Where to for Super Rugby?

[Pfitzy]

Oh boy...

Yes. I was also shocked that anyone is still juvenile enough to use a donut or pie chart in a document.

 

[Pfitzy]

OK so people on here are associated with clubs, so here's a question:

What is the total number of paid up members at Sydney Premier Rugby Clubs?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm writing an article about this at the moment basically saying club football will be the future. I am not convinced a national club comp all the way, perhaps a play off at the end, but let's make one thing clear about this. There's no money in it. Our top players will go overseas to earn their salary. And I mean all of them. Basically every single 120 of them. and then some. It won't be sustainable at that level. Perhaps an Ed Craig, Jack Hardy or James Ramm will get similar money to what they get now but only if someone with BIG BUCKs wants to fund a national club comp.

It is unsustainable otherwise.

So any form of club competition being the 'top tier' of the game will be basically amateur with basically the same players that are playing it now. I'm not saying that its a bad thing, but it's all important to take the reality check.

Completely agree Reg. A club competition in any guise will be amateur and hence, all the professional players will leave to play where they can be paid according to their skills. A representative competition at the end, as proposed by some, will also be mostly amateur or at best partly semi-professional, something like the NRC without the current Super players. That is not a suitable level to be selecting Wallabies. The national team will become wholly made up of overseas players, or will sink into oblivion.

Club rugby is important, but is not and cannot be the main game feeding into the Wallabies. There must be something to replace or enhance the present Super competition. I do not think that should involve South Africa except at the national level for tests. I am more and more inclined to think we should go it alone but with an expanded competition, but I have no idea how that can be made to be professional which it needs to be.

 

[Slim 293]

Going back to that article........ some serious flaws in there.

They seem to jump from "Super Rugby is not working" (which we're all aware of), to "National Club Competition," but their data only supports the first statement.

There's also dubious claims such as:

"If you say the strength of the sport here is in the club games of NSW and Queensland, then that's where you go. Invest back in those leagues."

And there's a call to emulate the UK Premier club system, but has anyone at this joint Australian-UK sports consultancy consulted a map?

 

[LeftWing]

I'm writing an article about this at the moment basically saying club football will be the future. I am not convinced a national club comp all the way, perhaps a play off at the end, but let's make one thing clear about this. There's no money in it. Our top players will go overseas to earn their salary. And I mean all of them. Basically every single 120 of them. and then some. It won't be sustainable at that level. Perhaps an Ed Craig, Jack Hardy or James Ramm will get similar money to what they get now but only if someone with BIG BUCKs wants to fund a national club comp.

It is unsustainable otherwise.

So any form of club competition being the 'top tier' of the game will be basically amateur with basically the same players that are playing it now. I'm not saying that its a bad thing, but it's all important to take the reality check.

Hi Reg,

agree with you on most points. I think the format will be a national play-off at the end following city-based competitions. One thing I fear is that only choosing the top 1-2 teams from Perth, Canberra, and Melbourne (which would presumably be the model) might encourage all the club talent to converge on the 2 most likely qualifiers. Something to think about.

I also agree that, in the short-run at least, there is unlikely to be any money in it. But if we keep some provincial competition alive (perhaps as a simultaneous trans-tasman competition if NZ have any interest or through an international club competition), and / or RA / the state Unions still have a bit of money, I think there might be a bit more talent around than you'd expect. Like others on this thread, I'm envisioning a decentralised MLR-style model, and, to be fair, most existing Premier Grade are in a sense already professional / private businesses, they're just very unprofitable and pay peanuts. On top of that I'd sprinkle 15-30 players with contracts funded by state unions / RA evenly across the teams (depends on finances though, and I don't doubt we may not be able to fund many of this calibre). Sure, standard of play won't be the same as Super Rugby, nor will interest, but existing semi-professional mechanisms already unearth a lot of talent (imo there's more depth out there than there really should be given our player numbers) and we could have a decent smattering of internationally elite players to augment that. And, in any event, the comp will naturally / automatically absorb a lot of the attention and support the existing Super Rugby comp gets—it may not take too long before it starts attracting larger crowds and more lucrative TV deals, especially as they become the centre of the rugby world's attention, get more media exposure via FTA, and play at different times (so TV / in-person audiences can go to more than one game a weekend).

In any case, I don't deny that many, if not all, of the players that can get more money overseas will. But it may not be as drastic as we think. For one, while it may not seem that way, there is a limit to how much foreign talent these clubs can import. Money is an obvious limit (there is no way every single one of the 60 starting players in our Super Rugby teams could get more than they are getting now if there was a glut of Australian players on the international market. Supply increases, value goes down). These nations are also increasingly facing backlash from within as their own Rugby nationalists complain about foreign imports and impose caps / quotas. I also expect COVID-19 to affect international travel, migration, and the finances of big professional clubs drastically, and probably lead to a shift away from globalism akin to the shift towards securitisation after 9/11.

For another, RA have other levers they can pull to retain talent. RA should change the "Giteau law" so that instead of rewarding test caps it rewards years spent in Australia—if a player were to spend, say, 5-7 years in Australia they could be eligible for Wallabies selection even if they go overseas. Surely that's what we actually care about is amount of time spent in the Australian system enhancing the value of our domestic competition, not amount of games played for a team 90% of professional players won't make. If RA can maintain their relatively inexpensive scholarship program for young up and comers (which increases pay annually for 3 years to reward loyalty), and also maintain their much-improved schools, academy, and talent identification programs, then I genuinely think most of the best schools talent will end up in our club and u20s programs and stay there until the age of 21-22. If they only need to play another 2-4 years in Australia to earn the right to go overseas and still play in a World Cup, then most will stay that little bit longer even if it's for less money. After that they've done their service to the game and can move from upper middle class to upper class if they want. While 24-26 might be a bit young, we would have still gotten a significant amount from them, particularly for the domestic club competition, and I'd be more confident that someone 27+ could move between a foreign club and the national team fluidly.

In any case, I look forward to your article, particularly if there's some number crunching. Despite what I've said above, I totally agree with the thesis that it will be a lot less lucrative than the status quo. I also agree it will lead to considerable player exodus, but I don't think it will be so dire as to leave us without any familiar names or decent talent, especially if we use independent mechanisms to change people's decision-making calculi. And, finally, as I explained in my initial post, these short-term sacrifices will result in a competition that not only has a higher ceiling, but will quite quickly start to prove that. With Australia seemingly hosted the 2027 RWC (fingers crossed!) the next 3-4 years could be painful but essential sacrifice, setting up all the right infrastructure in the event we get another gold rush. But if the past 25 years have taught us anything, it's that when faced with a suite of options, RA will not only fail to pick the best option, but will almost invariably pick the worst one.

 

[Slim 293]

Hi Reg,

agree with you on most points. I think the format will be a national play-off at the end following city-based competitions. One thing I fear is that only choosing the top 1-2 teams from Perth, Canberra, and Melbourne (which would presumably be the model) might encourage all the club talent to converge on the 2 most likely qualifiers. Something to think about.

No doubt........ but even in Sydney it would likely further kill of rugby further west of Newtown.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I, like virtually everyone else on here is pretty much over super rugby and it’s convoluted conference system and away games being played in the middle of the night. We can’t expect a top product out of teams travelling all over the Southern Hemisphere for games with jet lag, general fatigue, et al.
The two models I can see working are: that we team up with NZ, our 4/5 super teams could compete with NZs NPC teams (their top 7 perhaps?). they have more depth than we do so the contests would probably be better.
Personally I don’t mind the NRC, others don’t.
So if we were to go the club route, they could play domestic comps and have them done by the time the international season starts. At this time we could have a champions league type thing with the top teams from around the country play. Players from teams not in this comps could be drafted to play if required. This way we have players who are ready to take the next step if required.
Without a draft we would have the same system with club as we do now. Why would a player on the cusp of national selection go to a weak club if they won’t be playing when the internationals are on?
Television rights and payments I’m not so sure about. I’d imagine a combined NZ/Aus thing would be easier to market than Shute Shield, etc. I’m not welded onto any of this, just ideas

Without dealing with the rest, the idea that our Super teams should play against NZ NPC/Mitre 10 sides is mind boggling. For a lot of the Super Rugby years, a couple or more of the Aus sides have been competitive with the very best of the NZ Super sides, and they are again right now. It was a period from the mid noughties to around 2017 that we were stuck in a hole. Even then, we had both the Reds and Tahs winning the whole shebang in 2011 and 2014. There are reasons why the standard slipped here, whether they be poor coaching, loss of players overseas or failure to properly develop young players coming through the ranks, the situation has improved markedly over the most recent competitions. Any proposed competition with NZ must be at the existin g Super Rugby level. Anything else is an insult to Australian rugby as a whole and would ultimately lead to a drop in the standard of rugby in this country.

 

[mst]

I'm writing an article about this at the moment basically saying club football will be the future. I am not convinced a national club comp all the way, perhaps a play off at the end, but let's make one thing clear about this. There's no money in it. Our top players will go overseas to earn their salary. And I mean all of them. Basically every single 120 of them. and then some. It won't be sustainable at that level. Perhaps an Ed Craig, Jack Hardy or James Ramm will get similar money to what they get now but only if someone with BIG BUCKs wants to fund a national club comp.

It is unsustainable otherwise.

So any form of club competition being the 'top tier' of the game will be basically amateur with basically the same players that are playing it now. I'm not saying that its a bad thing, but it's all important to take the reality check.

But is this not just maintaining the status quo, the same status quo that has been fought for for years? The status quo that has now brought rugby to this position of not having a commercially viable nor saleable product? The same status quo that can't produce revenue independently of partners nor in its own domestic market and subsequently endangered its own future? Is there not sufficient evidence by the cost cutting and reduction of funding across the game including in its development (grass roots) that the current status quo is also unstainable? How then do we keep rugby as both relevant and viable going forward without revenue?

How do you then propose to field a Wallabies team (which is the revenue generating cash cow)? With players that the public are unfamiliar with and have no connection to? That's also if the O/S based players will come back.

I get where you are coming from but I can't see that the game can retreat anymore. It on the cliff edge right now. Can we actually take another step backwards? Or is it just better to simply jump and prey for reincarnation with the restoration of some vision?

 

[LeftWing]

No doubt.... but even in Sydney it would likely further kill of rugby further west of Newtown.

I think that's probably true ceteris paribus, but it doesn't have to be true. There could be quotas, drafts, and other centralised player assignment mechanisms (i.e. not a pure free market). If RA / the state unions still have a few elite players on higher paying contracts (which I'm hoping / assuming), they could disproportionately allocate them to clubs in non-traditional rugby areas to boost the quality of and interest in the teams there. If some private capital could be found (e.g. through a private ownership / MLR model, working with Twiggy / GRR, etc.) we could look into promoting and professionalising clubs like Campbelltown, for example. And, of course, RA could set up a proper Rugby recruitment program, where they send people to explain the basics of Rugby during primary and high school PE lessons at public schools, give students gift packs w basic merchandise and equipment, and direct them to sign up for the closest club (i.e. what the AFL has done since the mid-90s).

I guess the point is, no solution is going to tick every box. We should pursue the solution that will tick the most boxes (or, at least the most important boxes), and if there are any harms / bad consequences (as there will be with any solution we pursue) then we should lean on independent mechanisms to minimise / regulate them out.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

I'm writing an article about this at the moment basically saying club football will be the future. I am not convinced a national club comp all the way, perhaps a play off at the end, but let's make one thing clear about this. There's no money in it. Our top players will go overseas to earn their salary. And I mean all of them. Basically every single 120 of them. and then some. It won't be sustainable at that level. Perhaps an Ed Craig, Jack Hardy or James Ramm will get similar money to what they get now but only if someone with BIG BUCKs wants to fund a national club comp.

It is unsustainable otherwise.

So any form of club competition being the 'top tier' of the game will be basically amateur with basically the same players that are playing it now. I'm not saying that its a bad thing, but it's all important to take the reality check.

That's what I've been wondering about this thing. Yeah, fuck soup rugby, too much travel, bad KO times etc etc, go local, Aus/NZ provincial/club rugby sounds cool, back to the roots..... but it's for club rugby players. Pro players will head off overseas..... to be pro rugby players.

 

[Drew]

BR, you’re probably right. Maybe just chop up the Crusaders and add Tasman, That’d probably even up the comp a bit. I just see the product from the NPC and see such quality rugby being played. Like I said I’m not welded to any of this, just an idea

 

[RedsHappy]

But is this not just maintaining the status quo, the same status quo that has been fought for for years? The status quo that has now brought rugby to this position of not having a commercially viable nor saleble product? The same status quo that can't produce revenue independently of partners nor in its own domestic market and subsequently endangered its own future? Is there not sufficient evidence by the cost cutting and reduction of funding across the game including in its development (grass roots) that the current status quo is also unstainable? How then do we keep rugby as both relevant and viable going forward without revenue?

How do you then propose to field a Wallabies team (which is the revenue generating cash cow)? With players that the public are unfamiliar with and have no connection to? That's also if the O/S based players will come back.

Some very good points there @mst. However, why do any of us assume, as seemingly does RR, that, should RA collapse and be then be entirely, positively re-birthed with new owners, boards and leaders etc that in that very case there would not be attractive new sources of capital to also redesign and execute far better comp structures for Aust rugby, both pro and otherwise?

See this for example: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-rugby-s-future-is-local-20200508-p54r97.html

In that model it's quite conceivable there would be broadcaster interest, probably FTA. Not at $50m pa or anything like that for sure, but maybe a very useful say $8-$10m pa in a drastically lowered cost Aust rugby operation where such $ income levels could really be put to good application vs being wasted on ridiculous exec salaries and grossly excessive overheads as we have today (150 heads in RA, 60 in the QRU, I mean, FFS).

I don't want to get into the Twiggy arguments all over, but it's clear he was and could be again potentially willing to invest serious capital into an RA 2.0, I know of other high net worths that would do the same with serious $s, and let's get WR (World Rugby)'s $16m into an RA 2.0 only once the whole deathly shebang of RA 1.99 is eliminated in its entirety. There are also major PE players looking at various scenarios to invest in Sth Hem rugby in some form.

No one of calibre and means would in any way invest in the current RA and local RUs organisation and governance system. But that does not mean in any sense that there's no good sources of development capital available to support a radically changed and relaunched rugby Australia with viable pro and amateur levels.

(A PS: I would estimate there is probably at least 200 head count positions that could be totally eliminated within the whole of rugby Australia's total set up and no one would know the difference post the departures and related sensible rationalisation. Just the irrational functions duplication across all the RA/RUs is huge.)

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

?....Maybe just chop up the Crusaders and add Tasman, That’d probably even up the comp a bit. I just see the product from the NPC and see such quality rugby being played. Like I said I’m not welded to any of this, just an idea

And yet again with the sixth NZ team thing. FYI: population of Tasman at 2018 Census was 157K. Not even half Bay of Plenty's, the last sixth team touted on here. Next.

Edit: not having a crack at you, Drew, but if people are gunna keep saying "bung a sixth NZ team in location x" I'm gunna continue pointing out the reason(s) it can't work. Which are (1) population distribution & (2) logistics (mainly transport & accommodation).

 

[Derpus]

I'm writing an article about this at the moment basically saying club football will be the future. I am not convinced a national club comp all the way, perhaps a play off at the end, but let's make one thing clear about this. There's no money in it. Our top players will go overseas to earn their salary. And I mean all of them. Basically every single 120 of them. and then some. It won't be sustainable at that level. Perhaps an Ed Craig, Jack Hardy or James Ramm will get similar money to what they get now but only if someone with BIG BUCKs wants to fund a national club comp.

It is unsustainable otherwise.

So any form of club competition being the 'top tier' of the game will be basically amateur with basically the same players that are playing it now. I'm not saying that its a bad thing, but it's all important to take the reality check.

Kinda hard to see how it's not a bad thing?

The only silver lining i see is that we can select Skelton and Kerevi again.

 

[Drew]

And yet again with the sixth NZ team thing. FYI: population of Tasman at 2018 Census was 157K. Not even half Bay of Plenty's, the last sixth team touted on here. Next.

Edit: not having a crack at you, Drew, but if people are gunna keep saying "bung a sixth NZ team in location x" I'm gunna continue pointing out the reason(s) it can't work. Which are (1) population distribution & (2) logistics (mainly transport & accommodation).

Fair enough, I haven’t followed this thread all that religiously as I’m not going to be making the decisions. Tasman just seems to be successful in the comp. I will interested to see what the end result will be.

 

[wamberal]

And yet again with the sixth NZ team thing. FYI: population of Tasman at 2018 Census was 157K. Not even half Bay of Plenty's, the last sixth team touted on here. Next.

Edit: not having a crack at you, Drew, but if people are gunna keep saying "bung a sixth NZ team in location x" I'm gunna continue pointing out the reason(s) it can't work. Which are (1) population distribution & (2) logistics (mainly transport & accommodation).

To the outsider it sometimes seems that any Enzed village with 23 adult males could put a competitive rugby team onto the paddock that could beat most of our outfits.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ back in the day & from the right village, maybe. These days it's more like 33 incl a few 'nesian boys (look 25, are actually 16)

There's is actually an option that works on paper (2018 population a tick over 1.8Mn) that no-one ever seems to mention. Perhaps it's just too obvious? Or the idea of a Northern & Southern Loss Bleus is just too much for most people to wrap their brains around. Or maybe the fact that even that wouldn't work what with the Dead Zone where loig is king (aka South Auckland) reducing the theoretical catchment by probably 20-25%.

 

[wamberal]

^ back in the day & from the right village, maybe. These days it's more like 33 incl a few 'nesian boys (look 25, are actually 16)

What about the village where the Whitelocks live? Or just a couple of Meads in a village would do the trick.

 

[zer0]

There's is actually an option that works on paper (2018 population a tick over 1.8Mn) that no-one ever seems to mention. Perhaps it's just too obvious? Or the idea of a Northern & Southern Loss Bleus is just too much for most people to wrap their brains around. Or maybe the fact that even that wouldn't work what with the Dead Zone where loig is king (aka South Auckland) reducing the theoretical catchment by probably 20-25%.

League isn't an issue IMO. The issue is the second stadium. Eden Park and Mt Smart are obviously taken, which means they'd either be sent to either Pukekohe or the Albany graveyard. Though Pukekohe should be on the Tron express, so may make it more accessible, and thus, more viable.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could go down the NFL route and have both teams play out of Eden Park. The residents association won't like it, which is a big plus.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Some very good points there @mst. However, why do any of us assume, as seemingly does RR, that, should RA collapse and be then be entirely, positively re-birthed with new owners, boards and leaders etc that in that very case there would not be attractive new sources of capital to also redesign and execute far better comp structures for Aust rugby, both pro and otherwise?

See this for example: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-rugby-s-future-is-local-20200508-p54r97.html

In that model it's quite conceivable there would be broadcaster interest, probably FTA. Not at $50m pa or anything like that for sure, but maybe a very useful say $8-$10m pa in a drastically lowered cost Aust rugby operation where such $ income levels could really be put to good application vs being wasted on ridiculous exec salaries and grossly excessive overheads as we have today (150 heads in RA, 60 in the QRU, I mean, FFS).

I don't want to get into the Twiggy arguments all over, but it's clear he was and could be again potentially willing to invest serious capital into an RA 2.0, I know of other high net worths that would do the same with serious $s, and let's get WR (World Rugby)'s $16m into an RA 2.0 only once the whole deathly shebang of RA 1.99 is eliminated in its entirety. There are also major PE players looking at various scenarios to invest in Sth Hem rugby in some form.

No one of calibre and means would in any way invest in the current RA and local RUs organisation and governance system. But that does not mean in any sense that there's no good sources of development capital available to support a radically changed and relaunched rugby Australia with viable pro and amateur levels.

(A PS: I would estimate there is probably at least 200 head count positions that could be totally eliminated within the whole of rugby Australia's total set up and no one would know the difference post the departures and related sensible rationalisation. Just the irrational functions duplication across all the RA/RUs is huge.)

If there are these people out there but the current and likely continuing mess that is RA is maintained then they really should just keep their money. The best way forward to entice those people would be for RA and the Unions to remove themselves from the administration of the professional game in favour of establishing a wholly separate organisation aimed at developing and operating a professional league that would entice not only further investment but Rugby fans and importantly a broader cross section of society to watch.

RA could hold a voting stake (and by that I mean a single vote) in the organisation but not have an active role in running it. Instead focusing on the Wallabies and the grassroots game.