Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dismal Pillock]

That’s per year

oh shit, thought 3 mill p/a sounded slightly low haha

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't think this is the best option but if I had to bet on it I'd guess that RA will go back to 3 pro teams, merging the Rebels and the Brumbies, and there'll be an 8 team Trans Tasman competition in 2021.

If RA's financial situation is as dire as reported, and the next broadcast deal is going to be a significant reduction to the current one, then the justification will be financial sustainability and that Australian rugby and the Wallabies peaked when we had 3 teams. I can only see us having 5 teams in a 10 team TT competition if Twiggy Forrest really comes on board with it, but I'm not confident about that. Or if the NZRU committed to some kind of talent equalisation across the competition, which probably isn't going to happen. To have any chance of competing with the NZ teams the salaries will have to remain at least around the same levels they are now and that seems unlikely without a reduction of teams given the financial realities.

An amateur to semi-pro national club competition may emerge beneath this and the messaging will be around this competition providing the national footprint and tribalism etc, while the elite game is focused on retaining top players and building cohesion for the Wallabies.

 

[Brumby Runner]

2 separate comps, a 2 round H&A oz provincial sides - a trophy awarded to the winner. a 1 round Super 10 oz provincial vs NZ Provincial

it would be silly if the oz sides played each other a third time and we will get bored, so use the second round as counting towards the Sup 10 as well, A trophy awarded to a Christchurch based side.

Correct me if I am wrong, I think the Ruby Championship was similar once. Not all games vs NZ were Bled games. Bled was just a 2 game series. So sometimes an RC game was also a Bled games, sometimes not. (but some point it changed that every game became a Bled game) So potentially a game can be played for 2 separate competitions/trophys.

OK, two separate comps looks good. Another 2 or 3 certain home games at the end of the Aus championship and the possibility of more if any of the Aus sides make the finals. But does it mean there is no time for finals to the Aus championship? Does it go straight to the one round v NZ? Which is preferable? The minor premier being crowned national champ, or a final series to get to the top team?

 

[The Honey Badger]

OK, two separate comps looks good. Another 2 or 3 certain home games at the end of the Aus championship and the possibility of more if any of the Aus sides make the finals. But does it mean there is no time for finals to the Aus championship? Does it go straight to the one round v NZ? Which is preferable? The minor premier being crowned national champ, or a final series to get to the top team?

All good questions, you have thought about it more than me.

My guess is Oz provincial grand final is a top 2 play off, and that would be before the sides start playing the NZ sides.

I would propose that NZ have something very similar on their side of the the Tasman

 

[Brumbieman]

I reckon Twiggy would come to the party for this - a personal contribution from him to hire some top players to get the Force up to speed quickly again, would probably equal what the other 4 teams have to pay their players anyway. WA as a whole would also get behind them, they'd be pretty cashed up, pretty quickly I reckon and the quality coaches and players follow that. Especially now!

The Tahs weren't going to be competitive this year, but the other three teams were going quite well, and if the Force were to get up to Rebel-competitiveness quickly, then we'd have a genuine 10 team comp ready to go.

Rugby isn't big enough for a club based model - there just isn't enough money to spread top players among clubs, and until rugby is as popular as league is in Sydney, we'll never beat them at that model.

Club rugby is still a beautiful thing - it just needs people interested in it! Then they go watch the games, money is put into the system, the rugby improves and it cycles upwards.

In Australia, unfortunately, all but the die hards lose interest if the national team isn't winning, or their Super rugby side. Get them strong again (and we're just on the cusp of it unless everything completely falls apart) then the popularity will come back.

Even the NRC can and should stay - it doesn't affect club rugby at all, as they don't play concurrently. The NRC is the place where the best of club rugby get to play with those above them who didn't crack the international side. Everyone benefits, more coaches get higher level exposure, more development is possible etc etc. Everything is good about it, except the lack of tribal support - this will come too, with more interest in rugby and better fucking marketing.
The club players go back to their club with more professionalism, the coaches go back with more experience of higher levels, and the higher level players get to work on their skills at a level that doesn't punish them mercilessly while they're still improving.

We could even host a trans tasman NRC/ITM cup finals series, as curtain raisers to the RC test matches, if the timeframe fit! How good would that be!? Women's rugby can just grow along the same structure as well.

Seriously, as soon as Trans tasman travel is possible, NZRU and RA should just pile in on that 10 team model - find a broadcaster, sign a deal and get cracking. If it gets players back to 80% of their former paycheck, most would stay especially if international travel is still out and other comps collapse. Reduced travel load would also be a drawcard for players who've had the trek to SA for many years burned into them.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

OK, two separate comps looks good. Another 2 or 3 certain home games at the end of the Aus championship and the possibility of more if any of the Aus sides make the finals. But does it mean there is no time for finals to the Aus championship? Does it go straight to the one round v NZ? Which is preferable? The minor premier being crowned national champ, or a final series to get to the top team?

Merge with GRR bring in Fiji, Samoa and Hong Kong. This way we get three new teams without the added overheard in terms of player salaries. Home and away. Fourteen rounds and two weeks of finals. At the end. NZ can set up their own 8 team competition and do likewise. At the end of it. Join up with the Top League to form the Asia-Pacific Rugby Championship. Have 8 pools of 3 (an Australian-ish, NZ and Japanese team in each pool). Home and away for 4 games. Winner of each pool into the finals. All up seven weeks.

 

[Derpus]

Merge with GRR bring in Fiji, Samoa and Hong Kong. This way we get three new teams without the added overheard in terms of player salaries. Home and away. Fourteen rounds and two weeks of finals. At the end. NZ can set up their own 8 team competition and do likewise. At the end of it. Join up with the Top League to form the Asia-Pacific Rugby Championship. Have 8 pools of 3 (an Australian-ish, NZ and Japanese team in each pool). Home and away for 4 games. Winner of each pool into the finals. All up seven weeks.

Not sure how that would work

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not sure how that would work

Take the next 3 largest regions from the M10 Cup.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Take the next 3 largest regions from the M10 Cup.

You'd have to abolish the franchises & pump the extra tv-deal cash (assuming it's still there) into selected provinces. In which case you'd end up with nine, being North Harbour, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, Wellington, Tasman, Canterbury & Otago, or ten if Hawkes Bay & Manawatu can be *persuaded* to amalgamate Tasman-styles (as opposed to the half-arsed late-90's Central Vikings joint venture).

Note that this ONLY (& probably only just) works in the context of RA running an 8-10 team domestic comp of their own & more importantly Sky are still willing & able to pay at least 80% of the $100Mn p.a. they committed to paying for the latest version of Super Rugby last October. Gotta say I'm sceptical it's doable, my preferred option remains Trans Tasman & bringing in PI as & when feasible.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Just to clarify your use here of 'closed borders', RN, am I right to assume you mean an NZ 'closed selection' policy whereby national team promotion (e.g. ABs) is only available from teams within that nation?

If so, closed test selection might be a clearer description.

Closed borders seems more like the sort of thing we are going through with Covid-19, - e.g. not being able to move interstate in Oz, across the Tasman / further afield without a lengthy quarantine - or in many cases simply being turned back.

I suspect closed test selection for the ABs is more than likely set to continue for the immediate future, so any Oz plans would need to factor that in.

Kiap we are talking about travel between oz and nz by September as part of the bubble travel nations so as far as time frames for trans tasman comp clearly never this year, 2021 or 2022 yes....

 

[Highlander35]

While you could probably get away with slightly fewer in a purely domestic comp, I think anything less than 9, and preferably 10 or 11 home games, isn't enough. You need ongoing and consistent opportunities for fans to build connections: to players, to the home grounds and ultimately, to the team itself. Providing fewer games than that, to me at least, suggests that any new competition simply continues the biggest problem with Super Rugby, that generally speaking, it exists purely as an audition and match fitness competition for SH internationals (see, Wallabies for Domestic) rather than something worth following in and of itself.

 

[qwerty51]

Ok I'm going to solve this thing. I’ve come up with this in 20 minutes. There’s obviously flaws but it’s a start.

Firstly, this competition has to eat into the AFL and NRL market. That is the only way rugby will have a successful future in Australia and New Zealand. It is not a development competition, it is not a grassroots pathway competition to Test rugby and it is certainly not a charity competition. It is the premier level of rugby union in the Southern Hemisphere that is purely an entertainment product first and foremost. Rugby (and cricket) are the only sports in the world which rely so heavily on its international game for income/ It's not sustainable, especially in a post-corona world. Domestic products are the king in the US (NFL, NBA etc.), UK (EPL, Prem Rugby), Europe (Top 14,La Liga, Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Serie A etc.). That's not to say International rugby will be neglected - in fact I think this will only improve it with a more aligned calendar. But I can’t stress how important it is to start treating the club game as the product first and foremost rather than the International for rugby it be a viable product again.

Teams:

16 teams gives the competition 8 matches a week (7 during bye weeks). Same as the NRL and 1 less than the AFL. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE!!! Local content for providers with 8 matches that are all relevant to NZ and Aus audiences. Not to mention outside Australia this comp will still bring in more revenue than the NRL and AFL could. Of course this is a free movement comp with no restrictions on foreigners or eligibility to play Test rugby. I won’t say Hooper will play for the Canes or Barrett for the Tahs but something like Milner-Skudder playing for the Rebels? Entirely possible. When Kiwis are playing for the Aus teams and vice-versa it increases the interest from the other country during derbies.

Clubs get more income: more home games & bigger crowds with more relevant opposition. Teams are gone for a max of 3 days. Better for players with young families and straight back into public interest with awaiting local media. None of this stuff where a team is MIA for 4 weeks on tour with no matches played during reasonable hours. ie. how to kill the casual fan off.

Australia (7)
Melbourne (AAMI)
Canberra (GIO)
Perth (HBF)
Western Sydney (Bankwest)
Sydney (SFS)
Brisbane (Suncorp)
Gold Coast or NQ (Cbus)

New Zealand (8)
Canterbury
Otago
Tasman
Auckland
North Auckland or South Auckland?
Waikato
Wellington
Taranaki/Combine the Bays? - Kiwis would know more than me for the 7th and 8th teams.

Fiji/PI (1)
PI (Suva)
 - or base it in Australia/NZ if Fiji isn't viable.

Structure:


So how does this work then with only 16 teams? You’d want at least 18 weeks and no more than 20 to fit in Internationals and finals. Everyone plays each other once, that’s 15 games - easy. I’d say 4 extra games to make 18 games with the 3-4 extras coming from derbies. Who is each others derbies will have to be worked out. For eg. Sydney would have Western Sydney, QLD 1 & 2 and Canberra as theirs. Some wouldn’t make sense but these could be locked in and changed every 4 years or so.

Season starts ~1st March with preseason fixtures in February so still gives us a couple rounds of clean air without NRL & AFL on and the Grand Final will be on ~1st September after 4 weeks of finals. That gives the competition (4 weeks of finals) well before AFL & NRL even start their finals so clean air for the finals series too.

Scheduling (all AEST)
1x Thursday night 7:30pm
2x Friday night 5:30pm & 7:30pm
2x Saturday 5:30pm, 7:30pm
3x Sunday 2pm, 4pm, 7pm

Perth is the only team outside the GMT+10 and +12 timezone so just play their matches either on the Saturday 7:30pm slot or Sunday 4:30pm slot. Club rugby unaffected by having nothing on at 3pm. I think Sunday is heavily under-utilised in Aus sport, it’s massive in the US with the NFL.

Internationals:

Finishing in early August allows a solid 3 months of Internationals. I think every Test nation should aim for 8 Tests a year - yes this is down on current formats but I actually think the less the better, will create more interest in each one.

Southern Championship.
In terms of Aus (and NZ)
-2x each other (Bledisloes home/away) one isn't a Southern Champ game.
-1x Fiji
-1x Arg
-1x Jap
-1x SA

That's 5 matches part of a Southern Championship annually. (Same as 6N).

1x Samoa or Tonga (alternating every year with alternate home/away too)

SA home/away every alt. year = bigger crowds when they're finally here. Alternate between Brisbane/Perth as Sydney gets Bledisloe.

2x 6N teams with rotation every year. NH tour the SA with 4 matches against Aus/NZ/SA and 1x either Japan or Arg. Tour the NH every 2 years. So you play 4 Tests over there taking out Samoa/Tonga and Arg/Japan.

 

[Rebels3]

While you could probably get away with slightly fewer in a purely domestic comp, I think anything less than 9, and preferably 10 or 11 home games, isn't enough. You need ongoing and consistent opportunities for fans to build connections: to players, to the home grounds and ultimately, to the team itself. Providing fewer games than that, to me at least, suggests that any new competition simply continues the biggest problem with Super Rugby, that generally speaking, it exists purely as an audition and match fitness competition for SH internationals (see, Wallabies for Domestic) rather than something worth following in and of itself.

I know the length of the season is an issue for super teams, 6/7 games isn’t enough to balance the books.

You’re also 100% correct with the engagement part.

 

[Brumby Runner]

All good questions, you have thought about it more than me.

My guess is Oz provincial grand final is a top 2 play off, and that would be before the sides start playing the NZ sides.

I would propose that NZ have something very similar on their side of the the Tasman

One problem I see with that model is that at the end of the tack on TT round, the top teams might not exactly align with the outcome of the individual domestic competitions. We could end up with two national champs (one each for Aus and NZ) but an entirely different TT champion. Don't know how bragging rights would pan out then.

I think there are only two realistic models.

First, both Aus and NZ play their national domestic competitions to a logical end with a national champ anointed. Then those two sides battle out for the title of TT champ.

Second, go with a full TT from the start, with the winner at the end crowned the TT champ.

I think you've identified an issue with the first option in that it would probably need to go for three full rounds of domestic games. Might get stale, and then the TT component is probably only one game, so there is a loss of good potential competition across the ditch.

The second option requires the full cooperation of NZRU, and that might not be forthcoming. We are in their hands to even get that comp off the ground. In the end, we would have a TT champ, but not necessarily a domestic finals series to establish the respective national champs.

A lot yet to be worked out.

 

[Dan54]

Ok I'm going to solve this thing. I’ve come up with this in 20 minutes. Th

Internationals:
Finishing in early August allows a solid 3 months of Internationals. I think every Test nation should aim for 8 Tests a year - yes this is down on current formats but I actually think the less the better, will create more interest in each one.

Southern Championship.
In terms of Aus (and NZ)
-2x each other (Bledisloes home/away) one isn't a Southern Champ game.
-1x Fiji
-1x Arg
-1x Jap
-1x SA

That's 5 matches part of a Southern Championship annually. (Same as 6N).

1x Samoa or Tonga (alternating every year with alternate home/away too)

SA home/away every alt. year = bigger crowds when they're finally here. Alternate between Brisbane/Perth as Sydney gets Bledisloe.

2x 6N teams with rotation every year. NH tour the SA with 4 matches against Aus/NZ/SA and 1x either Japan or Arg. Tour the NH every 2 years. So you play 4 Tests over there taking out Samoa/Tonga and Arg/Japan.

Have to say qwerty, I like your thinking on international season, ok could do with tweaks maybe, but general idea is good I think!

 

[Omar Comin']

So Stephen Moore was on the Rugby Ruckus podcast and his solution (and I'm guessing the 10 captain's) is to make the Wallabies number 1 in the world most of the time (2 or 3 is unacceptable), and to go back to 3 pro teams and have a greater focus on club rugby beneath that. Morgan Turinui is also onboard with this and wants a national club competition with promotion and relegation beneath the pro level.

Having the Wallabies consistently be number 1 in the world is an admirable goal to have, but it's clearly not realistic so why base the whole strategy of the sport on achieving that? I'm not saying we shouldn't have a lot of focus on the Wallabies, we should, and the Wallabies will always be the biggest driver of rugby in Australia. But to think we can just change some structures and attitudes and we'll be number 1 in the world most of the time is silly. We have no significant long term advantages as a rugby country over New Zealand, England and South Africa at the very least.

The Wallabies are the pinnacle but we need some professional rugby in this country that people are passionate about and broadcasters are interested in regardless of how the Wallabies are going.

 

[wamberal]

There is absolutely no point in pinning all our hopes on what is an impossible goal. The All Blacks have been number one for pretty much every year since the game began.

The first requirement of any business strategic plan is that it be developed so as to achieve a realistic set of objectives.

Good footballer, Stephen Moore. But he should leave issues like this to the grown ups. So should all the other former captains. Maybe they could each tell us in concrete terms how they could have achieved number 1 status for during their tenures? What needed to change?

 

[qwerty51]

I completely believe the model of the Wallabies being #1 goal is the reason we're in this mess in the first place. They should be an afterthought. The NRL and AFL don't have these models yet survive?

We need a strong domestic product. It cannot be more simpler than that. Reducing the amount of professional contracts is disastrous.

It again doesn't address the main failings of Super Rugby:

- Not enough local content for a broadcaster to pay $$ for.
- Not enough local teams.
- Competition doesn't run long enough. It needs to mimic the AFL/NRL seasons.
- The stupendous week in week out travel - teams spending 4 weeks away. Supporters turn off their team.

As long as you don't evolve Super Rugby into a meaningful competition that is held in it's own right rather than a stepping-stone to something better (Test rugby) it will always be a failure. The International game cannot sustain the game below it - it needs to be the other way around.

--

As for the #1 goal: The Springboks were a complete joke in 2016-17. They're now #1.
Our schoolboys/u20s have just matched NZ and if not better for the last 2 years. Why shouldn't the seniors be superior?

 

[qwerty51]

Have to say qwerty, I like your thinking on international season, ok could do with tweaks maybe, but general idea is good I think!

I'm a big fan of less is more. Less Tests will also mean more $$ for the clubs as they retain their star players for longer. The 6N teams only play each other once a year - why shouldn't we just mimic their comp given how successful the 6N is.

If a global calendar ever comes to fruition - could even play these comps at the same time. How good would it be for a weekend to have these:

Aus vs NZ | Eng vs Fra
SA vs Arg | Wal vs Ire
Japan vs Fiji | Sco vs Italy

 

[formerflanker]

The first requirement of any business strategic plan is that it be developed so as to achieve a realistic set of objectives.

+1