Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

The point is that under the current Super Rugby and Test model that we are connected to in Australia, you are not going to be able to garner any real level of private investment.

The problem lies in the level of control the national bodies have. Yes they need to control Test rugby, but it is there involvement at the level below, Super rugby that is the issue. They want there cake and eat it as well.

Oh hell hoggy, don't even begin to think RA should release control of things below Test rugby, if you ask why, have a wee peek at what happens up north! For player welfare I am afraid you need one controlling body!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well one positive for me is all oz Super Rugby coaches are not at risk of being dropped and justified imho starting next season.

Not saying been perfect but overall not enough ammo to suggest that any of the coaches deserve to be shunted.

As bit of stability in coaching ranks can't certainly harm the cause for improving oz rugby - sure still improvement required but seems to be on right track.

 

[kiap]

you need one controlling body!

This is reinforcing hoggy's case.

They want control to go with private money. Can't get much of the second without letting go some of the first.​

Fine, if you like it that way and don't deny that funding is turned away.

But whatever's happening up north—good and bad—they're eating our lunch.

 

[hoggy]

Oh hell hoggy, don't even begin to think RA should release control of things below Test rugby, if you ask why, have a wee peek at what happens up north! For player welfare I am afraid you need one controlling body!

Yes, but that's a two way argument, is playing 15/16 Tests a year, good player welfare management, and that wee peek is where all the growth is happening at. How long can the RA stand there with the finger in the dyke.

You want one controlling body, well then you have to pay all the bills, which so far hasn't worked out that well.

 

[Dan54]

Yes, but that's a two way argument, is playing 15/16 Tests a year, good player welfare management, and that wee peek is where all the growth is happening at. How long can the RA stand there with the finger in the dyke.

You want one controlling body, well then you have to pay all the bills, which so far hasn't worked out that well.

Well it sure seems to be working next door!! Also seems to work pretty well in Ireland!! I not suggesting that there shouldn't be some in put if possible by other people, but I strongly believe one of things stopping the Poms from being No1 in world is the fact they don't control their players below test level. Not saying 15-16 tests a year is the answer, but I suspect if that is the only way RA is going to get money to pay players, it certainly won't decrease in numbers.

 

[Braveheart81]

The reality is test rugby isn't going to change. It will remain a central part of the calendar for all major rugby nations. We'll keep playing at least 13 tests a year and probably 14 or 15.

We need to have domestic rugby at the same time because clearly one test match a week isn't enough.

The competition we play at that time isn't going to have our best players in it though so it doesn't make sense to have a season long competition that culminates at a time when the best players are missing.

I think it is nigh on impossible to really restructure the makeup of our season. It would require NZ and South Africa to do the same (i.e. play the Rugby Championship in March/April. If that happened your comp would then need to break in July for the inbound tests which are moving from June. That sounds way worse to me.

Whatever happens to Super Rugby I think it is pretty safe to assume we are working with a comp that runs from late Feb to late June/early July that features all the test players and then a different comp that doesn't feature test players from July/August to October.

 

[Omar Comin']

Whatever happens to Super Rugby I think it is pretty safe to assume we are working with a comp that runs from late Feb to late June/early July that features all the test players and then a different comp that doesn't feature test players from July/August to October.

Yeah, this is right. I think it's just really difficult to get people to care about a 2nd competition that's seen as 3rd tier. But it's clearly important for development etc.

Maybe we should bring back Australia A and they can play 6-10 games a year or something from July-September. If they're playing teams like the Maori All Blacks and 2nd tier national teams in places that don't normally get test matches (West Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast, Townsville etc) then they could probably draw semi-decent crowds and reasonable numbers on TV.

Then there'd be at least 2 top level Australian games per week during the test season.

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe we should bring back Australia A and they can play 6-10 games a year or something from July-September. If they're playing teams like the Maori All Blacks and 2nd tier national teams in places that don't normally get test matches (West Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast, Townsville etc) then they could probably draw semi-decent crowds and reasonable numbers on TV.

Then there'd be at least 2 top level Australian games per week during the test season.

It's worth considering but are there enough teams to play and what would the financials of those games look like?

I reckon you'd be struggling to run those games as anything other than a loss making exercise. The cost to put that team together would be really high (not a long way short of the Wallabies per week of camp/game).

It would totally gut the competition you have running through that period too.

 

[Dan54]

Yeah, this is right. I think it's just really difficult to get people to care about a 2nd competition that's seen as 3rd tier. But it's clearly important for development etc.

Maybe we should bring back Australia A and they can play 6-10 games a year or something from July-September. If they're playing teams like the Maori All Blacks and 2nd tier national teams in places that don't normally get test matches (West Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast, Townsville etc) then they could probably draw semi-decent crowds and reasonable numbers on TV.

Then there'd be at least 2 top level Australian games per week during the test season.

I would love to see that idea working Omar, can see the problems that BH mentions , but is lip smacking at the thought! Wouldn't it help develop some depth for Wallabies!!

 

[hoggy]

The reality is test rugby isn't going to change. It will remain a central part of the calendar for all major rugby nations. We'll keep playing at least 13 tests a year and probably 14 or 15.

But will it, just a possibility, but give it 10/15 years and if the English Premiership/Top 14 continue to grow it may very well end up being rugby's version of the EPL.
The Northern Hemisphere Unions are going to be satisfied as long as the Six Nations is protected, they'll be happy.
So how many Tests and who do we play, because those Northern Unions won't be so keen to come here in July, especially when those EPL clubs ask them to give there players a rest.

I'm just not convinced that all those major rugby nations share that vision.

 

[Omar Comin']

It's worth considering but are there enough teams to play and what would the financials of those games look like?

I reckon you'd be struggling to run those games as anything other than a loss making exercise. The cost to put that team together would be really high (not a long way short of the Wallabies per week of camp/game).

It would totally gut the competition you have running through that period too.

Well the NRC has already been consolidated quite a bit since it first started so if you take out the best 25 players from it now you'll just be adding back the sort of guys who've been there before.

Teams to play would include the Pacific Islands, tier 2 nations and tier 1 A teams during the July window. And after that they could play teams like the Maori All Blacks, Japan, Barbarians teams, maybe A teams from South Africa and Argentina.

The financials would be challenging. I don't know if there's enough ways to cut costs and use existing resources etc to make it viable. But it doesn't sound as difficult as fixing Super Rugby! And even if it could only work for 3 or 4 games per year then that would be better than nothing. It would also have clear high performance benefits, which would make it worth losing some amount of money to RA.

 

[Braveheart81]

But will it, just a possibility, but give it 10/15 years and if the English Premiership/Top 14 continue to grow it may very well end up being rugby's version of the EPL.
The Northern Hemisphere Unions are going to be satisfied as long as the Six Nations is protected, they'll be happy.
So how many Tests and who do we play, because those Northern Unions won't be so keen to come here in July, especially when those EPL clubs ask them to give there players a rest.

I'm just not convinced that all those major rugby nations share that vision.

They tour in July as a quid pro quo for us touring in November. That is a major revenue source for those unions.

Well the NRC has already been consolidated quite a bit since it first started so if you take out the best 25 players from it now you'll just be adding back the sort of guys who've been there before.

Teams to play would include the Pacific Islands, tier 2 nations and tier 1 A teams during the July window. And after that they could play teams like the Maori All Blacks, Japan, Barbarians teams, maybe A teams from South Africa and Argentina.

The financials would be challenging. I don't know if there's enough ways to cut costs and use existing resources etc to make it viable. But it doesn't sound as difficult as fixing Super Rugby! And even if it could only work for 3 or 4 games per year then that would be better than nothing. It would also have clear high performance benefits, which would make it worth losing some amount of money to RA.

I agree that the July window would be the prime time to get a couple of games. After that though, it would be difficult. None of the other nations are available through the Rugby Championship really.

 

[Omar Comin']

I agree that the July window would be the prime time to get a couple of games. After that though, it would be difficult. None of the other nations are available through the Rugby Championship really.

During the Rugby Championship they could at least play home and away against the Maori All Blacks or All Blacks A if the NZRU were interested. Barbarians would probably be the next best option. They could also probably play tier 2 nations whose players are primarily based outside of Europe like Uruguay, USA and Canada. World Rugby would probably get behind that sort of thing too.

 

[hoggy]

They tour in July as a quid pro quo for us touring in November. That is a major revenue source for those unions.

Well that's all well and good as long as the status quo remains

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think we both accept Kiap we won't see much change with super rugby....WSR is where we will get innovation and trial of new things as they are less hamstrung and more risk averse than RA to do so.

What is hoped is those things that work in WSR are adopted for Super Rugby and indeed we have more than 1 oz team in both WSR and Super Rugby. Example was highlighted that Rebels adopted some of Force pre game entertainment concepts which for me is good thing to be sharing innovation across Oz sides whether they play in Super Rugby or WSR.

I hope WSR is successful moreso as some of reasons for its success hopefully at least could be copied by Super Rugby where proven stuff WSR doing shown to work to create more compelling product that has greater fan appeal. We all agreed on the need for change so if things can be trialed in WSR who are less risk averse to change and innovation to consider for adoption in Super Rugby that can only be a good thing.

 

[kiap]

I think we both accept Kiap we won't see much change with super rugby..

In terms of a big restructure, I think that's right.

Not in the next two years anyway, unless you count the Sunwolves pulling the pin as big. I reckon the format might be tweaked, but not enough for a real up-tick. i.e. fix one issue and create another.

The five-month-round-the-world club comp concept has passed its use by date.

Needs the full shake up.

WSR is where we will get innovation and trial of new things as they are less hamstrung and more risk averse than RA to do so.

Yeah, seems so.

Well, not hamstrung by their willingness to have a go, anyway. They'll get no help from RA.

 

[Joe King]

You evolve from the existing (already funded, albeit declining position) to a better position. The changes are:

1. Split the derby components from the rest of the soup, formats then controlled by the original partners.
2. Rejig the the transcontinental comp

If you don't have a lot of extra cash to splash you need to use baby steps. Small additions.

.

I think that's right. It doesn't involve any extra derbies for NZ, it gives Australia a domestic comp feel, and it solves the travel issue for SA. It also simplifies the structure and table. You follow your own team through your own closed conference in order to qualify for WHO you play from the other conferences (It could be a guaranteed 7 home and 7 away games overall, for every team, if there were 6 teams per conference). Interest in how 'our' best conference teams will go against 'their' best develops and grows through the season making them much more appealing to spectators.

 

[kiap]

And even though the comp gets split, it's still all put to market for broadcast under the SANZAAR umbrella.

 

[ForceFan]

An interesting perspective from Bret Harris (ex The Australian) who is now Sports Writer for The Guardian (18 July 2018).
After a Super Rugby season without the Force, is history repeating?

The first Super Rugby regular season without the culled Western Force has just concluded, begging the question: was all the pain and anguish worth it?

To be sure, there were signs of improvement by the four remaining Australian Super Rugby teams – the Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs and Queensland Reds.

Keeping in mind this year’s competition was reduced from 18 teams to 15, the Waratahs won the Australian conference and finished third on the table after coming 16th last season; the Rebels improved from last to ninth; the Reds went from 14th to 13th; and the Brumbies slipped from fourth to 10th, although they finished strongly.

The one thing that did not change from last year was that only one Australian team reached the Super Rugby play-offs – this season the Waratahs – even though more teams made the top eight than did not.

If not for Super Rugby’s conference system, the Waratahs would have finished equal fifth on the overall table with the Highlanders, the team they will host in the quarter-final at Allianz Stadium in Sydney on Saturday night.

Were those results really worth the price of cutting the third largest rugby state in Australia (behind NSW and Queensland) from Super Rugby?

There is no doubt the four remaining teams benefit from a wider pool of talent, albeit unevenly at this stage, and a potential increase in their share of broadcast revenue. That, however has to be weighed up against the drawback of alienating a whole state, and a big one at that – the second largest country sub-division in the world.

Sure, a Western Force team will compete in the National Rugby Championship this year, but that is a development competition, not a professional league. If not for the philanthropy of mining magnate Andrew Forrest, who created the invitational competition World Series Rugby, there would be no semblance of professional rugby at all in Western Australia. The pathway to professional contracts would head due east.

But cutting the Force was not about rugby. It was about economics. Rugby Australia claimed it would go broke if it had to continue to support five Australian Super Rugby teams. RA had propped up the Force financially just as it had the Waratahs, the Reds and the Rebels before them. It was the Force’s timing that was the problem. They were like the player who is yellow-carded after several of his team-mates receive warnings.
With Forrest’s financial support, the Force would have potentially been the most commercially viable Australian franchise, but it was too late. SANZAAR had decided to reduce Super Rugby from 18 teams to 15 and the Force had entered into an “alliance” with RA, which meant they effectively signed their own death warrant. In the end RA got rid of the Force – rather than the Brumbies or the Rebels - because they could.
Unlike South Africa, who re-located their two culled teams, the Cheetahs and the Kings, to Europe, there was no fallback position for the Force. If not for Forrest, the Force’s ocean blue jerseys would be collectors’ items.

Moving forward, it has to be asked: has Australian rugby learnt anything from the culling of the Force, or is the code doomed to repeat the same mistakes which led to the western franchise’s demise?

The Force and the Rebels, the two rugby expansion franchises in AFL-dominated states, got into financial difficulty primarily because they tried to buy success without laying the foundation for growth.

Is history about to repeat itself? Rugby Australia waived the salary cap this year to allow teams to absorb ex-Force players, but the players were not evenly re-distributed among the four remaining Australian teams.

The Waratahs only recruited one ex-Force player, outside back Curtis Rona. The Brumbies picked up a few ex-Force players, but only number eight Isireli Naisarani made any real contribution to their season following winger Chance Peni’s problems with the Super Rugby judiciary, while the Reds recruited playmaker Jono Lance.

The vast majority of ex-Force players, including Wallabies Adam Coleman and Dane Haylett-Petty, followed coach Dave Wessels to the Rebels, who had already signed high-profile Australian halfback Will Genia.
Naisarani is leaving the Brumbies to re-join his ex-Force coach Wessels and team-mates at the Rebels, while there is speculation former Brumbies playmaker Matt To'omua will wind up in Melbourne after returning from English club Leicester.

Certainly the Rebels would have plans in place, but a casual observer might wonder how they are going to fit everyone under the salary cap, if indeed the salary cap is restored.
The Rebels fell just short of reaching the play-offs this season, and there will be more pressure on them to succeed next year. We have been down this road before.

We have already seen what can happen when an expansion franchise raises expectations and fails to deliver in a market that is not yet ready to capitalise on success, but will punish failure. It has been the great error of Australian Super Rugby expansion.

If the Rebels, and the other Australian teams for that matter, learn from the mistakes of the past, then perhaps that will be the Force’s greatest legacy to Super Rugby.

Maybe then, if the Force’s sacrifice is not in vain, the sorrow and pain felt in the west will all be worthwhile.

 

[cyclopath]

Agree, it's hard to argue there has been a nett benefit. As the article says, the Waratahs picked up 1 player from the Force being cut, the Brumbies a bit more, The Reds little (? any) and the Rebels a lot. So one could tie the Rebels improvement to the player gain in part, but overall, you couldn't really say the conference is better off, although I would say the quality of rugby played was overall better. It would be nice to have some clarity from RA as to what is happening and will happen regarding the cap.