Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

After reading all these excellent posts, and taking on board some genuine concerns re tribalism, the disconnect with the NRC, there can only be one pro tier below the Wallabies etc, I have reached a dramatic conclusion. There are only 2 models that can work, they are polar opposites, and they are both problematic.

Yes

For this illustration I am going to exclude any PI involvement at a team level. The objective is to build a competition from which we select our national team. PIs can play for any team, but can’t enter their own one.
.

I've come to a similar conclusion, although for different reasons. I think we can retain Fiji/Suva in the same way that the Warriors play in the NRL. Fiji seem to have their act together and would give the competition a positive X factor. In regards Tonga/Somoa, I think there are just too many issues to solve. I think a Western Sydney team based out of Cambelltown would be an Australian team, but have a high level of PI players so possibly would be the best of both worlds. This could possibly also solve the problem of dividing Sydney as there could be a central team (call them the Sydney Stallions, put some green in their jerseys and have a galloping horse as their mascot to keep Poido happy) possibly playing out of Concord, which still has pretty good facilities. The have another team playing out of Brookvale Oval for the north (Manly Waringah ).

.

The first is a top down model, essentially using the 5 existing state franchises. The initial problem is that there are only 5 teams, so potentially 4 rounds, and all bar one making the finals. Could get boring. However, over time NSW and Qld could split into two or even three teams, this needs to be well managed though and I have no idea what the best approach would be.

.

This won't work. 5 teams is not enough to generate interest from either the public, broadcasters or the media. One team would have a bye every week and they'd have to play each other 4 times to get a competition long enough.

The second is a bottom up approach, specifically a national club comp, say 4 each NSW & Qld, 2 x ACT, Melbourne and Perth.

This is the way to go. I'm not sure about the number of teams that you suggest, but the model is the right one.

AWhich clubs make it though? Could cause division, and those that don’t will effectively be dropping back to 1st division subbies (NSW & Qld anyway), or more viably the top subbies clubs would be promoted.

Not really. Let's say for example that Manly-Warringah, Randwick/Syd Uni and Eastwood-Parramatta (sorry Pappy but you need the name Parramatta - Eastwood has no national brand recognition) played in the professional league. Their lower grades would still be in SS, in effect their 2nd grade team would be in the 1st grade competition and so on down the grades. It would actually have the positive of evening the SS competition up.

A

I’ve come to the conclusion that aside from governance our biggest problem is that our country is too fucking big.

The tyranny of distance has, and always will, impact every facet of life in Australia.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not really. Let's say for example that Manly-Warringah, Randwick/Syd Uni and Eastwood-Parramatta (sorry Pappy but you need the name Parramatta - Eastwood has no national brand recognition) played in the professional league. Their lower grades would still be in SS, in effect their 2nd grade team would be in the 1st grade competition and so on down the grades. It would actually have the positive of evening the SS competition up.



The tyranny of distance has, and always will, impact every facet of life in Australia.

QH, have you answered KOB's identified problem with the bottom up, promotion/relegation model? The team/s to be relegated are easily identified, but how do the teams to be promoted get identified? Do we have a national knock out comp at the next level down to decide which team/s are promoted? And what happens to the (eg) Eastwood/Parramatta side when they are kicked out of the main comp? Go back to the lower level where they already have a team playing?

I am thinking that promotion/relegation is too hard in this country to implement.

 

[Quick Hands]

I am thinking that promotion/relegation is too hard in this country to implement.

I agree with this, there would be too much of a gap I think.

 

[KOB1987]

So the powers that be would have to just decide which ‘franchises’ are in and which are out, and have a review system biannually or so.

 

[Lindommer]

Yes, but the problem with this iteration of the ARC was that the Sydney North Rays team played at Central Coast stadium and Sydney City Fleet played at North Sydney Oval.

Corrected. Scarfy, Pfitzy and I were all at the marvellous first ARC match at North Sydney Oval in 2007. A monumental fuckup by JON to cancel the ARC as his first executive decision on his second coming, he made absolutely no attempt to address the inherent structural problems.

 

[Quick Hands]

Corrected. Scarfy, Pfitzy and I were all at the marvellous first ARC match at North Sydney Oval in 2007. A monumental fuckup by JON to cancel the ARC as his first executive decision on his second coming, he made absolutely no attempt to address the inherent structural problems.

I have never agreed with much that JON did, but canning the ARC was one of his better decisions.

 

[Quick Hands]

So the powers that be would have to just decide which ‘franchises’ are in and which are out, and have a review system biannually or so.

I think so. Particularly early in any competition, franchises need some security of tenure to make business decisions, recruit players and obtain sponsors.

 

[KOB1987]

OK so it's a couple of months time and I've just been appointed CEO of RA. The brief is that NZ want to run their own domestic comp, and want to keep involvement with us to just rep provincial and national level. Our objective is to keep the Wallabies as the pinnacle for the players and our biggest revenue driver, and create a professional comp which captures the interest of the supporting public and the broadcasting partner, and can generate the revenue to accommodate the player salaries necessary to retain the bulk of them on our shores. We're going to go head to head with the NRL and AFL.

So, from the top down.
- Wallabies - no change here. Contracted players will receive top ups and match payments similar to today.

- provincial rep teams - we only want two teams to play each other and Asia/Pacific provinces, and the touring test teams occasionally. Traditionally it was NSW & Qld, however in the professional era we need to think wider. Origin doesn't work as there are too many origins for Wallaby eligible players, so it needs to be tied to the club/franchise they are playing for. Looking at it from the affiliated unions, I'd propose two rep teams as such (not necessarily called these):
North/West - Qld, WA, NT, SA
South/East - NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas
Now the objective is to extrapolate that into a well balanced professional domestic competition.

- professional tier - we want 5 teams in each conference. Franchises representing the North/West rep side, and their proposed bases are:
- Brisbane 1 (Brisbane)
- Brisbane 2 (Gold Coast)
- Qld Country (Toowoomba)
- Western Force (Perth)
- Fiji/PI (Fiji & Rockhampton)
Franchises representing the South/East rep side and their proposed bases are:
- Sydney 1 (Sydney)
- Sydney 2 (Parramatta)
- NSW Country (Newcastle)
- Brumbies (Canberra)
- Rebels (Melbourne)

Again these aren't necessarily the names of the teams, and I don't profess to know a lot about Qld rugby, so feel free to make alternate suggestions for the bases of the teams.

As for the operation of the comp, each team plays the teams in their own conference twice, and the teams in the other conference once. THE NW conference obviously has a fair bit more travel. The only way I see around that would be to move the Force franchise east, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having them in there.

The other crucial element, is that as around 50-60% of the players would only be semi-pro, every registered club in Australia has to be tied to one of the franchises, and players have to be registered to a club tied to the franchise they are playing for. And the distribution of these clubs needs to make sense logically and geographically. I.e. the Sydney franchises would have an equitable distribution from all the SS clubs and all the subbies clubs, and every NSW country club would be tied to the NSW Country franchise.

I've just sold myself on this model. Someone will no doubt tear it to pieces, but I'm happy to run with it and see how it goes.

 

[VassMan]

I like it mate! As long as you keep the Waratahs and Reds names as the Sydney 1 and Brisbane 1 name.

 

[The Honey Badger]

This won't work. 5 teams is not enough to generate interest from either the public, broadcasters or the media. One team would have a bye every week and they'd have to play each other 4 times to get a competition long enough.

Put me in the camp of supporters who want to retain our Provincial teams and build a comp around that.

Reds, Tahs, Brums, Rebs, Force we have. All have value in their brands and a potential huge supper base - perhaps Latent but given some love could fill stadiums.

I dont think in our wildest dreams any NRC (created) side will ever reach the potential of the provincial franchises we have.

If we need more sides, why then dont we create a Barbarians side that plays out of TAS/SA/NT otherwise known at the "ALL STATES BARBARIANS"

Lets have each of the main franchises Name 27 players required for the the next match within 48 hours of the last. (this gives them 2 forward and 2 backs spare in case of last minute withdrawal. ALL Remaining squad members are then seconded to the ASB's. (Rather than going back to clubland as they do now) . There should be enough unused players from 5 franchises to make a competitive team. This will increase competition between players and increase the Mate against Mate rivalry. Perhaps the ASB's has a core of players (even un-contracted) to help them with combinations.

So now we have 6 sides, and the 6th side does cost too much as we are using surplus players from other franchises.

Given the success of the Hurricanes in 20/20 cricket I suspect Tas might actually get some reasonable crowds, SA & NT not so sure, but give them time.

If we need more sides, then Fiji, Japan, Tonga & Samoa all possible. (I would limit to 2 at the most foreign teams)

Finally we have an Aus time zone domestic competition playing at an elite level. Then the option to play a Trans Tasman comp..

IMO the NRC should continue in its current low key form as a development comp. Perhaps the winning coach gets to coach the ASB's.

 

[KOB1987]

As an adjunct to my proposal above would be that each of the non Sydney or Brisbane franchises in each conference play one home game per season outside their actual base.

E.g.
Qld Country - up the road at Warwick
Fiji - Darwin
Force - Adelaide

NSW Country - Mudgee!
Brumbies - Wagga
Rebels - Tassie

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Put me in the camp of supporters who want to retain our Provincial teams and build a comp around that.

Reds, Tahs, Brums, Rebs, Force we have. All have value in their brands and a potential huge supper base - perhaps Latent but given some love could fill stadiums.

I dont think in our wildest dreams any NRC (created) side will ever reach the potential of the provincial franchises we have.

If we need more sides, why then dont we create a Barbarians side that plays out of TAS/SA/NT otherwise known at the "ALL STATES BARBARIANS"

Lets have each of the main franchises Name 27 players required for the the next match within 48 hours of the last. (this gives them 2 forward and 2 backs spare in case of last minute withdrawal. ALL Remaining squad members are then seconded to the ASB's. (Rather than going back to clubland as they do now) . There should be enough unused players from 5 franchises to make a competitive team. This will increase competition between players and increase the Mate against Mate rivalry. Perhaps the ASB's has a core of players (even un-contracted) to help them with combinations.

So now we have 6 sides, and the 6th side does cost too much as we are using surplus players from other franchises.

Given the success of the Hurricanes in 20/20 cricket I suspect Tas might actually get some reasonable crowds, SA & NT not so sure, but give them time.

If we need more sides, then Fiji, Japan, Tonga & Samoa all possible. (I would limit to 2 at the most foreign teams)

Finally we have an Aus time zone domestic competition playing at an elite level. Then the option to play a Trans Tasman comp..

IMO the NRC should continue in its current low key form as a development comp. Perhaps the winning coach gets to coach the ASB's.

Or just the Black Falcons based out of Adelaide. If you look to continue with the state based concept. Bring in Fiji and a combined PI squad and that's 8 teams playing two rounds of games for a 14 game season. New Zealand could look to go to 7-8 teams (a second PI squad would be pretty cool) and we could have a TT Cup competition or a AP Cup competition featuring 8 teams from Japan. Have 8 pools of 3 teams playing home and away for 4 additional games.

 

[Quick Hands]

Put me in the camp of supporters who want to retain our Provincial teams and build a comp around that.

Reds, Tahs, Brums, Rebs, Force we have. All have value in their brands and a potential huge supper base - perhaps Latent but given some love could fill stadiums.

I my view, this is the model which is doomed to failure. You're merely engaging with the same diminishing middle-aged fan base who support the current Super Rugby model.

Not enough teams, not enough fan engagement and just more of the same. It's not a model which any other sport in Australia uses for these and other reasons.

 

[Quick Hands]

As an adjunct to my proposal above would be that each of the non Sydney or Brisbane franchises in each conference play one home game per season outside their actual base.

I've responded to this post rather than your main post to save space.

Broadly speaking you're on the right track.

Wallabies I'm 100% behind.

Your 2 x next level rep teams I'm ambivalent about. It doesn't excite me, but I'm not passionately against it either. It could work if promoted properly and there was space in the calendar. But it would need the level below to hit the spot from day one to build interest.

Some things about the domestic competition.

I wouldn't go near the Gold Coast with a long stick. Either divide Brisbane north/south, or the Sunshine Coast.

The names NSW Country and Qld Country are suited to a City v Country game, but not IMO to something like this. If we're going to put a team on the Darling Downs, call it the Darling Downs and if we're going to put a team in Newcastle, call it Newcastle. We need geographic passion to engage supporters.

I'm not so sold on Newcastle though, I think we have a much better chance of success on the northern beaches and we need some short term success. There's a ready made fan base who'll engage with a team named after their own area.

I like your idea about teams playing one game a year outside their fan base. With 3 teams in Sydney that gives 3 teams playing a game in regional NSW - which SS clubs already do and is a great initiative.

I like your thinking and I'm glad you took the time to work it out and share. It's such a pity that nobody in RA/ARU seems to have been engaged in any similar strategic planning over the next decade.

 

[Quick Hands]

I like it mate! As long as you keep the Waratahs and Reds names as the Sydney 1 and Brisbane 1 name.

Pretty much guaranteed to alienate a large portion of the Sydney market before it even starts.

 

[pnut]

QH question from all your posts are u just advocating for a quasi NRL comp?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

OK so it's a couple of months time and I've just been appointed CEO of RA. The brief is that NZ want to run their own domestic comp, and want to keep involvement with us to just rep provincial and national level. Our objective is to keep the Wallabies as the pinnacle for the players and our biggest revenue driver, and create a professional comp which captures the interest of the supporting public and the broadcasting partner, and can generate the revenue to accommodate the player salaries necessary to retain the bulk of them on our shores. We're going to go head to head with the NRL and AFL.

So, from the top down.
- Wallabies - no change here. Contracted players will receive top ups and match payments similar to today.

- provincial rep teams - we only want two teams to play each other and Asia/Pacific provinces, and the touring test teams occasionally. Traditionally it was NSW & Qld, however in the professional era we need to think wider. Origin doesn't work as there are too many origins for Wallaby eligible players, so it needs to be tied to the club/franchise they are playing for. Looking at it from the affiliated unions, I'd propose two rep teams as such (not necessarily called these):
North/West - Qld, WA, NT, SA
South/East - NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas
Now the objective is to extrapolate that into a well balanced professional domestic competition.

- professional tier - we want 5 teams in each conference. Franchises representing the North/West rep side, and their proposed bases are:
- Brisbane 1 (Brisbane)
- Brisbane 2 (Gold Coast)
- Qld Country (Toowoomba)
- Western Force (Perth)
- Fiji/PI (Fiji & Rockhampton)
Franchises representing the South/East rep side and their proposed bases are:
- Sydney 1 (Sydney)
- Sydney 2 (Parramatta)
- NSW Country (Newcastle)
- Brumbies (Canberra)
- Rebels (Melbourne)

Again these aren't necessarily the names of the teams, and I don't profess to know a lot about Qld rugby, so feel free to make alternate suggestions for the bases of the teams.

As for the operation of the comp, each team plays the teams in their own conference twice, and the teams in the other conference once. THE NW conference obviously has a fair bit more travel. The only way I see around that would be to move the Force franchise east, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having them in there.

The other crucial element, is that as around 50-60% of the players would only be semi-pro, every registered club in Australia has to be tied to one of the franchises, and players have to be registered to a club tied to the franchise they are playing for. And the distribution of these clubs needs to make sense logically and geographically. I.e. the Sydney franchises would have an equitable distribution from all the SS clubs and all the subbies clubs, and every NSW country club would be tied to the NSW Country franchise.

I've just sold myself on this model. Someone will no doubt tear it to pieces, but I'm happy to run with it and see how it goes.

You lost me when you started talking about SA and NT...but what ever you are smoking sounds good so can I have some - as it might help me to also have delusions of grandeur for oz rugby

 

[The Honey Badger]

I have never agreed with much that JON did, but canning the ARC was one of his better decisions.

you are a bit of a misnomer QH.

Why is it that I think you are advocating for an ARC/NRC model now.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

OK so it's a couple of months time and I've just been appointed CEO of RA. The brief is that NZ want to run their own domestic comp, and want to keep involvement with us to just rep provincial and national level. Our objective is to keep the Wallabies as the pinnacle for the players and our biggest revenue driver, and create a professional comp which captures the interest of the supporting public and the broadcasting partner, and can generate the revenue to accommodate the player salaries necessary to retain the bulk of them on our shores. We're going to go head to head with the NRL and AFL.

So, from the top down.
- Wallabies - no change here. Contracted players will receive top ups and match payments similar to today.

- provincial rep teams - we only want two teams to play each other and Asia/Pacific provinces, and the touring test teams occasionally. Traditionally it was NSW & Qld, however in the professional era we need to think wider. Origin doesn't work as there are too many origins for Wallaby eligible players, so it needs to be tied to the club/franchise they are playing for. Looking at it from the affiliated unions, I'd propose two rep teams as such (not necessarily called these):
North/West - Qld, WA, NT, SA
South/East - NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas
Now the objective is to extrapolate that into a well balanced professional domestic competition.

- professional tier - we want 5 teams in each conference. Franchises representing the North/West rep side, and their proposed bases are:
- Brisbane 1 (Brisbane)
- Brisbane 2 (Gold Coast)
- Qld Country (Toowoomba)
- Western Force (Perth)
- Fiji/PI (Fiji & Rockhampton)
Franchises representing the South/East rep side and their proposed bases are:
- Sydney 1 (Sydney)
- Sydney 2 (Parramatta)
- NSW Country (Newcastle)
- Brumbies (Canberra)
- Rebels (Melbourne)

Again these aren't necessarily the names of the teams, and I don't profess to know a lot about Qld rugby, so feel free to make alternate suggestions for the bases of the teams.

As for the operation of the comp, each team plays the teams in their own conference twice, and the teams in the other conference once. THE NW conference obviously has a fair bit more travel. The only way I see around that would be to move the Force franchise east, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having them in there.

The other crucial element, is that as around 50-60% of the players would only be semi-pro, every registered club in Australia has to be tied to one of the franchises, and players have to be registered to a club tied to the franchise they are playing for. And the distribution of these clubs needs to make sense logically and geographically. I.e. the Sydney franchises would have an equitable distribution from all the SS clubs and all the subbies clubs, and every NSW country club would be tied to the NSW Country franchise.

I've just sold myself on this model. Someone will no doubt tear it to pieces, but I'm happy to run with it and see how it goes.

I'd split Sydney North/South much like many have suggested for Brisbane. With the 5 northern clubs (Eastwood, Norths, Gordon, Manly and Warringah) directly feeding into North Sydney. And the other 7 clubs feeding into Sydney. I wouldn't worry about conferences. Go with home and away format.

 

[Omar Comin']

Pretty much guaranteed to alienate a large portion of the Sydney market before it even starts.

What do you mean by this? The Waratahs have an established membership and fan base, and professional brand, yet draw their support primarily from the Eastern suburbs and north shore of Sydney. Corporate types and private school old boys make up a disproportionate percentage of their fan base. I think this makes them an ideal rival for a Western Sydney team as there'd be an automatic 'fibros and the silvertails' type rivalry. And even if you had 3 teams in Sydney (with a separate Northern Sydney team) I think it'd be smart to keep the one established professional rugby brand in the city as the sort of big brother that the two new little brothers are trying to beat.