't see this being teed up within 24-30 months.

40 player squad
Open selection to national duty for Aus/NZ/Pacific Islands
Each squad must have minimum 5 and maximum 8 foreign players
Full home/away format
Top 4 finals

The bolded bit is the nub.

Without that it remains in 26 games to nil territory. With it, Australia moves a step closer to becoming France-lite.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
No money in Fiji so don't think a team out of there is practical in the short term. But I want their players.

10 team trans-tasman comp - 5 each
40 player squad
Open selection to national duty for Aus/NZ/Pacific Islands
Each squad must have minimum 5 and maximum 8 foreign players
Full home/away format
Top 4 finals

Any Fiji (or other PI) participation would be paid for by WR (World Rugby), so Fiji wouldn't have to fund it.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
> South African games should be broadcast at times better suited to Australian viewers. What about the South African viewers? And are Australian games going to be broadcast at times better suited to South African & New Zealand viewers? I'd rather like Bledisloe 1 to start at 8pm my time rather than yours, thanks mate.

Has anyone actually said this?

IIRC most people have said that SA games are played at a time which isn't conducive to Australian viewers. No one that I can remember has said SA should change their times to suit us, just that their time zone doesn't fit.

It's the essential problem with the super rugby model - time zones make it unattractive to the casual/new/prospective supporter and even many of the rusted on.

The model is the problem, tinkering with the model won't fix it.
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
So as we stumble blind-folded with the ARU it's worth noting that our respect for SARUs navigation has not fully gotten ALL Saffer issues on the straight and narrow.

http://m.sport24.co.za/sport24/Rugby/remgro-quitting-wp-rugby-an-excuse-20170808

In essence the Stormers (WPRU) are being investigated in relation to their convenient liquidation last year. One backer points the finger at the other who withdraws blaming SARU investment rules. A furphy or something deeper? Either way the RU has cash problems (again).

OK these guys are rank beginners compared to ARU incompetence, but it's not just Aus rugby in the doldrums.
 

zer0

John Thornett (49)
Has anyone actually said this?

IIRC most people have said that SA games are played at a time which isn't conducive to Australian viewers. No one that I can remember has said SA should change their times to suit us, just that their time zone doesn't fit.

Yes.

SA also needs to play Aus games at 1pm on Sat/Sun afternoon to still make them watchable for an Australian audience. Night games for NZ teams which can still be watched at breakfast.
 

Sauron

Larry Dwyer (12)
Within reason, yes, absolutely but here's some recent examples where I think people are pushing the barrow a bit far:

> South African games should be broadcast at times better suited to Australian viewers. What about the South African viewers? And are Australian games going to be broadcast at times better suited to South African & New Zealand viewers? I'd rather like Bledisloe 1 to start at 8pm my time rather than yours, thanks mate.

> NZRU should allow their players to sign for Australian teams while retaining their All Blacks eligibility. Does NZRU then get to manage their workloads e.g. "In the next five weeks player 'x' can start up to three matches but can't be in the 23 in all five"? What compensation does NZRU get if you "break" one of our players?

> A Trans-Tasman competition should comprise 'x' Australian teams with New Zealand adding a sixth Super Rugby-like team/ re-organising the well-established and at long last financially viable NPC to accommodate them. Never mind that we can't sustain a sixth Super Rugby-like team any more than you could sustain a fifth (difference being we've not yet been dumb enough to nevertheless try it) & what do we tell, say, Manawatu: "Sorry guys but we've gotta cut you to make room for some Aussie mob"?

Fully in favour of NZ doing what we can to help our Aussie mates but it can't be to the detriment of the NZ game.

Those are some strange points. I've never seen the argument that saffers should change their kickoff time. Just that games in the middle of the night are a detriment to interest for the Aussie teams.

If kiwi players signed here, NZR would have agreed to the structure of the comp, and therefore their playing loads. Potential compensation is completely laughable. Injuries happen even with workload management, and Australian sides already demonstrate flexibility around workloads for test players.

As for reorganisation of comps/teams, New Zealand are going to have to do it anyway if pro rugby collapses in Australia. There's no actual choice to be made. What happens to those teams when the Supe sides here go broke?

You seem to think that NZ can dictate terms in the event of any collapse of pro rugby here. That is just not realistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Why is this arbitration decision taking so long? There were only 2 days of arguments. Is the arbitrator paid by the day?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
B

BLR

Guest
Why is this arbitration decision taking so long? There were only 2 days of arguments. Is the arbitrator paid by the day?

It's a big decision telling the ARU they can't cut the mighty Force. It goes against the script.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
If a team were to be cut, based on what's happens the past 6 months I wouldn't be cutting the Force...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
T

TOCC

Guest
Perhaps they should be, but it shouldn't be done this way.. Sunwolves should be held accountable to KPI's, issued with a wanrning and if they don't improve then their position in the competition should be reconsidered.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
As the code continues to wait on the outcome of the arbitration hearing between the Australian Rugby Union and the Western Force, Japanese officials are becoming increasingly worried the Sunwolves could become the team axed from Super Rugby.

If the ARU is forced to go to SANZAAR and admit that it cannot honour the promise it made in London in March to deliver only four Australian teams next season, then SANZAAR will face the problem of trying to make a 16-team competition work or continuing with its plan to cut back to 15 sides.
That leaves the Sunwolves in the most vulnerable position, as the worst-performing side in Super Rugby during the two years it has been in the competition. It finished with the wooden spoon last year and second-last this season.
“If they can’t get rid of a fifth Australian team, do SANZAAR stick with a 15-team competition?” a Sunwolves source posed to The Australian yesterday. “If they do, then they will have to make a decision on who that other team is.”
Asked if the Sunwolves, who already have been told to lift their game by SANZAAR, considered themselves under threat, the source replied, “I imagine we would be.”
The Australian experience would suggest that any move to cull the Japanese side would end in the courts, although the Participation Agreement does include clauses that make it possible to remove any team under certain circumstances.
For the moment, all these threats are purely hypothetical, though certainly not out of the question. But there was nothing hypothetical in the news yesterday that the Sunwolves have missed out on one of Japan’s form players when Amanaki Mafi re-signed with the Rebels.
“Wed
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
I don't imagine WR (World Rugby) would take kindly to cutting the Sunwolves as we stretch toward a Japanese RWC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top