Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

The emergence of both MLR and LSR is a major reason why the idea of Super Rugby transforming into a Champion League structure is so attractive to me. The opportunities are emerging that could allow for a radical change in how we compete among ourselves. If South Africa remains then I still believe Super Rugby in its current guise should be disbanded. NZ and SA can still compete with one another in their own structure if the wish but Super Rugby should be completely re-orientated.

Imagine this. We go across to the IPRC. NZ and SA either along with or without the Jaguares compete in another structure. And the MLR and LSR run their seasons.

At the end of each. The top 4 from the NZ/SA comp. Top 3 from the IPRC. Top 2 from MLR and the winner of the LSR enter the Super 10. Two pools of 5. Four games each. Two home and two away. Top 2 from each pool progress to the semi-finals. All up 6 weeks to crown a champion.

It contains the best of all worlds. We get a competition that caters for our time zones while tapping into an emerging marketplace. NZ and SA get to compete with one another. And SANZAAR gets access to the Americas without actually having to set anything up. Everyone wins.

This would also open the door for some really interesting reforms on the international scene. Aligning ourselves in this way the RC could be expanded in much the same way as the European/Asian structures are formatted.

The RC could be the top division with the current 4 plus a fifth. Based off the best performer at the 2019 RWC. But for this exercise we'll say Japan. Below that is another division of 5 teams. Again using the 2019 RWC as guidance. So, we'll say Fiji, USA, Uruguay, possibly Samoa and Canada. Beyond that a third division involving Tonga, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, and either another PI/Americas or even Asian nation.

Set up a promotion/relegation system. With the last place team from each division having a playoff game against the winner of the one below. Again, I think that would be quite compelling.

Love the idea, and love the passion. But it starts off at way to high a level IMO.

WE are in deep deep trouble, SANZAAR is totally out of its depth as they want to be in charge. Key stakeholders mostly see themselves as the centre of the universe and very often fail to see logic that shows a different course of action to their own findings.

There is actually a business term for it called "Confirmation Bias" .

What we have always needed is a National Domestic Competition. However these things need capital, lots of capital and time.

Rugby in Australia in its current state has neither the monetary capital, nor time on its side, the cruel would add RA also lacks intellectual capital as well.

RA needs to create a competition and sell the teams in it, thus people owning the teams will provide the capital and where with all to make it work.

Twiggy can bring and IMO will bring the RA to its knees and it will cost him next to nothing.

How you ask, next year Twiggy simply pays for one maybe two regions to join his competition. Say Newcastle, and they play one game at Perth, then he picks another from somewhere. Suddenly he has club land supporting him. Then its game over for RA.

My reading of the tea leafs is we are already behind by two years in developing a plan "B" I hope that we have time to save it. By this I mean hopefully get back to a 2010 level of interest.

 

[Braveheart81]

Twiggy can bring and IMO will bring the RA to its knees and it will cost him next to nothing.

How you ask, next year Twiggy simply pays for one maybe two regions to join his competition. Say Newcastle, and they play one game at Perth, then he picks another from somewhere. Suddenly he has club land supporting him. Then its game over for RA.

The biggest drain on RA finances are funding a substantial number of professional players. If that becomes outsourced to another competition/funding entity such as Twiggy and other owners in WSR it would be unbelievably good for RA.

Moving the club competition off the books of RA and the state unions would be huge for RA.

The Wallabies is what creates the bulk of their revenue and their main requirement to keep that as strong as possible is to have a good stable of players playing in Australia.

I hear RA is looking to bring on Isaia Toeava as a specialist consultant to help them with this plan.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The biggest drain on RA finances are funding a substantial number of professional players. If that becomes outsourced to another competition/funding entity such as Twiggy and other owners in WSR it would be unbelievably good for RA.

Moving the club competition off the books of RA and the state unions would be huge for RA.

The Wallabies is what creates the bulk of their revenue and their main requirement to keep that as strong as possible is to have a good stable of players playing in Australia.

I hear RA is looking to bring on Isaia Toeava as a specialist consultant to help them with this plan.

I've for some time believed that the two should be separate from one another and I still believe that to be the case. It would free up a lot of extra time and money if the franchises were to find themselves under another umbrella. RA could then re-direct those savings to the grassroots level. Everyone benefits.

 

[Derpus]

There is actually a business term for it called "Confirmation Bias" .

I hate to be that guy but confirmation bias is a well researched psychological phenomenon. Not a 'business term'. 'Business terms' are things like 'synergy' and 'stream-lining' and they mean nothing.

Also, what you described is not confirmation bias.

 

[half]

The biggest drain on RA finances are funding a substantial number of professional players. If that becomes outsourced to another competition/funding entity such as Twiggy and other owners in WSR it would be unbelievably good for RA.

Moving the club competition off the books of RA and the state unions would be huge for RA.

The Wallabies is what creates the bulk of their revenue and their main requirement to keep that as strong as possible is to have a good stable of players playing in Australia.

I hear RA is looking to bring on Isaia Toeava as a specialist consultant to help them with this plan.

10000000000000000% agree. Has been so for hhhhmmmm eeerrrrr 20 years.

Genuine question not to you BH, but in general why have we not created an independent competition with private capital and expertise to run. The USA competition structures are near perfect for rugby in Australia.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

WOR & Omar - as you keep reminding us, there's lots of exciting things happening around the rugby world & I love your enthusiasm for where they could take us in terms of Champions League-like comps but it's going to take a long time for that to be a realistic option. In the meantime I think it's reasonable for NZR etc to make the best of what's currently available to them, better the Devil you know & so forth.

 

[half]

I hate to be that guy but confirmation bias is a well researched psychological phenomenon. Not a 'business term'. 'Business terms' are things like 'synergy' and 'stream-lining' and they mean nothing.

Also, what you described is not confirmation bias.

Nit picking as it is often used in a business in a similar way to a SWOT analysis which was developed by a Scottish hospital I think to help build up peoples self awareness.

Group Think is another, and group think and confirmation bias is often used when discussing IBM's failure to see the emergence of software in the development of PC. Another NASA rocket failures the terms are often used.

AS to whether CB was used correctly hhhhmmmm I believe SANZAAR and RA do go looking for things that support the structures they have developed. Further they do read into things that support their finding as I see it.

 

[Derpus]

Bit of a stretch really mate.

 

[Braveheart81]

10000000000000000% agree. Has been so for hhhhmmmm eeerrrrr 20 years.

Genuine question to to you BH, but in general why have we not created an independent competition with private capital and expertise to run. The USA competition structures are near perfect for rugby in Australia.

I think it is somewhat due to the long hangover of amateurism and the fact that meant our long running teams (and biggest brands) were controlled by state unions when the game went professional.

Creating a team from scratch to compete with that costs a lot of money over a long period of time and those opportunities have been very limited due to having at most 5 teams in Super Rugby (and then only for a few years).

The Waratahs looked at private sale opportunities in recent years but it never really made sense for anyone. NSWRU weren't willing for it to be permanent (only a licence for a number of years) and the close association with NSWRU and the history meant there were always going to be constraints on an owner.

The USAR comp is certainly a decent structure but the challenge anywhere would be to get the budget required for each team to work within the Australian rugby landscape in a reasonable manner (i.e. with decent players). What are the budgets of each USAR team? It needs to be remembered that the players involved are largely players who couldn't find a pro contract elsewhere.

Maybe Isaia Toeava will end up playing there in his 40s.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think it is somewhat due to the long hangover of amateurism and the fact that meant our long running teams (and biggest brands) were controlled by state unions when the game went professional.

Creating a team from scratch to compete with that costs a lot of money over a long period of time and those opportunities have been very limited due to having at most 5 teams in Super Rugby (and then only for a few years).

The Waratahs looked at private sale opportunities in recent years but it never really made sense for anyone. NSWRU weren't willing for it to be permanent (only a licence for a number of years) and the close association with NSWRU and the history meant there were always going to be constraints on an owner.

The USAR comp is certainly a decent structure but the challenge anywhere would be to get the budget required for each team to work within the Australian rugby landscape in a reasonable manner (i.e. with decent players). What are the budgets of each USAR team? It needs to be remembered that the players involved are largely players who couldn't find a pro contract elsewhere.

Maybe Isaia Toeava will end up playing there in his 40s.

The official in season cap is $350,000 USD. However, there are two additional caps for the pre-season. One for the period prior to the official pre-season window and another for the designated pre-season. Not overly sure what those are.

As for the rosters of these teams. They are actually overwhelmingly US eligible players. Even many of the 'imports' are actually American qualified and have been based in the country for some time.

 

[half]

BH

I think you miss understood part of what I asked. The USA competition structures have a governing body controlled and owned by the clubs.

Both the professional competition owned by normally a company with a share structure, is independent from the governing body. Teams competing in the competition own the shares in the company and in turn are independently owned. Both the company and the teams that own it are independent from the governing body.

The closet thing for us would be the structure of the MLS [Major Soccer League] as a code they need to compete in international matches as we do in rugby.

The structure is very logical and as I said could be copied and simply change the names. It works like this so just change everything to a rugby name in this example. FIFA [IRB] approve USA Soccer [RA] to run and control FIFA competitions using FIFA rules. USA Soccer run the national teams, and created a company called Major League Soccer [MLS]. MLS created a competition structure and sent teh competition to USA soccer for approval that it met FIFA requirements. Then MLS as people to invest and run teams. MLS sell to the media and control stadiums. USA soccer watch the games and select their national teams.

BH that is dead set a perfect model for rugby in Australia rugby to follow and it provides a separation of powers and brings in business expertise.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH

I think you miss understood part of what I asked. The USA competition structures have a governing body controlled and owned by the clubs.

BH that is dead set a perfect model for rugby in Australia rugby to follow and it provides a separation of powers and brings in business expertise.

Sorry, I did misunderstand part of your post.

My point there is that without the teams being independent of the governing body the competition isn't going to be independent of the governing body and there is little point for that to happen.

If we had a competition with privately owned teams then I 100% agree that an independent comp structure would make sense.

Who knows what is going to happen post 2020?

 

[RugbyReg]

Sorry, I did misunderstand part of your post.

My point there is that without the teams being independent of the governing body the competition isn't going to be independent of the governing body and there is little point for that to happen.

If we had a competition with privately owned teams then I 100% agree that an independent comp structure would make sense.

ahem.....

 

[Braveheart81]

ahem...

I was editing my post as you typed this.

But thanks Craig Joubert, I'll accept my yellow card.

 

[dru]

It seems to me that the experience of the Cheetahs and Kings in Pro 14 shows that any SA sides participating in that competition will need to be fully professional standard. That would seem to rule out any of the CC franchises just moving across. SA, like Australia, doesn't have the numbers of top quality players to put out more than 5 fully professional sides.

If it transpires that another couple or more SA sides move North, then Super Rugby (and SANZAAR) will collapse.

BR - I located one of the earlier reports on this - dates to the end of 2017.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saru-give-green-light-anglo-welsh-cup-venture/

In essence two teams were selected to join the Anglo Welsh cup - Griquas and Pumas (as I suggested earlier). There were also bids from combined CC Div 1 provinces (the lower CC division). I am not at all familiar with the Anglo Welsh Cup but imagine it is not the highest quality comp in Britain and may suit these Saffers.

My understanding is that the teams would indeed be fully professional - BTW as are the Cheetahs and Kings. Kings were basically disbanded after Shrink to Greatness, lost their player group just as they had been building, and with no lead in walked into the Pro14. It was always going to be a shit year, but they have shown talent enough if they have time to build across seasons.

Griquas and Pumas may not do as poorly as people suggest either, both with real history and rugby credentials.

AND it does not implicate a withdrawal by SARU from Super. SARU are trying to reverse the impact of the rugby drain to Europe by offering alternatives. The test is how it will work financially.

The real surprise from the now discredited report was that three teams were leaving and Natal was specifically mentioned. I'd imagine that would likely mean a clash with the 'KwaZulu Natal' Super Rugby Sharks - it seems a stretch to imagine two international teams from KZN/Durban - hence all the fuss.

 

[dru]

Dilute how?

If you mean adding a team that's not going to happen because none of the existing five can be split in two & splitting two into three doesn't work, either (& if we were stupid enough to try then your last comment applies).

If you mean require NZR to select o/s-based players for the AB I can't see that happening either esp now that some of the countries that used to do it (Wales for example) are moving in the opposite direction.

The answer isn't to dilute NZ's takent it's for SA & Aus to catch up & if they can't then, yes, we are all royally & equally fucked.

While I'm at it, re: Trans Tasman (with or without PI involvement) I'm told that NZR have talked informally with broadcasters in Europe, Asia & North America & none of them is willing to put up the money required to make it viable. If that changes so will NZR's position.

So here's the rub WoB. With those decisions in cast iron, there is no future for Australia in Super. Game, set, match for me. I respect NZR and decision making for NZ, but it is not going to work for Australia. Better to cut the umbilical asap.

 

[dru]

They can't achieve 8 competitive franchises. Meaning they'll be fielding a number sub-par teams in either one or both competitions. Which does not fit into the needs of either competition. They'll have to make a choice and I suspect the franchises will make it for them. According to sarugbymag the franchises are certainly looking at the move.

I really do not understand the whole issue surrounding them leaving and not being able to remain part of the RC. Why? Because they wouldn't be competing week in with other SANZAAR nations. They've competed against us in the past prior to Super Rugby existing. Why not again. The Pro 14 is actually looking at altering their schedule to reduce the number of games (going for quality over quantity) which means they could accommodate the Boks playing in the RC in the future.

They have both the player depth and coaching numbers to achieve both. With careful management. Funding is entirely determined by what these new competitions bring in.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

They have both the player depth and coaching numbers to achieve both. With careful management. Funding is entirely determined by what these new competitions bring in.

Not domestically. They do have the depth but a lot of that depth is based in Europe. Or will be. the Cheetahs are actually losing close to a dozen players before next season alone.

 

[dru]

Not domestically. They do have the depth but a lot of that depth is based in Europe. Or will be. the Cheetahs are actually losing close to a dozen players before next season alone.

Yes you need to add the ex-pats. But we shouldn't diss the domestic depth either - some 400,000 players. What they need is funds to develop it.

Interesting comment on the Cheetahs, worth keeping an eye on.

 

[James Pettifer]

So here's the rub WoB. With those decisions in cast iron, there is no future for Australia in Super. Game, set, match for me. I respect NZR and decision making for NZ, but it is not going to work for Australia. Better to cut the umbilical asap.

I agree unless the player pool is fully shared across all countries - which NZ would also have no interest in doing

So let’s bite the bullet and do what Australia needs to do.