Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Absolutely.Kiap is a bloke you can trust. https://spraguedawley.com/japan-is-safety-radioactive-leak-power-plant-owner/
—Associated Press—
KASHIWAZAKI, Japan – The operator of an earthquake-ravaged nuclear plant said Wednesday a radioactive leak from the plant was 50 percent bigger than first reported two days ago. The mayor ordered the facility closed until its safety could be confirmed.
“Only $5 million hosting fee for Bledisloe Cup found. No $50 million. And 4 soup teams small glow. No grow. OK, fuck off now. No more questions.”
That's an Uncle Cam press conference, straight up.
Cameron Clyne presided over the worst and most toxic periods in recent history for both the NAB and RA.
He'll probably pivot into another cushy board position somewhere, despite being the corporate governance equivalent to a cracked reactor cooling system.
—Zakar
half
Dick Tooth (41)
That’s quite an astute post and hard to argue with, which I see as a problem in itself.
The issue is there has never been a good time to move or create a workable Plan “B”.
To me it seems we have always demanded near certainty in outcome before we proceed. This combined with poor nay diabolical analysis of our position at every point. Total over execration and reading of our positions and equally overly pessimistic on even small changes.
There is a point that no action or staying in a failing system carries more long term risk that other alternatives.
As a collective we have lacked a combination of confidence, realisation, business acumen, courage, to develop a workable “Plan B”.
Nothing happens overnight, our issues started in the 80’s, when league received what where huge media deals at the time and league raiding Union players including NZ & European players.
Super Rugby was brilliant, at both stopping leagues raids and creating interest in Rugby. However rose coloured glasses and beyond poor analysis of Super Rugby lead people to believe Super Rugby was something it could never be, and this has lead us to where we are.
It’s time we looked forward and developed a “”Plan B’’, sitting on our hands will ensure failure.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
I think "Plan B" is a significantly harder concept to achieve than we would like to believe, thats why there have been no real solutions put forward or presented.
Shit, maybe there is zero appetite from sponsors and broadcasters of a domestic/trans-tasman rugby competition, and to go down that path would have to be done at a semi-professional level because they cant afford to pay all the players.
Maybe "Plan B" is the collapse of processional rugby union in Australia..
Shit, maybe there is zero appetite from sponsors and broadcasters of a domestic/trans-tasman rugby competition, and to go down that path would have to be done at a semi-professional level because they cant afford to pay all the players.
Maybe "Plan B" is the collapse of processional rugby union in Australia..
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Perhaps. But in lieu of a TT comeptition part of plan A should be to transform the NRC into something more than it is. There's been mention of doing away with the structure. We shouldn't. But we could transform it to something more meaningful. And something that could help the franchises bridge the revenue gap.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
If so then that was plenty stupid because that was never guaranteed.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
maybe I should have said I believe they they were hoping, I didn't mean they thought it was guaranteed.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
I think the NRC is a kinda starting point to build from.
To go over my old ground, the NRC teams could be sold in a privatised league, similar to the US models I have often referred to.
Separate the NRC from RA, and let RA run the national teams and the NRC be self governing and self funding with private investors each owing a share of the NRC.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
During the Super Rugby review that resulted in the reduction from S18 to S15 one of the options NZR (& presumably RA) took to potential broadcasters was a Trans-Tasman comp. I'm told that the indicative amounts the broadcasters were willing to pay was around half to two-thirds of what they were then paying for Super Rugby.
Bear in mind, too, that NZR's next deal is reputed to be worth $NZ100Mn/ year c.f. 60-70 for the previous deal (which was in $US hence the variation) which to me puts a TT comp further into pie-in-the-sky territory.
dru
David Wilson (68)
WOB I don’t think anyone is suggesting that NZRU are not doing well here. The concern is that in spite this the arrangements are a very poor outcome for Australia. A TT may well be pie in the sky for NZ under circumstances where they do not suffer the consequences.
For Australia it is a slow speed train crash where each year is worse than the last and the Super advocates re-state each year “well we are not strong enough this year to address it”.
While NZ might like the arrangements of Super, I maintain that a broad Super view would conclude that the result is poor for the competition as a whole, irrespective of Kiwi strength. But 5 Kiwi teams does not a competition make.
Australia should depart. Let NZ ride the tiger of Super while we try to rebuild something that better suits the Australian market. Logically NZ would be welcome at any time, though a “best for competition” approach would be required not a “best for NZ” followed by “we need a strong Australia” platitudes.
It is well time for us to depart.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
In it's current guise. I seriously doubt it would. It would need a significant upgrade and reorientation to be even remotely interesting to potential investors if at all. But still, it should be looked at.
My ideal scenario is as follows;
- RA and importantly the respective State Unions stop kidding themselves and restructure from a 'divisional' to a more centralised operating structure where all ops are run out of a single location. One Chairman, one CEO, one back office etc. The only 'local' ops would be the teams based in HP centres.
-From there the newly centralised organisation will be departmentalised into the respective elements as per usual but with both a 'Professional Rugby' and 'Community Rugby' department that will coordinate 1) the ops at the HP centres and 2) community engagement and development work etc.
- From there, reaching out the RWA and Andrew Forrest in real efforts to actually rebuild the burnt bridges. Not necessarily bring them back under RA control. In fact, unless that's what they expressly desire they shouldn't.
- Once mended look to upgrade the NRC/GRR to become our primary competition. Establish a Asia-Pacific focus going as far as to call it the Asia-Pacific Rugby Championship. The Force, RA, Fiji, Samoa, Hong Kong to start with intent on bringing Tonga and other Asian based franchises online if and when ready. Actively encourage investment in the likes of HK, Fiji, Samoa etc. from external sources.
- Make it clear to OS based talent that playing for one of the Asian based teams make you Wallabies eligible. As in actively encourage them to seek playing opportunities.
- Talk to the Japanese about involvement of their new pro teams. Suggest entering say their top 4 into the competition post their league season.
- Importantly, run the thing as a business with each group having a seat and a vote on the board. One a piece. So RA would have one vote not 5 (RA plus the states).
Rugrat
Darby Loudon (17)
The clubs who participate need to own (share in) the competition and the broadcast rights. Sanzaar by its very nature is mandated to operate in the interest of the national bodies. This is a fundamental flaw and will always restrict the potential of Super Rugby. The focus should be on what the viewing fan wants. That is first a foremost a competition that is played in the same time zones. If I want to watch rugby at 1 in the morning I can watch uk premiership or French clubs.
- Status