Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

Huge changes happening in SA

https://www.springboks.rugby/articles/2019/06/07/New-contracting-model-announced

Interesting to see how this works out.

The two biggest take outs is the reduction of professional contracts, which is something they have talked about for a while. Some of the provinces had almost 60 contracted people on the books. The other big take out is the Springbok top ups will not exist beyond current contracts.

I personally think this will free up cash to retain good super level players better than they had been, but the absolute top tier of player will almost certainly all play abroad.

 

[hoggy]

Huge changes happening in SA

https://www.springboks.rugby/articles/2019/06/07/New-contracting-model-announced

Interesting to see how this works out.

The two biggest take outs is the reduction of professional contracts, which is something they have talked about for a while. Some of the provinces had almost 60 contracted people on the books. The other big take out is the Springbok top ups will not exist beyond current contracts.

I personally think this will free up cash to retain good super level players better than they had been, but the absolute top tier of player will almost certainly all play abroad.

The beginning of privatization, players contracted to clubs and Match payments for Test matches.

 

[dru]

Huge changes happening in SA

A progression path with the elite being Europe based. You could call it a move away from meritocracy to striving to the average.

What they have that might make it work is huge numbers and if they keep the production line going they may well generate enough up and coming talent to remain competitive. But the big names will end up overseas. We don’t have the numbers to be able to replicate it here.

Interesting to see how things eventuate for the Griquas and Pumas - they pretty much get locked in as second tier. I had thought that SARU were trying to develop them as proper franchises.

 

[RebelYell]

Heard that there are some redundancies occurring within Fox's Rugby dept - not entirely sure who though so won't post names in case I am mistaken. Anybody able to shed light?

 

[PhilClinton]

Heard that there are some redundancies occurring within Fox's Rugby dept - not entirely sure who though so won't post names in case I am mistaken. Anybody able to shed light?

Have heard similar and it lines up with the mail about Fox Sports removing Rugby from its marquee lineup of sports.

 

[half]

Looks to the sky, shakes head in disbelief that this is published by a rugby writer.

From the Guardian Australia - Bret Harris.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...y-cull-as-australian-teams-fail-to-fire-again

Calls for Super Rugby cull as Australian teams fail to fire again
The axing of the Western Force led to only an incremental improvement in Australia’s Super Rugby fortunes – is it time to lose another team?
There are calls for Australia to cut another Super Rugby team after only one side, the Brumbies, reached the playoffs this season.
This comes just two years after the axing of the Western Force, but it appears Australia does not have sufficient depth to support even four Super Rugby teams let alone five.
The Brumbies won the Australian conference title for the third time in the last four years, securing a home quarter-final against South African side, the Sharks, on Saturday night. Quite frankly, the Brumbies were the only Australian team that looked like playoff material.
The Melbourne Rebels and the NSW Waratahs both had mathematical chances of reaching the top eight heading into last weekend’s final round, but were thrashed by New Zealand opposition and finished 11th and 12th respectively.
Australia’s fourth team, the Queensland Reds, came second last, finishing only above the Japanese Sunwolves, who will be kicked out of the competition after next season.
A lot can be done to improve Australia’s Super Rugby teams, such as better talent identification and coaching, but the results indicate that Australia needs another cull.
Australia cannot afford to carry four teams, especially with the player exodus to Europe and Japan continuing to weaken the playing ranks. When Australia expanded to Perth (2006) and Melbourne (2011) it ignored the trend of Australian players heading overseas.
In hindsight, it was perhaps unwise to add two extra Super Rugby teams at a time when Australian players were beginning to leave our shores en masse. The trickle has become a flood and there is no sign of it abating any time soon.
It is not just the quantity of players leaving, but the quality. It used to be just veteran Wallabies at the end of their Test careers taking rich deals in Europe, but now Wallabies such as Samu Kerevi and Adam Coleman are leaving in the prime of their playing lives.
Australia started Super Rugby in 1996 with three teams and should go back to three teams, but which side would you cut?
It would be inconceivable to cut the Waratahs or the Reds. NSW and Queensland are rugby heartland states. Between them they produce the vast majority of professional players in Australia and have the most corporate and public support, at least when they are performing well
Australia would have no choice but to cut the Brumbies or the Rebels. For different reasons this would not be ideal either.
Australia needs three highly competitive Super Rugby teams to rekindle interest in the game at the provincial level and to provide a solid platform for the Wallabies, but it also needs to keep the Brumbies and Melbourne.
With two Super Rugby titles in their trophy cabinet, the Brumbies are the most successful Australian team in the history of the competition and their brand is famous around the world, but they are based in a city of just 400,000 people.
It is a mystery how the Brumbies not just continue to survive, but thrive, in a town with such a small population and limited corporate presence.
The Rebels, on the other hand, have a history of spending big, but delivering little. But Melbourne does offer enormous potential to grow the game in a city of five million people.
Instead of cutting the Brumbies or the Rebels, Rugby Australia should look at New Zealand’s Super Rugby franchise model as a possible option to reduce the number of teams.
In Australia we often refer to Kiwi teams as the “Canterbury” Crusaders or the “Auckland” Blues, but these are misnomers. Canterbury and Auckland are just one of several provinces that make up their respective Super Rugby franchises.
For example, the Crusaders franchise represents the regions of Buller, Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, South Canterbury, Tasman and West Coast, not just Canterbury.
In the same way, the Brumbies and the Rebels could merge to form a new South-East Australian franchise, playing home games in Canberra and Melbourne. The Brumbies’ valuable brand would be retained, while the game could continue to develop in a potentially lucrative, but largely untapped, market in Melbourne.
The axing of the Force has resulted in only incremental improvement in the remaining four Australian Super Rugby teams. The main beneficiary of the Force’s departure have been the Rebels, who got most of their players and their coach, Dave Wessels, and lifted themselves off the bottom of the table.
Another cull is necessary to make all of Australia’s Super Rugby teams competitive. Australia needs at least two teams in the playoffs every year, not just to boost Super Rugby’s profile, but also to help prepare the Wallabies for Test rugby.
It would be sad to see the Brumbies go and a waste to lose a growth market like Melbourne. If Australia follows the New Zealand franchise model, it can have both as well as three highly competitive and marketable Super Rugby teams that will provide the platform for Australian rugby to prosper on and off the field.

 

[hoggy]

" It would be sad to see the Brumbies go and a waste to lose a growth market like Melbourne. If Australia follows the New Zealand franchise model, it can have both as well as three highly competitive and marketable Super Rugby teams that will provide the platform for Australian rugby to prosper on and off the field."

FFS, So what has the last 20 f____n years been about then. I give up.

 

[MarkJ]

I think there's been a story about merging/relocating the Brumbies every year since 1996. It used to be a Growden specialty.

 

[RoffsChoice]

First, I still maintain that the first cut was a mistake.
Second, fuck off about not having the players.
Third, no way that losing this hypothetical "growth market" can be compared to cutting the Brumbies. The growth in Melbourne isn't happening (both teams averaging just under 8.5k at home games this year). The Rebels live their daily lives with the ARU putting their hand on the scales in their favour for finances, recruiting, coaching, etc., and can't be compared to the Brumbies one bit.
Fourth, fuck off about not having a regional identity, the ACT and Southern Inland Brumbies (yeah, they look after a good part of NSW too, don't forget it) survive because they are tied to the Rugby community.

Another cut is in no way a good idea. We will not strengthen by constantly contracting. How long until they're saying "why is there a third team outside the NSW-Qld heartland? We don't have the players!"

But fuck off with this nonsense about a lack of regional identity or a lack of understanding for why the Brumbies survive and continue to succeed. Brett Harris showing his hand here and openly declaring that the corporate side of the game is all he understands. The roots go deep in the ACT.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Also, who in their right mind thinks that Canberrans will support a Melbourne team? We already have people actively supporting the Swans just to spite GWS for ripping off the ACT Govt and serving up a pretty poor product in Canberra. No way a merger would succeed; if you're depriving Canberra of a team, you're killing the Brumbies, not moving them.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Also, who in their right mind thinks that Canberrans will support a Melbourne team? We already have people actively supporting the Swans just to spite GWS for ripping off the ACT Govt and serving up a pretty poor product in Canberra. No way a merger would succeed; if you're depriving Canberra of a team, you're killing the Brumbies, not moving them.

Did the article suggest axing the Brumbies? I saw merger which I would have assumed would see Canberra remain as the base for the team with a split for the games.

 

[Rebels3]

First, I still maintain that the first cut was a mistake.
Second, fuck off about not having the players.
Third, no way that losing this hypothetical "growth market" can be compared to cutting the Brumbies. The growth in Melbourne isn't happening (both teams averaging just under 8.5k at home games this year). The Rebels live their daily lives with the ARU putting their hand on the scales in their favour for finances, recruiting, coaching, etc., and can't be compared to the Brumbies one bit.
Fourth, fuck off about not having a regional identity, the ACT and Southern Inland Brumbies (yeah, they look after a good part of NSW too, don't forget it) survive because they are tied to the Rugby community.

Another cut is in no way a good idea. We will not strengthen by constantly contracting. How long until they're saying "why is there a third team outside the NSW-Qld heartland? We don't have the players!"

But fuck off with this nonsense about a lack of regional identity or a lack of understanding for why the Brumbies survive and continue to succeed. Brett Harris showing his hand here and openly declaring that the corporate side of the game is all he understands. The roots go deep in the ACT.

You’re playing into this shitty/lazy journalism hands here. Just ignore it, it’s nothing more than clickbait and should be treated as such. Nothing is coming from RA and there is absolutely no way the players union would allow it to happen again in such a short time frame. Plus the damage cutting the Force has done to the game, RA couldn’t afford to go through that again. It would 100% kill the game outside of Sydney and Brisbane forever.

Let’s just ignore it.

 

[RoffsChoice]

It didn't, I'm saying that most Brumbies fans would prefer to see the end of the organisation than see it in Melbourne.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

" It would be sad to see the Brumbies go and a waste to lose a growth market like Melbourne. If Australia follows the New Zealand franchise model, it can have both as well as three highly competitive and marketable Super Rugby teams that will provide the platform for Australian rugby to prosper on and off the field."

FFS, So what has the last 20 f____n years been about then. I give up.

The last 20 years has been a masterclass in how to fuck up a product. This may be an unpopular opinion especially considering you're a Rebels fan but we pushed for the wrong kind of expansion post Super 12. Instead of new teams we should have pushed for an expanded schedule from tbe single to double round robin. From there the extra funds from the new deal alongside the surplus from thw RWC to fund academy programs in both Melbourne and Perth and the entry of these sides into the estblestablished club competitions.

This would have meant that we would only jave 33 games here but we would have 18 of the 22 games in workable time zones. And it would only be 1 game in total less on Aus soil now and more than what we soon will have.

More competitive teams would have lead to more success and built more interest. Only after at least a decade of this should have started to entertain a 4th team.

And a really unpopular opinion. If we get kicked come TV negs. this may be the best option moving forward.

 

[hoggy]

The last 20 years has been a masterclass in how to fuck up a product. This may be an unpopular opinion especially considering you're a Rebels fan but we pushed for the wrong kind of expansion post Super 12. Instead of new teams we should have pushed for an expanded schedule from tbe single to double round robin. From there the extra funds from the new deal alongside the surplus from thw RWC to fund academy programs in both Melbourne and Perth and the entry of these sides into the estblestablished club competitions.

This would have meant that we would only jave 33 games here but we would have 18 of the 22 games in workable time zones. And it would only be 1 game in total less on Aus soil now and more than what we soon will have.

More competitive teams would have lead to more success and built more interest. Only after at least a decade of this should have started to entertain a 4th team.

And a really unpopular opinion. If we get kicked come TV negs. this may be the best option moving forward.

More an ex fan these days since moving to Queensland, but I agree with some of your thoughts, was a foundation member down there, but I can't believe all the money that has been wasted on the rebels participation, especially when playing club footy down there it was sausage sizzle stuff, most clubs were lucky to have a couple hundred $ in the bank.

It has always been a step to far, and if the Rebels folded, you'd be back to square one in about 3 days. So what has been the point of it all.

Part of me thinks going back 10 years that if we had just had 2 super teams in QLD & NSW, we could have built a reasonable club based level below that a lot more sustainable and would have encouraged far more sustainable growth.

 

[Aurelius]

First, I still maintain that the first cut was a mistake.
Second, fuck off about not having the players.
Third, no way that losing this hypothetical "growth market" can be compared to cutting the Brumbies. The growth in Melbourne isn't happening (both teams averaging just under 8.5k at home games this year). The Rebels live their daily lives with the ARU putting their hand on the scales in their favour for finances, recruiting, coaching, etc., and can't be compared to the Brumbies one bit.
Fourth, fuck off about not having a regional identity, the ACT and Southern Inland Brumbies (yeah, they look after a good part of NSW too, don't forget it) survive because they are tied to the Rugby community.

Another cut is in no way a good idea. We will not strengthen by constantly contracting. How long until they're saying "why is there a third team outside the NSW-Qld heartland? We don't have the players!"

But fuck off with this nonsense about a lack of regional identity or a lack of understanding for why the Brumbies survive and continue to succeed. Brett Harris showing his hand here and openly declaring that the corporate side of the game is all he understands. The roots go deep in the ACT.

Slightly grizzly analogy, but here goes.

I remember reading in a Jack Reacher novel years ago a description of how when the human body suffers a catastrophic heart attack, the brain will shut down the body to keep itself surviving for as long as possible, which perversely means that you're aware of what's happening to you while you're powerless to do anything about it.

If you think of the "brain" of Australian rugby being inner Sydney, then it's shut down its limbs in Perth, and it might well be prepared to shut down its limbs at least partially in Melbourne and Canberra in the vain hope that "the heartland" will thrive. As long as that mentality persists, then articles like Smith's are just going to keep getting published no matter how inevitable the outcome is without some kind of defibrillator.

Sorry if I bummed anyone out with the Jack Reacher stuff.

 

[hoggy]

Slightly grizzly analogy, but here goes.

I remember reading in a Jack Reacher novel years ago a description of how when the human body suffers a catastrophic heart attack, the brain will shut down the body to keep itself surviving for as long as possible, which perversely means that you're aware of what's happening to you while you're powerless to do anything about it.

If you think of the "brain" of Australian rugby being inner Sydney, then it's shut down its limbs in Perth, and it might well be prepared to shut down its limbs at least partially in Melbourne and Canberra in the vain hope that "the heartland" will thrive. As long as that mentality persists, then articles like Smith's are just going to keep getting published no matter how inevitable the outcome is without some kind of defibrillator.

Sorry if I bummed anyone out with the Jack Reacher stuff.

In defense of inner Sydney, its not like these outer limbs were exactly thriving. As you point out all of a sudden its survival mode. I'm about to have a heart-attack what do I do, It all comes down to to many cream cakes 10/20 years ago.

The only constant about the whole thing is what exactly was in those cream cakes, how about Super Rugby filling.

 

[Rebelsfan]

Umm, as far as the 'merge' goes, let me see, that would mean 3 or 4 homes games for each of Melbourne and Canberra, if we were to split the games. At present, the Melbourne Weary Dunlop Membership is circa $2000 for between 7 and 8 home games and some fried food (drinks not included). I don't know, but it probably wouldn't be very attractive at that price if there was only 3 or even 4 home games. Sorry Baden, but the members just can't keep being squeezed. And I don't know what the Brumbies 'gold class' membership is.

 

[Show-n-go]

Umm, as far as the 'merge' goes, let me see, that would mean 3 or 4 homes games for each of Melbourne and Canberra, if we were to split the games. At present, the Melbourne Weary Dunlop Membership is circa $2000 for between 7 and 8 home games and some fried food (drinks not included). I don't know, but it probably wouldn't be very attractive at that price if there was only 3 or even 4 home games. Sorry Baden, but the members just can't keep being squeezed. And I don't know what the Brumbies 'gold class' membership is.

Obviously if that hypothetical were to happen they’d change the membership prices jeez that’s a thin argument

 

[RoffsChoice]

"Rebels can only survive if they charge members $2,000 for what other teams only charge $300" is a hell of an argument for keeping a team as is, haha.

Again, no mergers are needed. No cuts are needed. The Force are still needed.