Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

It's not exactly the same, but there was a similar call for bids before the NRC started and that was not a huge success (remember the Sydney Stars!).

I don't think you want too many new entities. We have 5 professional rugby franchises/brands in this country, I think it would be silly not to base a domestic competition around them. But even if you go for a national club competition instead I think most if not all of the teams should be existing clubs or amalgamations of them (like the North Harbour Rays) that have the ability to professionalise.

Or it could be a mix of both (e.g. keep the Rebels, Brumbies and Force, plus 3-6 clubs in NSW and 2-4 in QLD).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It's not exactly the same, but there was a similar call for bids before the NRC started and that was not a huge success (remember the Sydney Stars!).

I don't think you want too many new entities. We have 5 professional rugby franchises/brands in this country, I think it would be silly not to base a domestic competition around them. But even if you go for a national club competition instead I think most if not all of the teams should be existing clubs or amalgamations of them (like the North Harbour Rays) that have the ability to professionalise.

Or it could be a mix of both (e.g. keep the Rebels, Brumbies and Force, plus 3-6 clubs in NSW and 2-4 in QLD).

Kind of different. This would be the professional tier of the game in this country. NRC was always sold as a developmental tier. Which makes things a little difficult in terms of being able to generate interest.

 

[Aurelius]

It's not exactly the same, but there was a similar call for bids before the NRC started and that was not a huge success (remember the Sydney Stars!).

I don't think you want too many new entities. We have 5 professional rugby franchises/brands in this country, I think it would be silly not to base a domestic competition around them. But even if you go for a national club competition instead I think most if not all of the teams should be existing clubs or amalgamations of them (like the North Harbour Rays) that have the ability to professionalise.

Or it could be a mix of both (e.g. keep the Rebels, Brumbies and Force, plus 3-6 clubs in NSW and 2-4 in QLD).

If the Force are going to be included in a new national comp, then I think there's a huge moral case for bringing in the GRR teams too. Otherwise we'd just be abandoning them after stringing them along with the promise of new professional opportunities and funding, which would be just as bad as what was done to us.

Besides, you'd have to think teams from Fiji and Samoa would be at least as competitive as club teams from New South Wales and Queensland.

 

[half]

The poster called "half" used to keep telling us that he knew of lots of potential investors. As for me, I am teensy bit sceptical. Particularly under current conditions, the market is down, business is stagnating at best.


It would be nice if somebody can name some names. Twiggy, of course. Maybe the Buildcorp people.

Bite the bullet and amend the Giteau law to be a mix of Test and Super caps. Lower the minimum number of Tests as long as they've played X number of Super games for current/past (recent past) Wallabies who either currently are or opt to in the near future take up contract overseas. Something like 30 Tests and 50 Super Rugby caps.

For players without Test Caps specify the need to have say U20s caps for Aus and 60-70 Super caps are needed to remain eligible.

Then, look to emulate Major League Rugby by establishing a single entity concern that calls for bids from interested parties that meet a determined criteria in terms of finances etc. Look to award somewhere between 8-10 licences. Each successful bid would be awarded a voting stake in the league alongside RA. Majority vote wins with everyone having to agree to accept the result regardless of whether they voted in favour or not.

All operational costs would be run via the central office with only things like sponsorship, gameday experience and gate being the responsibility of the bids. The operational costs would involve player salaries, travel, accommodation, meals etc. This would be ideally by a prospective TV deal. But would also be supplemented initially by the licence fee and an annual cash call much like MLR.

Wam
The logic still applies private investors are the way to fund the competition, however today many business are affected by the coronavirus meaning we need to show we still have a competition / product worth investing in.

WCR
Interestingly when I called for a privately funded competition based on the US franchise models maybe two years ago, specifically the MLS, which MLR is copied from it was widely ridiculed. Many today say it’s the way forward. The MLS is the better system to follow.

General

I said we need to go to private ownership before most, doubt anyone called to scrap Super Rugby before me, and only a handful of people even three years ago called into question Super Rugby variability.

My belief on Super Rugby always had a caveat, which was, there had to be a transition of roughly 4 to 5 years to a national domestic competition, to entice the private investors and unite rugby behind it.

I feel frustrated by the many attempts to rejig or create something a new on the forum with pre- coronavirus thinking.

The logic for a transition period today is more important than ever.

The reasons are simple, rugby does not have neither a wide spread or large playing base. In addition, rugby has very few if any heart land areas anymore where rugby is king. A sorta a fortress to expand and grow from, akin to AFL in the southern states and say soccer in south western Sydney.

Further the new viewing patterns are not being used in many analyses.

This is from the person who has called for the scrapping of Super Rugby for 20 odd years. We need to keep for the next two years post pandemic Super Rugby. To prove we have something for the private investors to buy into.

Fox and the FTA’s will be on their knees after this. Streaming is the logical step with a telco.

The telco will be after rugby people who simply want rugby and for that the best product, we have is Super Rugby.

Its then critically important to develop a structure that leads people from Super Rugby to a national domestic competition during the first streaming contract.
Most of all we need unity and for this we need a leader who can command respect rather than demand respect.

Personally, my nominee for the head of RA would be Matthew Bourke; - young, media savvy, connection via Eastwood to old rugby, also connection to new rugby via Super Rugby, speaks well, looks good, respected in rugby circles, well known outside rugby. He would need a team around him but I can think of few that have his overall package.

BTW and totally forum related did anyone notice this last night see a copy of the forum page last night or the Super Rugby bit anyway. The 892, 892 number with the second three number the same, OK I am sad.
1. Where to for Super Rugby?
Quick Hands, Mar 5, 2017 ... 730 731 732
Replies:

14,632​

Views:

892,892​

dru​

Yesterday at 9:27 PM​

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If the Force are going to be included in a new national comp, then I think there's a huge moral case for bringing in the GRR teams too. Otherwise we'd just be abandoning them after stringing them along with the promise of new professional opportunities and funding, which would be just as bad as what was done to us.

Besides, you'd have to think teams from Fiji and Samoa would be at least as competitive as club teams from New South Wales and Queensland.

My ideal scenario would be a merging of our Super Rugby franchises with GRR alongside eligibility being loosened to having to play in GRR (or whatever it would be called) and going from there.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Wam
The logic still applies private investors are the way to fund the competition, however today many business are affected by the coronavirus meaning we need to show we still have a competition / product worth investing in.

WCR
Interestingly when I called for a privately funded competition based on the US franchise models maybe two years ago, specifically the MLS, which MLR is copied from it was widely ridiculed. Many today say it’s the way forward. The MLS is the better system to follow.

General

I going to private ownership, doubt anyone called to scrap Super Rugby before me, and only a handful of people even three years ago called into question Super Rugby variability.
My belief on Super Rugby always had a caveat, which was, there had to be a transition of roughly 4 to 5 years to a national domestic competition, to entice the private investors and unite rugby behind it.

I feel frustrated by the many attempts to rejig or create something a new on the forum with pre- coronavirus thinking.

The logic for a transition period today is more important than ever.

The reasons are simple, rugby does not have neither a wide spread or large playing base. In addition, rugby has very few if any heart land areas anymore where rugby is king. A sorta a fortress to expand and grow from, akin to AFL in the southern states and say soccer in south western Sydney.

Further the new viewing patterns are not being used in many analyses.

This is from the person who has called for the scrapping of Super Rugby for 20 odd years. We need to keep for the next two years post pandemic Super Rugby. To prove we have something for the private investors to buy into.

Fox and the FTA’s will be on their knees after this. Streaming is the logical step with a telco.

The telco will be after rugby people who simply want rugby and for that the best product, we have is Super Rugby.

Its then critically important to develop a structure that leads people from Super Rugby to a national domestic competition during the first streaming contract.
Most of all we need unity and for this we need a leader who can command respect rather than demand respect.

Personally, my nominee for the head of RA would be Matthew Bourke; - young, media savvy, connection via Eastwood to old rugby, also connection to new rugby via Super Rugby, speaks well, looks good, respected in rugby circles, well known outside rugby. He would need a team around him but I can think of few that have his overall package.

BTW and totally forum related did anyone notice this last night see a copy of the forum page last night or the Super Rugby bit anyway. The 892, 892 number with the second three number the same, OK I am sad.
1. Where to for Super Rugby?
Quick Hands, Mar 5, 2017 . 730 731 732
Replies:

14,632​

Views:

892,892​

dru​

Yesterday at 9:27 PM​

MLR is modelled off MLS and the NHL actually. It's a combination of both. This is just one scenario that could work out. The other being my prefered. A merger with GRR.

 

[Omar Comin']

If the Force are going to be included in a new national comp, then I think there's a huge moral case for bringing in the GRR teams too. Otherwise we'd just be abandoning them after stringing them along with the promise of new professional opportunities and funding, which would be just as bad as what was done to us.

Besides, you'd have to think teams from Fiji and Samoa would be at least as competitive as club teams from New South Wales and Queensland.

I'd be all for including the Fijian and Samoan GRR teams. But I'd be less enthused about the South African / Malaysian team, Hong Kong and the China Lions/Bay of Plenty. Maybe keep Hong Kong as at least they have a real union and rugby community, but I don't think they'd be much of a draw.

My ideal would be something like:

Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels, Force, Fiji, Samoa/Pacific Island Warriors, plus a new Western Sydney team.

 

[The torpedo]

What about:

Reds
Tahs
Brums
Rebels
Force
Sunwolves
Nadi
Suva
Apia
Nuku'alofa

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'd be all for including the Fijian and Samoan GRR teams. But I'd be less enthused about the South African / Malaysian team, Hong Kong and the China Lions/Bay of Plenty. Maybe keep Hong Kong as at least they have a real union and rugby community, but I don't think they'd be much of a draw.

My ideal would be something like:

Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels, Force, Fiji, Samoa/Pacific Island Warriors, plus a new Western Sydney team.

Include Hong Kong and ideally a 10th team.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What about:

Reds
Tahs
Brums
Rebels
Force
Sunwolves
Nadi
Suva
Apia
Nuku'alofa

The Sunwolves are done. Look to find a 6th Aus team and may be that would work. Change Apia and Nuku'alofa to Samoa and Tonga and that'll be better.

 

[Micheal]

The Sunwolves are done. Look to find a 6th Aus team and may be that would work. Change Apia and Nuku'alofa to Samoa and Tonga and that'll be better.

Western Sydney.

I live in the East and I'll never head to a Tahs game in the West, Sydney is just far too big.

 

[Rebels3]

Japan doesn’t need a single entity as a team. It’s done almost nothing for Argentina (infact their record has gone backwards) and funnily enough did almost nothing for Japan as all their players didn’t play last year prior to WC. They have their competition in the top league and need to stop trying to leach off their money as a source to prop up ours.

If Japan or any nation is to be included it needs to be to provide them with multiple opportunities and better opportunities than their current system already provides. That’s either financially, quality and content within a market. Unless all those can be ticked we should forget it

 

[Dismal Pillock]

​

"I live in the East and I'll never head to a Tahs game in the West, Sydney is just far too big."

Michael, instead of mugging for the camera, check the dash. I think you've got a button for these things.

​

 

[dru]

I said we need to go to private ownership before most, doubt anyone called to scrap Super Rugby before me, and only a handful of people even three years ago called into question Super Rugby variability.

My belief on Super Rugby always had a caveat, which was, there had to be a transition of roughly 4 to 5 years to a national domestic competition, to entice the private investors and unite rugby behind it.
I feel frustrated by the many attempts to rejig or create something a new on the forum with pre- coronavirus thinking.

Half - always love your contribution.

But here is something to add to your equation. I dont think that the border restrictions are going to be released until we have nailed corona and that means a vaccine. Which in turn means 12-18 months, but think 18 months. As we get the case number down ScoMo will start releasing the restrictions, then bounce them back as the corona number increases. Sort of bubbling along based o how we travel. The best case scenario is all restrictions released and international incoming being subject to a 2 week isolation.

It means this season and next (and likely the one after) not being workable for Super OR GRR.

It's time to get domestic.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

Include Hong Kong and ideally a 10th team.

I reckon 9 teams is the right number. 16 rounds, home and away, then two weeks of finals.

Could have a Friday night game, 5:30 and 7:30 games on Saturday, and a Sunday arvo game. One team would have a bye each week.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I reckon 9 teams is the right number. 16 rounds, home and away, then two weeks of finals.

Could have a Friday night game, 5:30 and 7:30 games on Saturday, and a Sunday arvo game. One team would have a bye each week.

I suppose. A minimum of 8 would work as well I guess. But 16 rounds would be fine to.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Half - always love your contribution.

But here is something to add to your equation. I dont think that the border restrictions are going to be released until we have nailed corona and that means a vaccine. Which in turn means 12-18 months, but think 18 months. As we get the case number down ScoMo will start releasing the restrictions, then bounce them back as the corona number increases. Sort of bubbling along based o how we travel. The best case scenario is all restrictions released and international incoming being subject to a 2 week isolation.

It means this season and next (and likely the one after) not being workable for Super OR GRR.

It's time to get domestic.

I tend to think we'll refine our treatment of the virus well before we get a viable vaccine in place. So we're looking at around 12 months of having to focus internally at the least.

 

[Bandar]

For players without Test Caps specify the need to have say U20s caps for Aus and 60-70 Super caps are needed to remain eligible.

I think we are really limiting our player numbers by doing this. I believe we should pick an uncapped player from anywhere but one selected then their next contract must be in Aus to remain eligible.

It would allow the like of Mike Aaaaa or Micheal Lynah’s son to be picked it we want before they are capped elsewhere.

 

[Forcefield]

I've always enjoyed watching NRC, but the biggest flaw to the system, to me, is that the deck is strongly stacked towards teams directly backed by a GRR or Super Rugby franchise. It also pales in importance to Super Rugby. But if there was no Super Rugby, I think both those problems would be solved. You could go back to having 3 NSW teams and they could all be competitive because WA, ACT and VIC wouldn't be tapping that pool for stronger competitions (GRR/Super Rugby). There is not half the money in domestic rugby as Super Rugby, so there would be some short term pain and we'd lose some talent overseas (could temporarily change Wallaby eligibility), but in time the system would stabilise. Reckon this crisis is an opportunity to rebuild from the ground up.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I've always enjoyed watching NRC, but the biggest flaw to the system, to me, is that the deck is strongly stacked towards teams directly backed by a GRR or Super Rugby franchise. It also pales in importance to Super Rugby. But if there was no Super Rugby, I think both those problems would be solved. You could go back to having 3 NSW teams and they could all be competitive because WA, ACT and VIC wouldn't be tapping that pool for stronger competitions (GRR/Super Rugby). There is not half the money in domestic rugby as Super Rugby, so there would be some short term pain and we'd lose some talent overseas (could temporarily change Wallaby eligibility), but in time the system would stabilise. Reckon this crisis is an opportunity to rebuild from the ground up.

Why would the three you mention stop tapping into Sydney and Brisbane for talent. Don't get me wrong. I'd very much like to see what you've suggested. We could do Sydney, NSW Country and Newcastle. I suggest Newcastle because at least from my experience in regards to the raft of family that live in country NSW 'Newcastle isn't really country'. But how would you ensure things were even.