Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

The broadcasters (Fox, Super Sport, SkyNZ & Sky UK) have presented SANZAAR with their post-2021 wish list:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...cal-shakeup-of-super-rugby-rugby-championship

Some interesting ideas e.g. a return to actual tours but also some pie in the sky stuff e.g. the marquee player pool: I just don't see anyone wanting their best players based overseas where they can't be monitored, rested etc as is now becoming the norm.

No WOB, mind you it be handy for super clubs to have Marquee players that they can run into the ground with no worries about tests etc . Though I like the idea of mini tours for RC teams, let's face it, they will just be a second team as noone will use test players, but still could be a bit more rugby for us to enjoy.

 

[Quick Hands]

The broadcasters (Fox, Super Sport, SkyNZ & Sky UK) have presented SANZAAR with their post-2021 wish list:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...cal-shakeup-of-super-rugby-rugby-championship

Some interesting ideas e.g. a return to actual tours but also some pie in the sky stuff e.g. the marquee player pool: I just don't see anyone wanting their best players based overseas where they can't be monitored, rested etc as is now becoming the norm.

I suggested a return to a tours based format featuring the SH nations a year or two ago. It's a much better format, but should be 3 test tours with only 1 test against other SH nations so that the TRC would only be decided by each team playing each other once. 3 test tours would have their own trophy. So for example on the year that Australia toured South Africa for 3 tests there would be a single test v ABs in Sydney. Those years might also involve tests v PI nations at home - which I think would be a great way to give them more matches v Aust and NZ and a share of revenue from those games. TRC simply doesn't capture public interest in the same way that 3 test series do or 6N does in the NH.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It's £10m/year. Which is around $18m/year. And I suspect part of the holding out from England is to secure a higher take so that could be more yet. I think they are more or less referring to the RA capitulation on the Super Rugby structure and the axing of the Sunwolves.

Yep WCR for my mind England knows how much World Rugby and the broadcaster behind it want this so holding out for better commercials.

As already pretty good counter offers made to entice:

• Removal of semi finals
• Guaranteed revenue even if relegated (assume just applies to incumbent 6 nation members) for life of broadcast deal (that blew me away yet still many hold out - greedy self serving bastards).

I would like to see something come of this but to 6 nations members been holding out against promotion / relegation for long time due to entrenched self interest that will be incredibly hard to shift which given guaranteed revenue even if relegated is proof in the pudding.

 

[hoggy]

"Sometimes less can be more and we're openly acknowledging that the expansion path didn't work for Super Rugby, but part of that is not repeating the mistake and saying how do we get back to a format that's more engaging. Cameron Clyne.

What so a Japanese team based in the SA conference, living on a plane, with opposite time zones, playing half its home games in Singapore, given a bunch journeyman players didn't quite work. Well blow me down with a feather.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

Yep WCR for my mind England knows how much World Rugby and the broadcaster behind it want this so holding out for better commercials.

As already pretty good counter offers made to entice:

• Removal of semi finals
• Guaranteed revenue even if relegated (assume just applies to incumbent 6 nation members) for life of broadcast deal (that blew me away yet still many hold out - greedy self serving bastards).

I would like to see something come of this but to 6 nations members been holding out against promotion / relegation for long time due to entrenched self interest that will be incredibly hard to shift which given guaranteed revenue even if relegated is proof in the pudding.

I would expect every union to act in its own best interests and the interests of its members.

It's not all about the filthy lucre.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The broadcasters (Fox, Super Sport, SkyNZ & Sky UK) have presented SANZAAR with their post-2021 wish list:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...cal-shakeup-of-super-rugby-rugby-championship

Some interesting ideas e.g. a return to actual tours but also some pie in the sky stuff e.g. the marquee player pool: I just don't see anyone wanting their best players based overseas where they can't be monitored, rested etc as is now becoming the norm.

I don't understand the hand wringing over opening the player market. I actually think it could be a net positive for the competition. Imagine Australian teams being even more competitive to the point people start turning up and tuning in in greater numbers and then broadcasters deciding to pay even more for the competition. Won't happen of course. The Sth Africans for sure won't like it. If the Australian market ever saw value in Super Rugby they'd lose their biggest bargaining chip in form of the money they bring to the game.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I suggested a return to a tours based format featuring the SH nations a year or two ago. It's a much better format, but should be 3 test tours with only 1 test against other SH nations so that the TRC would only be decided by each team playing each other once. 3 test tours would have their own trophy. So for example on the year that Australia toured South Africa for 3 tests there would be a single test v ABs in Sydney. Those years might also involve tests v PI nations at home - which I think would be a great way to give them more matches v Aust and NZ and a share of revenue from those games. TRC simply doesn't capture public interest in the same way that 3 test series do or 6N does in the NH.

"And at Super Rugby level it argues for a pool of 'marquee players' be able to move across the SANZAAR nations without it impacting their test eligibility, as well as all Super Rugby teams featuring their home city or region in their names."​

yep and that way we solve the cross borders issue where countries like NZ who have most playing talent make for a dominant and less competitive competition. Even the playing field - broadcasters who have the dosh are the ones to push this through so rapt they have put this on the table. Way to make super rugby more relevant as a competitive sporting competition to keep fan interest. Bet twiggy laughing as this is what he wanted for rapid rugby for oz wallaby eligibility to apply if play for GRR teams outside of oz which RA knocked back.

 

[barbarian]

Yeah I like that idea, and the Rugby Championship 'tour' concept too. Would definitely pay to see the Tahs (no Wallabies) play a second-string Bok team.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The broadcaster proposals are hardly radical but just allowing professional rugby to enter the 21st century.

I mean making - the teams have the name of the city or region they represent - gees it is more just embarrassing that taken the broadcasters and not SANZAAR to work that one out....

 

[barbarian]

The broadcaster proposals are hardly radical but just allowing professional rugby to enter the 21st century.

Yes, but in another way we're going back to the 20th century too - midweek games by touring teams, geographic locations in team names. I suppose we could include the occasional Wallaby victory there, but that may be too much to ask.

 

[Quick Hands]

The broadcaster proposals are hardly radical but just allowing professional rugby to enter the 21st century.

I mean making - the teams have the name of the city or region they represent - gees it is more just embarrassing that taken the broadcasters and not SANZAAR to work that one out..

I don't think anyone ever explained why it was thought to be a good idea not to include geographic identification in teams names from the very beginning.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't understand the hand wringing over opening the player market.

There's still a lot of people in rugby who want rugby to be a professional sport, but want to cling to amateur era thinking when it suits.

I actually think it could be a net positive for the competition. Imagine Australian teams being even more competitive to the point people start turning up and tuning in in greater numbers and then broadcasters deciding to pay even more for the competition.

It would make it look like a professional sporting competition anyway.

Having said both of those things, the biggest thing holding super rugby back is its inter-continental structure featuring multiple and distant time zones. That issue can't change as long as NZ maintain their position of regular games against South African opponents so that their players get to play against SA style rugby and in SA conditions. Maybe the tours concept would solve that issue?

 

[barbarian]

Wasn't it an issue with NZ teams representing a wider region than the city they mentioned? So the Canterbury Crusaders weren't just Canterbury, and the same went for the Otago Highlanders, Wellington Hurricanes, Waikato Chiefs and Auckland Blues.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think anyone ever explained why it was thought to be a good idea not to include geographic identification in teams names from the very beginning.

Because the provinces in South Africa an New Zealand didn't want to be swallowed by the dominant feeder area partner.

eg Blues represent more than just Aukland, they include North Harbour and Northland

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Re: the Marquee player thing, it'd have to be carefully managed so that, say, the Blues couldn't sign Israel Folau then give him so many Super Rugby minutes that he's knackered when it's time for National duties (something that was an issue for many people on here not so long ago & that was obviously when it was the 'tahs, Reds etc flogging their Wobs every week).

 

[Quick Hands]

Wasn't it an issue with NZ teams representing a wider region than the city they mentioned? So the Canterbury Crusaders weren't just Canterbury, and the same went for the Otago Highlanders, Wellington Hurricanes, Waikato Chiefs and Auckland Blues.

Because the provinces in South Africa an New Zealand didn't want to be swallowed by the dominant feeder area partner.

eg Blues represent more than just Aukland, they include North Harbour and Northland

Thanks, makes sense in the NZ setting.

 

[Rebels3]

I just read the NZ players association isn’t in favor of players been able to play for teams in other countries. So that basically scuttles that idea. It was in stuff or NZ herald for those interested.

I’m still trying to figure out how all this resistance to change and a longing for the past structures is going to stem the flow of talent to Japan and Europe, and then to the NRL at a junior level. But I guess they are the experts.

By the time of the next tv rights deal, what’s the odds of kiwi fans crying out for more derbies because they realized they don’t care for the SA games as all the SA talent is in the north, Australian games are won against a bunch of 19-23 yr olds using Super Rugby as a stepping stone to the $$$ in Europe and NZ dropping to around 4th in the world blamed on lack of competitive fixtures toughening them up for internationals. SA fans calling for their teams to move to Europe because of the money and Australia talking about dropping another team because they can’t attract talent with the money they generate from commercial opportunities due to the decline in professional opportunities and fixtures.

 

[dru]

Thanks, makes sense in the NZ setting.

We can expect resistance the second time around too.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I just read the NZ players association isn’t in favor of players been able to play for teams in other countries. So that basically scuttles that idea. It was in stuff or NZ herald for those interested.

I’m still trying to figure out how all this resistance to change and a longing for the past structures is going to stem the flow of talent to Japan and Europe, and then to the NRL at a junior level. But I guess they are the experts.

By the time of the next tv rights deal, what’s the odds of kiwi fans crying out for more derbies because they realized they don’t care for the SA games as all the SA talent is in the north, Australian games are won against a bunch of 19-23 yr olds using Super Rugby as a stepping stone to the $$$ in Europe and NZ dropping to around 4th in the world blamed on lack of competitive fixtures toughening them up for internationals. SA fans calling for their teams to move to Europe because of the money and Australia talking about dropping another team because they can’t attract talent with the money they generate from commercial opportunities due to the decline in professional opportunities and fixtures.

I think the marquee concept (re: read think twiggyball) is sound as not all in. The fact NZ does not support would in my view show they are not who we should be relying on to develop something that would serve broader Oz and Asian growth plans. NZ to my mind is another England in that they will do fuck all to develop the world game and only look after their own interests.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the marquee concept (re: read think twiggyball) is sound as not all in. The fact NZ does not support would in my view show they are not who we should be relying on to develop something that would serve broader Oz and Asian growth plans. NZ to my mind is another England in that they will do fuck all to develop the world game and only look after their own interests.

Honestly, our needs and wants have diverged so much in regards to anything below the Test match arena that we really should be looking at other options beyond Super Rugby at this point. Pity we cannot seem to mend the fences with GRR and look to find a Infront like opportunity to help fund an attempt at creating the best league in the world.