Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

Exactly BH. If we had 10 teams of required standard, they would be presently playing in the NRC. But 9 was too many and has dropped to 8.

And who's to say that a national competition wouldn't be sabotaged by some of the SS personalities just like is happening with Super Rugby and NRC right now?

The NRC is essentially a short development competition. It is quite different to what a mostly domestic professional club competition, including our 5 established domestic teams, would be. For one, players could be signed from all over the world. There's no reason why it couldn't be at least as high standard as the Currie Cup and M10 Cup, not least because professional teams in the Australian tournament could raid the hell out of those competitions as most of those players are on semi-pro wages. Building up the competition and its teams would be the primary goal, not player development. It'd provide a platform to grow from at least.

 

[Braveheart81]

Would we really need 10 teams though? The current 8 plus Fiji would give each team 16 games over 17 weeks. Plus finals it would be 19-20 weeks.

World Rugby is funding the Fiji team for the NRC. What would the funding requirement be though if the competition was more than twice the length and of a substantially higher standard?

That Fiji team isn't going to be competitive if they can only offer $10k salary per player.

So let's be bold then. Fuck Foxtel off. Sell it to the highest bidder on FTA and actually try something different. I would be very surprised if the money was so much less as to make a big difference and the upside makes up for that.

Where is the audience though? Currently only the Wallabies have a viable audience for prime time FTA and even then that is dubious when it is against Argentina etc.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The NRC is essentially a short development competition. It is quite different to what a mostly domestic professional club competition, including our 5 established domestic teams, would be. For one, players could be signed from all over the world. There's no reason why it couldn't be at least as high standard as the Currie Cup and M10 Cup, not least because professional teams in the Australian tournament could raid the hell out of those competitions as most of those players are on semi-pro wages. Building up the competition and its teams would be the primary goal, not player development. It'd provide a platform to grow from at least.

My concern would be that even a competition at CC or Mitre 10 level won't be enough to attract and retain audiences in Aus given the competition for bums on seats from existing other codes. Only the Wallabies and to a lesser extent the Super Rugby sides have that level of attraction.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Isn’t the “sanzar revenue” all just bokke tv money? Didn’t Aus get a 285 million tv deal starting this season? I’m no accountant but without that income…. Uhh…..no Aus player gets paid? So if the bokkes want the Southern Kings and the Orange Free State Toothless Panda’s in there then by fuck they will get them. Empty stadiii and barely three people in all of Australasia watching but that’s beside the point. Ching ching motherfuckers!

No real reason for Japan franchise to exist. For this years model, besides the front row and back 3, all players are expat ring-ins.

US expansion? Their league just dissolved. NFL boofball swamps all. FFS, I’d rather watch the NFL boofball than most of this super rugby bollox.

An Island-based expansion team? Idealists dream. No gate receipts, no TV$, no competitive player salaries, no dice.

You could say “go back to a Super 12/14 model” but but uhh yeah actually that sounds pretty good,

Maybe the best support we could get from NZ would be for them to allow our NRC and their Mitre 10 comps to be amalgamated in some form?

I really like this idea. Scrap “super rugby” altogether, get 8 or 10 Div 1 NZ provinces and however many from Aus and have a good old ding dong trans tasman NPC. Fuck me I would watch the shit out of that. (unfortunately without the bokke TV money nobody would get paid and everybody would piss off to France but I haven’t thought that part through yet)

 

[Omar Comin']

My concern would be that even a competition at CC or Mitre 10 level won't be enough to attract and retain audiences in Aus given the competition for bums on seats from existing other codes. Only the Wallabies and to a lesser extent the Super Rugby sides have that level of attraction.

Well I think it'd be a higher quality tournament than the A League is, relative to the best tournaments in either sport (i.e. an Australian based pro comp would be closer in quality to Super Rugby is now than the A League is to the English Premier League or Euro Champions League).

And while there'd be a drop in quality compared to what Super Rugby is now, maybe this gets balanced out to some extent by advantages like having more local rivalries and better scheduling etc?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

World Rugby is funding the Fiji team for the NRC. What would the funding requirement be though if the competition was more than twice the length and of a substantially higher standard?

That Fiji team isn't going to be competitive if they can only offer $10k salary per player.




Where is the audience though? Currently only the Wallabies have a viable audience for prime time FTA and even then that is dubious when it is against Argentina etc.

Those questions would definitely need to be addressed. But I also think if Fiji were to be offered a place in a wider competition they could find the necessary backing to make it work.

As for the audience. If the SS ratings are anything to go by having topped 100k several times last year it does appear to be there. For a inferior product. But one that can produce some pleasantly entertaining football. An upgraded NRC would be of a significantly higher standard.

I know quality is a focus but in professional sport entertainment is more so. We need to weigh that up. I tend to think we could offer a more entertaining overall product than our competitors if we went with the NRC or some iteration of it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Isn’t the “sanzar revenue” all just bokke tv money? Didn’t Aus get a 285 million tv deal starting this season? I’m no accountant but without that income…. Uhh…..no Aus player gets paid? So if the bokkes want the Southern Kings and the Orange Free State Toothless Panda’s in there then by fuck they will get them. Empty stadiii and barely three people in all of Australasia watching but that’s beside the point. Ching ching motherfuckers!

No real reason for Japan franchise to exist. For this years model, besides the front row and back 3, all players are expat ring-ins.

US expansion? Their league just dissolved. NFL boofball swamps all. FFS, I’d rather watch the NFL boofball than most of this super rugby bollox.

An Island-based expansion team? Idealists dream. No gate receipts, no TV$, no competitive player salaries, no dice.

You could say “go back to a Super 12/14 model” but but uhh yeah actually that sounds pretty good,



I really like this idea. Scrap “super rugby” altogether, get 8 or 10 Div 1 NZ provinces and however many from Aus and have a good old ding dong trans tasman NPC. Fuck me I would watch the shit out of that. (unfortunately without the bokke TV money nobody would get paid and everybody would piss off to France but I haven’t thought that part through yet)

No, we negotiated most of that deal domestically.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well I think it'd be a higher quality tournament than the A League is, relative to the best tournaments in either sport (i.e. an Australian based pro comp would be closer in quality to Super Rugby is now than the A League is to the English Premier League or Euro Champions League).

And while there'd be a drop in quality compared to what Super Rugby is now, maybe this gets balanced out to some extent by advantages like having more local rivalries and better scheduling etc?

Any comparison to the A League doesn't really work in my opinion.

They are a sport with a huge following in Australia that needed to tap into part of that audience to be successful. They are struggling to do that.

It has also had the benefit of significant amounts of private equity in individual teams and support through Frank Lowy.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

My concern would be that even a competition at CC or Mitre 10 level won't be enough to attract and retain audiences in Aus given the competition for bums on seats from existing other codes. Only the Wallabies and to a lesser extent the Super Rugby sides have that level of attraction.

If it offers an entertaining package it will.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I really like this idea. Scrap “super rugby” altogether, get 8 or 10 Div 1 NZ provinces and however many from Aus and have a good old ding dong trans tasman NPC. Fuck me I would watch the shit out of that. (unfortunately without the bokke TV money nobody would get paid and everybody would piss off to France but I haven’t thought that part through yet)

Thank you for your support DP. It surely must get up now.

Actually, the bulk of the tv money comes from Europe I believe, so if the competition is good enough then it doesn't have to rely on Saffa money. In any case, that's why I would continue with the Super Rugby comp to ensure that the tv money keeps rolling in while establishing a second competition that just might prove to be attractive to viewers and supporters in both NZ and Aus and lead to an improvement in Aus players generally.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Well I think it'd be a higher quality tournament than the A League is, relative to the best tournaments in either sport (i.e. an Australian based pro comp would be closer in quality to Super Rugby is now than the A League is to the English Premier League or Euro Champions League).

And while there'd be a drop in quality compared to what Super Rugby is now, maybe this gets balanced out to some extent by advantages like having more local rivalries and better scheduling etc?

Rugby's problems are, and solutions need to be rugby-based. Can't see the relevance of A League, AFL or NRL.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Any comparison to the A League doesn't really work in my opinion.

They are a sport with a huge following in Australia that needed to tap into part of that audience to be successful. They are struggling to do that.

It has also had the benefit of significant amounts of private equity in individual teams and support through Frank Lowy.

The A-League was always going to struggle as due to the nature of that sport. It was literally the 99th league in the world last I saw. And suffers at the hands of the overbearing presences of the likes the EPL and La Liga. It's international nature is its greatest obstacle. Which could be suggested for Rugby but we're not at the same level or in the same situation despite the obvious growth of both the Top 14 and AP.

We could still offer a product equally entertaining if not more so than our international competitiors. Something the A-League could only dream of.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Thank you for your support DP. It surely must get up now.

Actually, the bulk of the tv money comes from Europe I believe, so if the competition is good enough then it doesn't have to rely on Saffa money. In any case, that's why I would continue with the Super Rugby comp to ensure that the tv money keeps rolling in while establishing a second competition that just might prove to be attractive to viewers and supporters in both NZ and Aus and lead to an improvement in Aus players generally.

I understand about wanting to keep the European TV money coming in but I tend to think we should be looking more locally in geographically speaking. I'd go as far as to suggest that if we do ever go down this path that we look to align ourselves with the Top League in Japan and begin to look to tap into the growing Asian markets.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Maybe rugby needs a World Series ala Packer- like and piss off the concept of Super Rugby altogether.

2 teams from each of England, New Zealand, South Africa and 1 each from Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France and Australia.

Pay the players big money, same with coaches. Pick the players based on ability and performance and not the way it is often done, certainly in Australia. A true professional environment.

Would fuck test series and probably RWC's but suppose it would be like having a World Cup every year.

Doesn't help grassroots but current model leaves plenty to be desired.

I realise that countries such as Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Italy, Georgia, USA, Canada get chucked to the wolves and that is not in the interests of furthering rugby overall,

 

[Omar Comin']

I think you would need a huge capital injection into the game here to be able to take on the risk of a domestic only competition as the major league we are involved in otherwise the risk that everything goes broke prior to having the necessary time to establish it would be too high.

You have to keep in mind that the ARU would still be able to subsidise such a competition with the substantial revenues it generates from the Wallabies. And while the Super Rugby broadcast revenue the ARU receives would fall it'd be more than countered by not having to centrally contract players.

The ARU would thus be able to distribute a pretty substantial amount to say 8 Australian based teams (lets assume either an 8 team comp or 10 teams with a couple based in the Pacific or Asia). What kind of salary bill would you need as a minimum to maintain a good level of professionalism in Australia? A $3 million salary cap over a 35 man squad would average approximately $85k. That could be paid for in ARU grants alone. $24 million is substantially less than what they currently spend on Super Rugby and central contracts.

 

[Braveheart81]

If we are withdrawing from the SANZAAR agreement I think we would take a whack in what we were being distributed for the Wallabies games. South Africa and New Zealand wouldn't be bending over backwards to ensure our revenue share if we walk away from them.

The ARU ceasing top up contracts and lowering the salary cap dramatically would surely result in just about every player close to Wallabies selection relocating overseas. Why would they remain in Australia to earn a fraction of what they currently do?

If the ARU was to go it alone with a domestic comp I think the result would be a standard only a bit higher than the NRC that would have less supporters than the Super Rugby sides currently have. It would have limited international appeal and would struggle to attract any significant tv deal in Australia. It would be an unmitigated disaster in my opinion.

I just don't believe that there is a huge untapped rugby audience in Australia that will start turning up, tuning in and spending money on the game if the structure of the competition was a bit different.

 

[TOCC]

I agree about the need for domestic content. But it's the overall structure it could take to be workable is probably the biggest issue. While Argentina does have the basic structures to create their own domestic an overarching theme I hear from many Argentines is there simply isn't the money or will to turn either their clubs or provincial squad professional.

Even if you could work with the Top League the Argentina issue would make it hard to resolve.

I do know they are keen for a 2nd franchise either based in Argentina or elsewhere in Sth America and there's speculation the Wild Knights want in as well.

Yes all true, but Argentina isn't Australian Rugby's primary concern... If Australian Rugby is in decline then in 10 or 15 years Australia won't be in a position to assist them at all. SANZAR have been very accommodating up to now with Argentina,
and a new Champions League isn't excluding the Argentines.

Lack of money or will in Argentinian Rugby shouldnt preclude Australian Rugby from seeking to look after their best interests.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

World Rugby is funding the Fiji team for the NRC. What would the funding requirement be though if the competition was more than twice the length and of a substantially higher standard?



That Fiji team isn't going to be competitive if they can only offer $10k salary per player.









Where is the audience though? Currently only the Wallabies have a viable audience for prime time FTA and even then that is dubious when it is against Argentina etc.

I hate to admit it but being practical I don't think we have the product that could sell to FTA to attract the funding needed. We need as you say BH a major injection of capital by a rich benefactor or Allsports type; and/or change in current product that makes it appealing to bigger audience (ie. not saying NRC product in terms of rule changes have got it completely right but something along that lines ie. as need to accept rugby in current format has limited appeal in this country).

That is why the NRC is a good thing bubbling behind the scenes where can experiment with rule changes to test what could change to create more appealing product. Probably need to accept Super Rugby our only option but with better conference structure that aligns to at least for part of the season having more focus on domestic - interconference games between oz sides which then could be springboard to long term bigger domestic league.

In fairness whilst suffering at Super Rugby level grass roots initiatives are being hatched and making some success.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If we are withdrawing from the SANZAAR agreement I think we would take a whack in what we were being distributed for the Wallabies games. South Africa and New Zealand wouldn't be bending over backwards to ensure our revenue share if we walk away from them.

The ARU ceasing top up contracts and lowering the salary cap dramatically would surely result in just about every player close to Wallabies selection relocating overseas. Why would they remain in Australia to earn a fraction of what they currently do?

If the ARU was to go it alone with a domestic comp I think the result would be a standard only a bit higher than the NRC that would have less supporters than the Super Rugby sides currently have. It would have limited international appeal and would struggle to attract any significant tv deal in Australia. It would be an unmitigated disaster in my opinion.

I just don't believe that there is a huge untapped rugby audience in Australia that will start turning up, tuning in and spending money on the game if the structure of the competition was a bit different.

Maintaining our current course is leading to disaster. It may seem odd but I'd rather us us go down fighting than merely accepting the status quo.

I honestly don't think doing away with Super Rugby would end SANZAAR. I think ot would actually offer each of us an opportunity to revitalise how we compete against one anotger in general. For both NZ and SA their respective domestic competitions are struggling due to being downgraded to nothing more than development competitions.

I think disbanding Super Rugby as it stands and focusing on individual domestic competitions that run during a set period similar to that of Super Rugby could work if as TOCC has suggested a international aspect was then attached.

It would also allow us to better engage with the likes of Japan who could use their Top League.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Lets face it at this point is about just trying to sustain 5 teams and grow the game; and unfortunately probably not enough to stand alone - best we can hope for is rejig of conference structure and hope that grass roots initiatives continue to build a better pipeline for the 5 oz sides. Oh and we win the lottery where a rich benefactor was to spend a billion creating a new rugby domestic competition in oz with focus on more entertaining and appealing product that appeals to bigger audience.