Where to for Super Rugby?

[Brumby Runner]

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

KOB, just nit picking, but why would you have the Brumbies playing in Wagga when your original post identified that every NSW country club would be tied to the NSW Country franchise.

My question is, would you see SIRU staying with the Brumbies or re-aligning to NSW Country?

 

[Quick Hands]

you are a bit of a misnomer QH.

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

The ARC/NRC model involved competitions played after the end of the Australian rugby calendar and I'm not advocating anything of the sort.

Your mindset is out of date, you're still living in the pan-continental Super Rugby world in which Super Rugby and club rugby occur during the rugby season and ARC/NRC is tacked on the end as a meaningless afterthought, with almost zero hope of fan and media engagement.

If there's no Super Rugby then it involves the bulk of Super Rugby players, it is played at the usual time of the year for a rugby competition in Australia and the teams are designed to represent specific geographic areas and use marketable brand names to maximise fan engagement and media interest.

 

[Quick Hands]

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

That's one way of describing it.

 

[Quick Hands]

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.

Of late the Waratahs have been drawing a couple of thousand more than Manly v Warringah. The diminishing Waratah fan base could almost be renamed Sydney Uni or GPS Old Boys.

 

[KOB1987]

KOB, just nit picking, but why would you have the Brumbies playing in Wagga when your original post identified that every NSW country club would be tied to the NSW Country franchise.

My question is, would you see SIRU staying with the Brumbies or re-aligning to NSW Country?

SIRU are useless at both producing and developing talent, you can keep them haha.

To answer your question though, I had assumed that SIRU would stay with the Brumbies. It probably wouldn’t matter either way though. If South Coast and Riverina were to revert back to NSW Country you can play your away-home game at Queanbeyan.

A friend of mine who was a NSW Country centre, moved to Wagga in the late 90s and played for the Waratahs. After a few years of putting on 50 against everyone every week, it got boring so he switched to loig in the interest of getting some actual competition.

 

[KOB1987]

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

SA and NT, and Tassie, are member unions and need to be considered in any RA discussions. They aren’t going to form a significant part of a professional rugby comp of any description though, but they still need to be considered. If you’d read past the mention of them you would have established that’s precisely what’s happened here.

As for the tone of the rest of your post, I’m sure whatever solution you have come up with is superior to everyone else’s. As myself and others have mentioned, the biggest hurdle we have is the size of our country and how to come up with something that works for everyone. But at least we are trying to do that.

 

[KOB1987]

 

[Grumped]

That article indicates that Super Rugby AU will be on Friday and Saturday. I was hoping for it to follow the NZ matches on Sat/Sun arvos.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

SA and NT, and Tassie, are member unions and need to be considered in any RA discussions. They aren’t going to form a significant part of a professional rugby comp of any description though, but they still need to be considered. If you’d read past the mention of them you would have established that’s precisely what’s happened here.

As for the tone of the rest of your post, I’m sure whatever solution you have come up with is superior to everyone else’s. As myself and others have mentioned, the biggest hurdle we have is the size of our country and how to come up with something that works for everyone. But at least we are trying to do that.

Fair enough mate - I just did not get the priority for NT and SA given where at - and nope I don’t know what the perfect alternative is but just hope RA and Twiggy collaborate to try and find one ie 1+1 = 3

 

[KOB1987]

Fair enough mate - I just did not get the priority for NT and SA given where at - and nope I don’t know what the perfect alternative is but just hope RA and Twiggy collaborate to try and find one ie 1+1 = 3

I can’t see where they are being given any priority whatsoever, only a mere mention.

If we only had to worry about keeping the NSWRU and QRU happy then things would be a whole lot simpler. It’s quite easy to come up with something that would be financially viable if you do this. Let’s face it, 90% + of our pro players come out of one of these 2 unions, and maybe, unfortunately, money will dictate that this is what we have to do. This is how it was back in the amateur days, NSW and Qld with only token involvement from the other territories, and it’s effectively how the NRL operates. It works for them.

 

[Joe King]

Scott Johnson says his preference is to design a comp that will be the best in the world, and that it would be hard to have the best comp in the world without NZ in it (https://www.buzzsprout.com/843712/3934223-the-rugby-wrap-s-1-ep-11-with-scott-johnson)


So another option for a TT comp would be for NZ to increase the no. of their teams to 8, and include the Oz 5, plus a possible PI team, for 14 teams (https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/121523112/why-nz-rugby-could-now-rip-up-super-rugby).

This could make for a pretty even and attractive comp. It would make for a 13 week regular season before finals and/or a champions league, not including any byes, which is just about right.

If they were to have a champions league with SA/Arg or a finals series with the best teams from both conferences, it would allow SA to bring home their two from the Pro14, increasing their teams to 6, without depth being an issue any longer. Including the Jaguares would make for a 14 week double round robin regular season (including byes), which is also just about right.

This model would also allow them to keep open the option of including the top teams from Japan in a champions league or finals system, either now or in the near future. I think this will be one of their key priorities in designing a new model.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Talk of Aus and NZ seriously looking to go to a TT option. Which seems to be somewhat supported by a report out of Argentina in La Nacion that Jaguars players having been given the go ahead to chase overseas contracts.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Scott Johnson says his preference is to design a comp that will be the best in the world, and that it would be hard to have the best comp in the world without NZ in it (https://www.buzzsprout.com/843712/3934223-the-rugby-wrap-s-1-ep-11-with-scott-johnson)


So another option for a TT comp would be for NZ to increase the no. of their teams to 8, and include the Oz 5, plus a possible PI team, for 14 teams (https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/121523112/why-nz-rugby-could-now-rip-up-super-rugby).

This could make for a pretty even and attractive comp. It would make for a 13 week regular season before finals and/or a champions league, not including any byes, which is just about right.

If they were to have a champions league with SA/Arg or a finals series with the best teams from both conferences, it would allow SA to bring home their two from the Pro14, increasing their teams to 6, without depth being an issue any longer. Including the Jaguares would make for a 14 week double round robin regular season (including byes), which is also just about right.

This model would also allow them to keep open the option of including the top teams from Japan in a champions league or finals system, either now or in the near future. I think this will be one of their key priorities in designing a new model.

Even if you guys were to reduce your salary cap from $5.5Mn to around $3Mn, and leaving geography & demographics to one side, there's no way NZR can resource eight teams. With a reduced cap they could maybe put up a sixth team but where does that leave you guys? Maybe 10 Wobs-standard players spread across your five teams, the rest having departed to NRL or for points North, would be my guess.

 

[KOB1987]

Yeah I think a better option would be to reduce us to 3 teams, and then 2 other teams, for a 10 team comp.

WOB I haven’t listened to the podcast yet but was there any talk of reducing the salary cap? If that’s the case and we are in the same comp NZ teams would have to operate under the same cap would they not? So why would AB standard players also not depart?

 

[Rebels3]

Yeah I think a better option would be to reduce us to 3 teams, and then 2 other teams, for a 10 team comp.

WOB I haven’t listened to the podcast yet but was there any talk of reducing the salary cap? If that’s the case and we are in the same comp NZ teams would have to operate under the same cap would they not? So why would AB standard players also not depart?

And reduction helps opportunities, broadcasters wanting content regularly at prime time spots (therefore money) and general visibility how?

Dropping to 3 teams would still mean some weeks where only 1 game is played on fri or sat night here in Aus. This is not the answer to attracting sponsorship and building habits for fans to be guaranteed to sit down and watch a game on a fri/sat night every week.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Scott Johnson says his preference is to design a comp that will be the best in the world, and that it would be hard to have the best comp in the world without NZ in it (https://www.buzzsprout.com/843712/3934223-the-rugby-wrap-s-1-ep-11-with-scott-johnson)


So another option for a TT comp would be for NZ to increase the no. of their teams to 8, and include the Oz 5, plus a possible PI team, for 14 teams (https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/121523112/why-nz-rugby-could-now-rip-up-super-rugby).

This could make for a pretty even and attractive comp. It would make for a 13 week regular season before finals and/or a champions league, not including any byes, which is just about right.

If they were to have a champions league with SA/Arg or a finals series with the best teams from both conferences, it would allow SA to bring home their two from the Pro14, increasing their teams to 6, without depth being an issue any longer. Including the Jaguares would make for a 14 week double round robin regular season (including byes), which is also just about right.

This model would also allow them to keep open the option of including the top teams from Japan in a champions league or finals system, either now or in the near future. I think this will be one of their key priorities in designing a new model.

If we go to a TT structure I'd bet good money the Pro14 will quickly become the Pro18. If so, we'd be better served going with NZ and our 5 plus the Drua/Lautui and a combined Samoa/Tongan squad for 12 teams and a full home and away season.

The only exception would be if a Asia-Pacific Cup competition was formed involving the Top League/Japanese Pro League teams.

 

[hoggy]

And reduction helps opportunities, broadcasters wanting content regularly at prime time spots (therefore money) and general visibility how?

Dropping to 3 teams would still mean some weeks where only 1 game is played on fri or sat night here in Aus. This is not the answer to attracting sponsorship and building habits for fans to be guaranteed to sit down and watch a game on a fri/sat night every week.

But listening to the podcast, that is definitely the indication Johnson highlights an elite level best in the world competition below the Wallabies.

 

[Rebels3]

But listening to the podcast, that is definitely the indication Johnson highlights an elite level best in the world competition below the Wallabies.

If this is the force podcast? If so I have listened and he doesn’t indicate anything about a reduction to teams in Australia.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Yeah I think a better option would be to reduce us to 3 teams, and then 2 other teams, for a 10 team comp.

WOB I haven’t listened to the podcast yet but was there any talk of reducing the salary cap? If that’s the case and we are in the same comp NZ teams would have to operate under the same cap would they not? So why would AB standard players also not depart?

NZ has central contracting so there's no salary cap per se: although there's a cap on how much an individual player can earn, there's no limit on how many top-$ players a side can have. The conventional wisdom is that NZ teams spend less on players than Australia does, even without allowing for the exchange rate: I think our total Super Rugby salary budget is around $20Mn. Even if skyTV can honour the $100Mn p.a. contract they signed last year, I don't see NZR being able to suddenly budget $32Mn for player payments but they could maybe stretch it to $24Mn at which point a sixth team becomes theoretically feasible $-wise but obviously begs the question of where to base it & what its catchment area looks like.

I haven't heard the podcast either, but it seems to me that NZR would be mad (not to mention negligent) to agree to a comp whereby they fund eight teams from a salary budget of $20-24Mn while RA only have to fund four or five from a similar budget ($A5.5Mn x 4 plus allowance for exchange rate ~$NZ24-25Mn currently). So if we're gunna have an even playing field Aus teams would have to reduce their salary cap to a level that NZ can match, or at least a number that maintains the current relativity. Not sure how you'd then work through the issues that central contracting presents in terms of evening out rosters but I guess it'd be a case of solving one unsolvable problem at a time .

On your last point, clearly AB-standard players would be equally scarce under a $3Mn salary cap, it's hard enough holding onto the required number at ~$4Mn. Which is another reason NZR would be bonkers to agree to putting out three extra teams with only slightly increased revenues: the bulk of the extra tv money is already earmarked for community, provincial & women's rugby & I think there'd be hell to pay if that got yanked to fund extra Super Rugby-level teams that no-one here seriously believes are viable much less desirable.

 

[Omar Comin']

But listening to the podcast, that is definitely the indication Johnson highlights an elite level best in the world competition below the Wallabies.

A solution could be to concentrate the Wallabies and the majority of Australian players within 3 teams and allow the other 2 Australian based teams to recruit players from anywhere. If that's the Force and Rebels then you'd still want those teams to have a strong contingent of locally developed players, but something like half their squads could be foreign players. There's plenty of good Pacific Islander, South African and Argentinian players out there and they can't all play in Europe and Japan.