Where to for Super Rugby?

[The Honey Badger]

Can the mods or someone with the know how set up a poll on this thread or a new one.

Seems to me there are 2 broad camps.

1) Those supporting the current provincial model based around our existing (4/5) super franchises playing in some form of hybrid domestic/TT/pacific competition

2) Those supporting the disbandment of the Provincial/Super franchises and replaced with a National domestic competition. (ARC/NRC becomes our 2nd tier with Wallabies playing).

would like to know the level of support at that level,

 

[barbarian]

Is there a ray of light shining through here we need to acknowledge? Let me lay out the case for optimism here, even though it might be a generous interpretation of events:

1. We will get plenty of rugby in 2020, including a new internal comp (which includes the Force) and at least a few Bledisloes.
2. South Africa are now publicly considering a move to Europe, which could be the catalyst for the end of Super Rugby.
3. A Trans-Tasman competition has been discussed publicly and privately.
4. We are seeing rule interpretations that will lead to a faster, more attractive game.

There's a chance that this might shake out well for Australian rugby. A re-set of Super that sees the SA/Arg teams removed and replaced by teams in the Asia-Pacific, with new rules to make the game more attractive.

We will lose some players overseas and we've lost plenty of staff at HQ, so I'm not popping the champagne corks.

But I like being optimistic, and there's certainly a few positive signs that we could end up in a better place long term.

 

[Dctarget]

Is it possible to do the South African model? Let all our players go for greener pastures but still be able to select them 10 times a year for Wallabies duties, be competitive with the All Blacks and the rest. Just don't have a domestic product. For example losing Maddocks, Powell and Robertson probably doesn't affect the Wallabies too much except they're the quality players that Super really, really needs.

 

[Omar Comin']

I still think the most likely outcome will be that we go down to 3 teams in a TT or Asia-Pacific tournament. That could be different if Twiggy Forrest was really keen on the Force being involved but he seems pretty intent on sticking with GRR.

If all the parties got on the same page maybe the GRR clubs could be the basis of a 2nd division with promotion and relegation.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

I still think the most likely outcome will be that we go down to 3 teams in a TT or Asia-Pacific tournament. That could be different if Twiggy Forrest was really keen on the Force being involved but he seems pretty intent on sticking with GRR.

If all the parties got on the same page maybe the GRR clubs could be the basis of a 2nd division with promotion and relegation.

I don't mind this idea. I guess it would start with the Brumbies, Rebels, and Reds in first division?

 

[The Honey Badger]

^^^ What a stinky bit of bait that is

 

[hoggy]

I still think the most likely outcome will be that we go down to 3 teams in a TT or Asia-Pacific tournament. That could be different if Twiggy Forrest was really keen on the Force being involved but he seems pretty intent on sticking with GRR.

If all the parties got on the same page maybe the GRR clubs could be the basis of a 2nd division with promotion and relegation.

The interesting part of that would be who is involved in the 2nd division, ie: you have 2 divisions of 8/10 teams, without SA we have 9 teams so who makes up the numbers.

 

[The Honey Badger]

The interesting part of that would be who is involved in the 2nd division, ie: you have 2 divisions of 8/10 teams, without SA we have 9 teams so who makes up the numbers.

The rest of GRR

 

[sunnyboys]

Regarding a trans Tasman comp - I think one would only happen on NZR terms.

I can see a scenario where they own and run a comp, and issue a limited number of licences to Oz teams. And we are participants only.

A bit like the Warriors in the NRL.

Because I can’t think for the life of me, why NZR would want to go into partnership with us for a TT comp.

 

[barbarian]

Because I can’t think for the life of me, why NZR would want to go into partnership with us for a TT comp.

Our population base. Our corporate $$$. Potential increase in TV revenue. Expat base in lucrative foreign markets. Provincial teams with established brands and histories. Our history as rivals.

I agree we aren't in a strong bargaining position, but we do have things in our favour.

 

[Mick The Munch]

Global Marketing opportunities, Wallabies historical brand value

Our population base. Our corporate $$$. Potential increase in TV revenue. Expat base in lucrative foreign markets. Provincial teams with established brands and histories. Our history as rivals.

I agree we aren't in a strong bargaining position, but we do have things in our favour.

 

[sunnyboys]

With all due respect barbarian and Mickey Rummery, these are also all the reasons why Super Rugby should have been a success. But it hasn’t. So if I were looking at this with my business head on, I’d be suspicious of the value of those attributes.

 

[hoggy]

The rest of GRR

I very much doubt that twiggy would be interested in funding a Reserve grade competition

 

[Kevinsons]

Why not let Twiggy drive GRR into something that includes the 5 super provinces, play a first past the post comp, and then a champions cup + challenge cup with the Kiwi and (fingers crossed) Japanese counterparts.

 

[Rebels3]

Regarding a trans Tasman comp - I think one would only happen on NZR terms.

I can see a scenario where they own and run a comp, and issue a limited number of licences to Oz teams. And we are participants only.

A bit like the Warriors in the NRL.

Because I can’t think for the life of me, why NZR would want to go into partnership with us for a TT comp.

In all honesty you need more than 5 teams for a sustainable comp. In a strange way NZ hasn’t got the market or population base to sustain any more than 5. If they over extended and had 8/10 teams then the resources aren’t enough to keep quality players and the player base would be stretched super thin. Hence if there is to be 8-10 teams in a comp, the Australian market is the best way to generate this, while also adding some player resources etc. QLD and NSW would be two of the largest catchment areas of rugby talent in the world. At an absolute minimum their inclusion would be a net benefit for any comp.

 

[RedsHappy]

Our population base. Our corporate $$$. Potential increase in TV revenue. Expat base in lucrative foreign markets. Provincial teams with established brands and histories. Our history as rivals.

I agree we aren't in a strong bargaining position, but we do have things in our favour.

100%, as you say look at the fact that we still today are generating substantial income lines for rugby product that by and large is quite poor - if improved, so can that be, or at the least, sustained.

Then there is simply this: NZ 4.5m people. Nth Hem rugby = vast size and massive income and growing too, huge $s/Euros for poaching NZ elite rugby talent.

In the end, after a few 'fun' years of NZ entirely going it alone with a pure local rugby product, after that instant fizz there is no chance of NZ building the 'solely home income' base big enough to keep its world-beating rugby system going over the medium to long term.

And that is exactly the core reason NZR is talking to the global rugby PE investors of note such as CVC re taking a large stake in the AB brand, and that is also why some form of active engagement with Aust rugby remains of strategic interest to NZR.

 

[barbarian]

With all due respect barbarian and Mickey Rummery, these are also all the reasons why Super Rugby should have been a success. But it hasn’t. So if I were looking at this with my business head on, I’d be suspicious of the value of those attributes.

And that's fair enough. But nonetheless I think they have some value to NZ, beyond what they have within their own borders.

There is a chance that they may be better able to support a professional competition with us, rather than without us.

 

[hoggy]

Super rugby was supposed to take over the world in early 2000's, with American & Asian conferences and money growing on trees, yet here we are in 2020.
So what happened, rugby is a great game so I would argue the most important thing moving forward is understanding why we are here so as to ensure we simply are not on repeat cycle.

 

[dru]

And that's fair enough. But nonetheless I think they have some value to NZ, beyond what they have within their own borders.

There is a chance that they may be better able to support a professional competition with us, rather than without us.

This seems to me self evident, though you need the Kiwis to get there. The bigger question is whether Australia is better able to support a professional competition with NZ or without. SO far I have seen naught that indicates anything that suits NZ will work for Aus.

Possible exception of running a champions league comp following domestic comps with Aus providing rep/semi rep teams, whether SOO or other. And fwiw I don't think that will suit NZ either.

 

[Quick Hands]

Can the mods or someone with the know how set up a poll on this thread or a new one.

Seems to me there are 2 broad camps.

1) Those supporting the current provincial model based around our existing (4/5) super franchises playing in some form of hybrid domestic/TT/pacific competition

2) Those supporting the disbandment of the Provincial/Super franchises and replaced with a National domestic competition. (ARC/NRC becomes our 2nd tier with Wallabies playing).

would like to know the level of support at that level,

It would be an interesting survey, although my suspicion is that there is a higher level of support on G&GR for a Super Rugby type tournament on state based teams than there is elsewhere.

To my mind anything from now which uses state-based entities will end up being a Sheffield Shield type competition in which there is a lot of talent getting paid reasonably well and feeding into the national team, but very little interest from fans which in turns means a lack of interest from broadcasters.

On the other hand a domestic competition with teams based on cities or regions has a far better chance of capturing long-term support and interest from local fans and thus broadcasters.

I fear that any Trans-Tasman type Super Rugby tournament will just have us all back here in 5-10 years time having the same discussion. There may be an initial sugar hit of interest, but I'm strongly of the view that it's not sustainable in Australia as it's not the model that Australian fans will engage with.

No other sport in Australia uses this model for national franchise/club pro competitions. The Sheffield Shield is the only example that I can think of which comes close and from a fan engagement and broadcaster interest perspective it's irrelevant. I would point out here that when CA brought in the Big Bash, they made a deliberate and strategic decision NOT to go with state-based teams.