Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

The decision to cut a side was necessary and whichever side missed out was going to suck.

But we need to consolidate. We need to end up with 4 competitive teams and build the NRC under that into a real national driving force that will eventually justify and demand a 5th side again.

Talk about a trans tasman comp is just a dream until we can be consistently be competitive with the Kiwis again, every year. Because why would they (or a broadcaster) be interested in a comp where they fly in and consistently rack up 50 plus each week in empty stadiums.

What you're saying is only true under the assumption that Australian super rugby teams must be filled almost entirely by Australian players. Given rugby has an international player pool there's no reason why this must be true. If player depth was the primary concern, and there is only say 120 Super Rugby quality players in Australia, then a better solution to cutting a team would have been to increase the number of imports - players superior to the 121st best Australian player. Then you could increase the competitiveness of Australian based teams without having to raise a white flag in an entire region of the country and alienate thousands of supporters.

Sports fans largely don't care where the players in their professional club or franchise come from. This is evident in all the biggest sporting leagues in the world.

 

[fatprop]

What you're saying is only true under the assumption that Australian super rugby teams must be filled almost entirely by Australian players. Given rugby has an international player pool there's no reason why this must be true. If player depth was the primary concern, and there is only say 120 Super Rugby quality players in Australia, then a better solution to cutting a team would have been to increase the number of imports - players superior to the 121st best Australian player. Then you could increase the competitiveness of Australian based teams without having to raise a white flag in an entire region of the country and alienate thousands of supporters.

Sports fans largely don't care where the players in their professional club or franchise come from. This is evident in all the biggest sporting leagues in the world.

We do that and we don't have the pathways, we had how many 9s, backrowers and 10s the past few seasons? And how did that turn out? I want to see 8 quality Aus 10s in the pipeline, not average kiwis and boks filling the places

 

[Omar Comin']

We do that and we don't have the pathways, we had how many 9s, backrowers and 10s the past few seasons? And how did that turn out? I want to see 8 quality Aus 10s in the pipeline, not average kiwis and boks filling the places

But there'd be no difference to the number of Australian players playing Super Rugby. Either you cut a bunch of players by cutting an entire team or you replace them with imports. It wouldn't be that hard to limit the number of imports by position (so that, for instance all teams didn't have a foreign 10 or tighthead prop etc). But at some point you have to just accept that if there isn't 8 Australian 10's good enough to be in Super Rugby squads then so be it. They can develop in club rugby and the NRC (or overseas) and when they're good enough they'll earn a contract.

Professional rugby shouldn't be all about improving the national team. This all eggs in one basket approach is why rugby gets smashed by AFL, NRL and more recently soccer.

 

[wamberal]

The Wallabies brand and the international dimension is still by far the most financially important element of the game in Australia.


We spend a lot of time, when it suits us, talking about the fact that our game is genuinely international, and yet, also when it suits, some dills tell us how unimportant the Wallabies are.


Fortunately we do not have dills running the game, believe it or not.

 

[Highlander35]

Fortunately we do not have dills running the game, believe it or not.

 

[TOCC]

Fortunately we do not have dills running the game, believe it or not.

What bullshit...
ARU had by their own design, committed Australia to insolvency by 2019, they failed to conduct due diligence in the broadcast negotiations and failed to scope the full outcomes of what the new broadcast agreement would do to Australian Rugby.

The people running this game have caused irreparable damage to Australian Rugby, they had destroyed the Super Rugby brand, alienated a supporter based and destroyed the relations with the WA Govt which pours $millions into the game.

The Wallabies brand and its value on the international stage is a product of the hard work done by fans, players and administrators before this current crop of assholes. They have done nothing to advance the brand further, the Wallaby brand has taken a hit through this whole process, its guilty by association.

 

[Derpus]

Fatprop

You could easily balance out the teams by lifting international eligibility restrictions so as to allow anyone playing across the trans-tas to be eligible for their respective countries.

You are right that they wouldn't be interested in a competition with the existing Super Rugby teams. That would be garbage.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What you're saying is only true under the assumption that Australian super rugby teams must be filled almost entirely by Australian players. Given rugby has an international player pool there's no reason why this must be true. If player depth was the primary concern, and there is only say 120 Super Rugby quality players in Australia, then a better solution to cutting a team would have been to increase the number of imports - players superior to the 121st best Australian player. Then you could increase the competitiveness of Australian based teams without having to raise a white flag in an entire region of the country and alienate thousands of supporters.



Sports fans largely don't care where the players in their professional club or franchise come from. This is evident in all the biggest sporting leagues in the world.

Exactly we need rugby represented in the major regions and worry less about whether need open borders to allow overseas imports to play for teams. Why do you think EPL in England is so strong...because they restrict the competition to only those eligible to play for England...please this is the 21st century and having a 20th century view of sport won't cut it.

 

[Omar Comin']

The Wallabies brand and the international dimension is still by far the most financially important element of the game in Australia.

We spend a lot of time, when it suits us, talking about the fact that our game is genuinely international, and yet, also when it suits, some dills tell us how unimportant the Wallabies are.

Yes because obviously arguing against putting all eggs in the one Wallabies basket is the same as saying the Wallabies are unimportant. Nice job taking down that straw man.

Here's some further points:

1. The Wallabies centric strategy of Australian rugby has only worked really well, relative to the other major sporting codes, when the Wallabies have been the best team in the world or extremely close to it. Rugby has not competed very well with other codes even when the Wallabies have consistently been ranked 3rd in the world.

2. International rugby has become more competitive since our last golden era and is likely to get even more competitive in coming years and decades due to the international growth of the sport. Thus getting to number 1 in the world will be increasingly difficult.

3. ALL the biggest sporting leagues in the world (and Australia) are based around domestic rivalries and tribalism. In all major global professional sports, other than rugby and cricket, club competitions dwarf international competitions outside of world cups and olympics. And the trend in both rugby and cricket is towards the major club competitions.

4. Because of our international focus professional rugby in Australia has far, far less reach and exposure than any of its competitors and can have weeks without winners and years without any major success. On the other hand multiple Australian teams win every week, and one wins the major trophy every year in the AFL, NRL and A-League.

4. The most comparable sports to rugby in Australia, cricket and soccer, have both benefited enormously by focusing increasingly on building up their fan focused domestic competitions. This is not done instead of focusing on the national team, but independently alongside it. Thus when their international teams aren't performing, which inevitably happens from time to time, the sport as a whole doesn't completely suffer. There is a lesson to learn here.

 

[Derpus]

The Wallabies brand and the international dimension is still by far the most financially important element of the game in Australia.


We spend a lot of time, when it suits us, talking about the fact that our game is genuinely international, and yet, also when it suits, some dills tell us how unimportant the Wallabies are.


Fortunately we do not have dills running the game, believe it or not.

The Wallabies centric model is old hat. The North (Jon Snow accent) is shaping the club game up to be the prime form of the game. Mourad Boudjellal wants to turn Toulon in the Real Madrid of the rugby world and to hell with the detrimental impact the club game is having on the French national team.

The top down, trickle down, Woblies centric model is dated. Evolve or die.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Wallabies centric model is old hat. The North (Jon Snow accent) is shaping the club game up to be the prime form of the game. Mourad Boudjellal wants to turn Toulon in the Real Madrid of the rugby world and to hell with the detrimental impact the club game is having on the French national team.

The top down, trickle down, Woblies centric model is dated. Evolve or die.

The RFU still generates their revenue from the England rugby team though (and their ownership of Twickenham which maximises revenue from the English team) and that is how they fund 7s, under 20s, womens and grassroots.

They do have the advantage that their club system is much bigger and stronger and pays the professional wages of far more players but the reality is quite similar to Australia in that their national team funds pretty much everything else.

 

[Derpus]

The RFU still generates their revenue from the England rugby team though (and their ownership of Twickenham which maximises revenue from the English team) and that is how they fund 7s, under 20s, womens and grassroots.

They do have the advantage that their club system is much bigger and stronger and pays the professional wages of far more players but the reality is quite similar to Australia in that their national team funds pretty much everything else.

Similar, but it's still inevitably shifting towards the club game. Salary caps are rising, attendances are growing, players are being paid more and more.

Plus, one of the key criticisms of the ARU for decades is that the funds generated by the Woblies don't go to the grassroots because they need to be redirected into proping up the game, player wages etc. The RFU fund the grassroots and allow for the rest to be taken care of at club level. Ironically, as they get wealthier, the less the RFU will have to spend.

 

[Braveheart81]

Similar, but it's still inevitably shifting towards the club game. Salary caps are rising, attendances are growing, players are being paid more and more.

Plus, one of the key criticisms of the ARU for decades is that the funds generated by the Woblies don't go to the grassroots because they need to be redirected into proping up the game, player wages etc. The RFU fund the grassroots and allow for the rest to be taken care of at club level. Ironically, as they get wealthier, the less the RFU will have to spend.

I guess the question is whether it is an option here? It would certainly seem impossible right now.

Did the RFU take active steps to make it happen or did the overall growth in the game there make it happen organically? Were the club teams ever directly affiliated with them or were they always separate (honest question, I don't know)?

Certainly our structure where our major teams are intrinsically tied to the national union because they are owned by the state unions and they are the members of the national union makes it difficult.

 

[Derpus]

I guess the question is whether it is an option here? It would certainly seem impossible right now.

Did the RFU take active steps to make it happen or did the overall growth in the game there make it happen organically? Were the club teams ever directly affiliated with them or were they always separate (honest question, I don't know)?

Certainly our structure where our major teams are intrinsically tied to the national union because they are owned by the state unions and they are the members of the national union makes it difficult.

Anecdotally i was told when i was living in Bristol that they had made a very conscious decision to invest in youth. One of the biggest criticisms from the media of Lancaster at the time was that they had invested in and were now producing amazing talent across the board and he was doing fuck all with it.

This was all pub talk though, i never did any real research.

 

[fatprop]

The Wallabies centric model is old hat. The North (Jon Snow accent) is shaping the club game up to be the prime form of the game. Mourad Boudjellal wants to turn Toulon in the Real Madrid of the rugby world and to hell with the detrimental impact the club game is having on the French national team.

The top down, trickle down, Woblies centric model is dated. Evolve or die.

The Wallabies are the way the ARU funds the rest of rugby in Aus, everything else comes from it. The "northern" model may work if we have enough rich lunatics prepared to have a rugby team as a hobby. That isn't going to happen next week

 

[Bandar]

That is the problem, when the game went pro here the ARU, NZRU & SARU wanted to keep control of everything. In England and France the clubs got in first and signed the players before the unions could. They don't pay players wages which is the major cost the ARU have and the reason we are in the situation now...

 

[Derpus]

The Wallabies are the way the ARU funds the rest of rugby in Aus, everything else comes from it. The "northern" model may work if we have enough rich lunatics prepared to have a rugby team as a hobby. That isn't going to happen next week

No other sporting code operates like this and it clearly doesn't work. Plus, they aren't all funded by rich benefactors, a lot of them are just regular clubs. Also, we have at least one rich benefactor involved already.

 

[BLR]

No other sporting code operates like this and it clearly doesn't work. Plus, they aren't all funded by rich benefactors, a lot of them are just regular clubs. Also, we have at least one rich benefactor involved already.

Had.

 

[Derpus]

Had.

He's at odds with the ARU not Australian Rugby.

 

[Sauron]

Supe is dead. Long live Twigby.