Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
Pretty timely announcement. Do you think they're trying to send a message to us without being direct?
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Pretty timely announcement. Do you think they're trying to send a message to us without being direct?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Well at least we haven't signed a broadcast agreement obligating us to Super Rugby. If anything the decision not to sign is looking better by the day as the unintended consequence is that we have no legal obligation to supply teams and games to a broadcaster in a pan-continental competition. Every cloud has a silver lining.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Not sure that matters, we still have a signed agreement to SANZAAR to fulfil. This is another thing that gets left out whenever someone says Castle was faultless.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Yep and remember that when tests etc start to qwerty, obviously the RC is part of the agreement.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
A review had already been set up pre-Covid, main driver being that the five participation licences expire later this year, obviously they now also have to take Covid into account. Would actually be irresponsible to NOT have a more wide-ranging review IMO & the franchises need to be part of that process.
Doubtful. I think they've got enough issues to deal with without adding yours to the mix.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
The worst thing they could do is some half-way measure, to put Super rugby on hold in the vain hope of coming back to it in a couple of years down the line would just about kill the game here.
Yes this year may have to be a bunch of scratch games, but from next year the competition format needs to be finalized, ffs this isn't rocket science.
Yes this year may have to be a bunch of scratch games, but from next year the competition format needs to be finalized, ffs this isn't rocket science.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Yes and no, here. Clearly a review was required in NZ as the situation has changed big time. And it would be odd for terms of reference to specifically add Aus to the list.
BUT, at some point the status and possible near futures of the international partners will impact how NZ navigates going forward. NZ would seem well placed to weather the storm for a re-started Super. Unfortunately neither RSA or Aus are in a similar place. You can't have an international club comp without international partners.
NZ may be a million miles ahead of Aus, but they're still in shit street.
That international comp (involving Northern Hemisphere) sounds better all the time, from the antipodes.
And all the while, Australia really needs to be working through domestic options/opportunities.
dru
David Wilson (68)
It's a different beast though Dan. One supplants national competition with international competition. The other qualifies the top domestic teams through a full domestic comp, and the champions play a limited after season international comp.
In my case, it's not that I don't want to watch games in SA, it's that the broadcasters don't value it, and what they do value is pretty much destroyed by a comp that requires it.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-...eROY8eFOcuslz0XtBiNrf1bnfkGC65Kbsa_wrtepKlPJY
Another bye, bye Super rugby article
Another bye, bye Super rugby article
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I don't think that is correct. We are a member of SANZAAR and have a right to participate in SANZAAR competitions as a member. Our only legal obligation to supply teams comes as a result of signing a broadcast deal, which was why the quantum of our funding was up for debate during the last deal as when we dropped from 5 teams to 4 we provided less games for broadcast.
https://super.rugby/about-sanzar/
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It's a dead duck and has been for a while. Coranavirus seems to have finally put it out of its misery.
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
Well next year the schedule is crap, could be left with only 6 home games. How does any club in this country compete in the market with only 6 games? In Melbourne if you support an AFL side your going to get at least a dozen games to go watch. Storm at least 10. I'd say a West Coast Eagles fan would even get 10 games a year to watch here. You want people to be excited about 6 games? Same comparison to NRL ain Sydney to. Oh wait I'm away for 2 weeks and your down to 4 games? It can't work and won't work if Super Rugby continues in the proposed format next season.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
That was pretty much my point they need to address the format of the game moving forward, and content is a huge issue.
Even before this whole co-vid issue, the CEO of the Waratahs said next years super rugby format was financially unsustainable for the Franchise, so whatever money said broadcast deal was going to bring in, was quickly going to disappear out the backdoor propping up broke Super rugby teams.
Here's a starter, you don't sign up to anything that does not give games in your biggest markets NSW/QLD a weekly or fortnightly presence.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300001193/time-to-close-the-door-on-super-rugby
Hell, looks like even the Kiwis want to go domestic.
Hell, looks like even the Kiwis want to go domestic.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Trans-Tasman at the current point in time seems to me as though it's a lose/lose. Nobody really thinks it's a good idea or will be to their advantage. NZ going domestic gives us no choice, and is quite possibly the best thing that the Kiwis could have ever done for us.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Apparently the view expressed at the Brumbies fan video get together yesterday was that this year will most likely see a five team domestic comp (Tahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force) and that maybe a TT comp could get up in 2021.
See Brumby Jack's account on the Brumbies 2020 thread.
See Brumby Jack's account on the Brumbies 2020 thread.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
You do realise that what is written is an opinion piece by one writer?? It like reading a Paul Cully piece and saying so that's what Australia wants! I not saying that some don't want a domestic comp in NZ (and I quite keen), but hell the 1 or 2 writers in Newspapers no more give an opinion of what a country wants than 1 or 2 posters in a rugby forum.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Also what I have heard from listening to players on the board that is looking at way forward. But they still not sure either.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
In a recent post to the Australian Rugby/ RA thread, member Joe King wrote that one way to make Aus teams more competitive with NZ ones in a Trans Tasman (TT) comp, ".....would be for NZR to pick test players from non-NZ teams....". This, and the idea that this represents building depth in Aus rugby is something I've seen mooted on this thread multiple times with some even suggesting it be the price of admission for NZ teams into such a comp.
In reply I asked the question, "Other than the very top players (e.g. Beaugan, Lurch) who can command marquee player mega-bucks, why do people think anyone else in or close to the AB setup would want to play for an Aus side esp one that's not travelling so well?". Replies to this varied from "no-one will" to "plenty will". I think the real answer is "no-one will UNLESS..."
NZR & the five NZ franchises have ~170 players under contract. Of those probably 120 will never be in the All Black selection frame. Most of them will know that so NZR's "must play in NZ to play for NZ" policy has no real meaning in terms of those players. There's nothing stopping an Aus Super Rugby Club signing such a player, but with very few exceptions they don't. IMO this is because these players aren't enough of an upgrade on what's already available that there's anything to be gained by recruiting them.
UNLESS Rugby Australia can somehow create an Australia Only (AO) comp of at least 8-10 teams (I've seen as many as 14 mooted on here but that's pure fantasy IMO), at which point they become attractive to a potential Hunter Valley or North Queensland entity. But if it's a TT comp or one including the wider South West Pacific (SWP) with Aus fielding fewer than six teams, there's still no need to recruit average NZ guys to fill your rosters.
At the other extreme there's a small group (I cited Beaugan & Lurch, there's probably 4-6 more but that's about all) able to command marquee player wages. Loosen the eligibility rules & sure, they might be tempted. Or they might just negotiate another Japan sabbatical. I don't see there ever being enough money in a TT or SWP comp (much less an AO one) to make that a more attractive option than Japan, even factoring in the charms of SEQ or Canberra.
Between the average & the superstars is the group most important to NZR, the 50-odd in real AB contention each year. If the future is AO, I'd expect NZR to strictly enforce their eligibility rules as these are the guys they have absolutely GOT to retain. But if it's TT or SWP I can see them loosening them somewhat, but by way of exchange programs at every level from development to elite rather than the open slather others want to see.
As a side issue to the above I asked the question, "...if, say, Boshier gets a gig with 'tahs what does e.g. Hanigan do?". As I see it the options are that (a) Hanigan and/ or some guys further down the pay scale get squeezed out to keep NSW under the salary cap, or (b) the salary cap gets adjusted in some way(s). If (a) there goes any thought of building depth & if (b) where does the money come from: Australia's economy is "n" times bigger than NZ's, even per capita. But last time I looked it was RA that was allegedly insolvent. So maybe the difference between our RUGBY economies isn't so great as that between our total economies?
I also have some thoughts on another oft-repeated idea on here, that NZ should be required to field more than five teams in a TT or SWP comp. If we're talking a fully professional, Super Rugby-like comp this just doesn't work & I'm happy to give a NZ geography & demography lesson with commentary explaining why. But if we're talking something closer to the Mitre 10 Cup, of course that's doable BUT the money will be nowhere near as much & those who can leave for a NH contract, will.
Sorry for the length of this post but as I said on the other thread, it's a discussion worth having & one that I think we HAVE to have in terms of deciding whether the future of our game in these parts is AO, TT or SWP because the choice that is made will have effects on our game that may well be irreversible.
In reply I asked the question, "Other than the very top players (e.g. Beaugan, Lurch) who can command marquee player mega-bucks, why do people think anyone else in or close to the AB setup would want to play for an Aus side esp one that's not travelling so well?". Replies to this varied from "no-one will" to "plenty will". I think the real answer is "no-one will UNLESS..."
NZR & the five NZ franchises have ~170 players under contract. Of those probably 120 will never be in the All Black selection frame. Most of them will know that so NZR's "must play in NZ to play for NZ" policy has no real meaning in terms of those players. There's nothing stopping an Aus Super Rugby Club signing such a player, but with very few exceptions they don't. IMO this is because these players aren't enough of an upgrade on what's already available that there's anything to be gained by recruiting them.
UNLESS Rugby Australia can somehow create an Australia Only (AO) comp of at least 8-10 teams (I've seen as many as 14 mooted on here but that's pure fantasy IMO), at which point they become attractive to a potential Hunter Valley or North Queensland entity. But if it's a TT comp or one including the wider South West Pacific (SWP) with Aus fielding fewer than six teams, there's still no need to recruit average NZ guys to fill your rosters.
At the other extreme there's a small group (I cited Beaugan & Lurch, there's probably 4-6 more but that's about all) able to command marquee player wages. Loosen the eligibility rules & sure, they might be tempted. Or they might just negotiate another Japan sabbatical. I don't see there ever being enough money in a TT or SWP comp (much less an AO one) to make that a more attractive option than Japan, even factoring in the charms of SEQ or Canberra.
Between the average & the superstars is the group most important to NZR, the 50-odd in real AB contention each year. If the future is AO, I'd expect NZR to strictly enforce their eligibility rules as these are the guys they have absolutely GOT to retain. But if it's TT or SWP I can see them loosening them somewhat, but by way of exchange programs at every level from development to elite rather than the open slather others want to see.
As a side issue to the above I asked the question, "...if, say, Boshier gets a gig with 'tahs what does e.g. Hanigan do?". As I see it the options are that (a) Hanigan and/ or some guys further down the pay scale get squeezed out to keep NSW under the salary cap, or (b) the salary cap gets adjusted in some way(s). If (a) there goes any thought of building depth & if (b) where does the money come from: Australia's economy is "n" times bigger than NZ's, even per capita. But last time I looked it was RA that was allegedly insolvent. So maybe the difference between our RUGBY economies isn't so great as that between our total economies?
I also have some thoughts on another oft-repeated idea on here, that NZ should be required to field more than five teams in a TT or SWP comp. If we're talking a fully professional, Super Rugby-like comp this just doesn't work & I'm happy to give a NZ geography & demography lesson with commentary explaining why. But if we're talking something closer to the Mitre 10 Cup, of course that's doable BUT the money will be nowhere near as much & those who can leave for a NH contract, will.
Sorry for the length of this post but as I said on the other thread, it's a discussion worth having & one that I think we HAVE to have in terms of deciding whether the future of our game in these parts is AO, TT or SWP because the choice that is made will have effects on our game that may well be irreversible.
- Status