Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

The last proposal I saw had 6N and SANZAR tests in April, with NH v SH games played in October/November.

NH club season would start in December. Presumably whatever form domestic pro rugby takes in SA, NZ and Aus would take place from May to September.

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/lat...lobal-calendar-sees-six-nations-run-into-may/

I think that the added advantage to this calendar from a SH perspective would mean that the players would have a good 6-8 week break from games and contact training during December and January and then the Wallaby squad would have a solid 2 month preparation in February and March for April tests without the prospect of injuries from Super Rugby games. May to Aug/September domestic competition then a short break from games for the global series in Oct/Nov.

Interesting times.

I also noticed that the proposal would feature more Tier 1 v Tier 2 games in which T1 nations would tour T2 nations.

 

[Omar Comin']

If a deal is done with KKR (or someone similar) do people think a Trans Tasman or fully domestic competition is more likely?

I imagine a TT tournament is probably seen as more valuable, but I'm guessing KKR would want a significant ownership stake in the competition itself and that would mean RA would only receive half (or potentially less, depending on the number of teams per country) of the capital injection for a TT tournament. And the requirement of support from the NZRU adds additional complexity.

On the other hand they'd get 100% for a fully domestic competition, but the question is how would 100% of the capital invested in a domestic competition compare to ~50% invested in a TT competition. A domestic competition would require more capital to get started given there'd need to be a few new teams, but if there really is the potential for a deal worth 'hundreds of millions' then getting 3 or so new teams up and running wouldn't be a problem.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Sound like some sort of activist. She's entitled to her view but it's not the mainstream view in Australia.

I would note that the NZ Warriors RL team play an annual ANZAC Day match against the Melbourne Storm.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/04/23...anzac-day-atmosphere-against-melbourne-storm/

Not the mainstream view in NZ, either. Most footy fans I know are envious of the Warriors' ANZAC fixture & want to know why rugby can't do the same, the rest just aren't ready to admit that it's something loig does better than Union ATM.

 

[qwerty51]

How can you take any competition seriously with under 10 teams (and likely 7-8??).

I've said this a thousand times, the only way forward for a sustainable comp is to replicate the AFL & NRL in local content per week and length of competition.

 

[Quick Hands]

If a deal is done with KKR (or someone similar) do people think a Trans Tasman or fully domestic competition is more likely?

I imagine a TT tournament is probably seen as more valuable, but I'm guessing KKR would want a significant ownership stake in the competition itself and that would mean RA would only receive half (or potentially less, depending on the number of teams per country) of the capital injection for a TT tournament. And the requirement of support from the NZRU adds additional complexity.

On the other hand they'd get 100% for a fully domestic competition, but the question is how would 100% of the capital invested in a domestic competition compare to ~50% invested in a TT competition. A domestic competition would require more capital to get started given there'd need to be a few new teams, but if there really is the potential for a deal worth 'hundreds of millions' then getting 3 or so new teams up and running wouldn't be a problem.

TT would only be more valuable to PE if the same company had a stake in the whole thing. If there was a split ownership structure then one assumes decision making becomes more problematic and complex.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If a deal is done with KKR (or someone similar) do people think a Trans Tasman or fully domestic competition is more likely?

I imagine a TT tournament is probably seen as more valuable, but I'm guessing KKR would want a significant ownership stake in the competition itself and that would mean RA would only receive half (or potentially less, depending on the number of teams per country) of the capital injection for a TT tournament. And the requirement of support from the NZRU adds additional complexity.

On the other hand they'd get 100% for a fully domestic competition, but the question is how would 100% of the capital invested in a domestic competition compare to ~50% invested in a TT competition. A domestic competition would require more capital to get started given there'd need to be a few new teams, but if there really is the potential for a deal worth 'hundreds of millions' then getting 3 or so new teams up and running wouldn't be a problem.

I think they may look at a mixture of competitions. Domestic and Cup.

 

[Omar Comin']

TT would only be more valuable to PE if the same company had a stake in the whole thing. If there was a split ownership structure then one assumes decision making becomes more problematic and complex.

Yes I agree, hence RA and NZRU would both have to agree and would split the capital. But there'd still be 3 equity partners and that would make things more complex.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yes I agree, hence RA and NZRU would both have to agree and would split the capital. But there'd still be 3 equity partners and that would make things more complex.

'More complex' in that way though, in this case, may mean 'far higher chance of success'.

 

[qwerty51]

Yes I agree, hence RA and NZRU would both have to agree and would split the capital. But there'd still be 3 equity partners and that would make things more complex.

I think you're looking at this in the wrong perspective (or maybe I am). PE would own the franchises/clubs and then form a governing body that is made up of the owners of each club. Like US sports. RA/NZR would have very little to do with the clubs and competition. However, there would be need to be collaboration with the national unions to make the schedule around an international calendar so players are able to play Tests too.

The broadcast money/revenue for the competition would be go back into the owners pockets (if profit) - not the unions. RA/NZU won't be getting much if any. That's the whole attraction of private ownership.

 

[Dctarget]

How can you take any competition seriously with under 10 teams (and likely 7-8??).

I've said this a thousand times, the only way forward for a sustainable comp is to replicate the AFL & NRL in local content per week and length of competition.

Isn't the difference here that we have domestic + a lot of internationals whereas NRL & AFL only have domestic.

So, our 16 games of 8 teams + 10 games of internationals is quite a lot.

Unless you're suggesting the NH model where their domestic season runs through internationals and the clubs go without their star players for a long time but don't think we have the player base or money to sustain that.

 

[qwerty51]

I wouldn't be suggesting 26 weeks like the AFL or NRL - that's too long but neither 16 weeks either; too short.

I think 18 reg. games minimum with finals is a good compromise with 9 Tests.

 

[RedsHappy]

How can you take any competition seriously with under 10 teams (and likely 7-8??).

I've said this a thousand times, the only way forward for a sustainable comp is to replicate the AFL & NRL in local content per week and length of competition.

And therein lies the essential tactical and strategic problem/challenge:

(a) When Aust rugby has tried to 'manufacture' new and essentially synthetic pro teams outside the oldest core of the top pro QRU, NSWRU, ACTRU teams, our financial and playing success with such teams has been poor to say the least, very much including the NRC teams. And our RA etc corporate resourcing position to speculatively cash fund and support new teams is, politely, 'extremely limited'

(b) Even if and when we try to quickly fabricate more teams, do we have the playing and coaching capability to ensure they are of 'good enough' rugby quality so not to ensure as a consequence a failed and unbalanced new pro comp wth terrible crowd and viewership numbers? There is no point putting newly fabricated pro teams into a comp and they play crap rugby for years, such a strategy will only increase the aggregated probability of a total comp failure. (My own long-standing view is that the sole new Aust pro rugby team that conceptually possesses any chance of working is 'Western Sydney' and then even that needs excellent coaching etc and sustainable development investment to make work.)

(c) IMO we keep forgetting in these threads something very significant: that it is well-known that Foxtel eyeballs nos and to an extent Super game crowds have been heavily propped up by the large, rugby-passionate Kiwi expat population in Aust - an all Aust pro comp will surely lose large %s of that demo and I doubt it can afford to, especially from where we sit today

(d) given (a) - (c), it's axiomatic that if any new 'domestic' pro comp can be made to be viable it needs, at a minimum, 4 Aust core teams, 4-5 NZ teams, and, say a Fiji and/or 'PI Nations' combined team (a la the West Indies in cricket which I don't think is inconceivable for Sth Hem pro rugby under Test level). Given the large Fiji and PI expat population here we can be sure that those non-Aust teams would be well followed here and in their home bases.

THE crucial economic variable is that there is a critical mass of games in Aust at the right screen times involving an Aust pro team, it is not IMO absolutely essential that the core of a viable pro comp is solely Aust teams. That's a great goal but I believe it's a financially and rugby-playing-quality non-viable dream as to where we are as a code in 2020

(e): (d) yields a viable media rights platform across all of Aust, NZ and PIs, I have major doubts that an only-Aust rugby pro teams product that plays only itself, will do so (maybe 10-15 years ago but not now), there will not be enough domestically-based eyeballs, and there will not be enough deliverable playing quality, to go around.

 

[qwerty51]

(c) IMO we keep forgetting in these threads something very significant: that it is well-known that Foxtel eyeballs nos and to an extent Super game crowds have been heavily propped up by the large, rugby-passionate Kiwi expat population in Aust - an all Aust pro comp will surely lose large %s of that demo and I doubt it can afford to, especially from where we sit today

That's a great point. They'll be keeping a close eye on the ratings for Super Rugby Aotearoa and Super Rugby AU I suspect.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Not the mainstream view in NZ, either. Most footy fans I know are envious of the Warriors' ANZAC fixture & want to know why rugby can't do the same, the rest just aren't ready to admit that it's something loig does better than Union ATM.

And it's not even like the Kiwi Super teams haven't played on ANZAC day. I remember seeing Cru games that coincide with that day. Like others have said, the author is entitled to their view but it's not how a lot of Aussies (and Kiwi's by the sound of it) view the occasion.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's a great point. They'll be keeping a close eye on the ratings for Super Rugby Aotearoa and Super Rugby AU I suspect.

I suspect what they'll see will be polar opposites. SRA will rate its backside off. There'll be 5 men and a dog watching SRAU.

 

[Quick Hands]

And therein lies the essential tactical and strategic problem/challenge:

I haven't quoted your whole post to save space. You've summarised the paradox in which we find ourselves after a decade or more of disastrous strategic decisions and non-decisions.

What works in the Australian sporting market is a national domestic competition with teams identifying with specific geographic cities/towns/suburbs/groups of suburbs/regions. This is critical to long term fan engagement.

But we've been led to the point of bankruptcy, with a depleted pool of playing talent and an almost non-existent pool of local coaches ready to move into the professional space.

Dollars and big dollars are needed to climb out of the chasm. As Qwerty noted, one of the many advantages of PE is that the clubs/franchises are privately owned and run the competition themselves with little or no input from RA, NSWRU, QRU, ACTRU et al. We've seen at a much lower level how a simple streamlined governance structure can work. The much maligned Shute Shield has a President and Vice President to look after housekeeping and the Club Presidents meet once a month to make decisions.

The question is, can PE bring sufficient dollars to the game to set up a domestic competition and attract enough quality players or coaches to provide a high quality product. It's possible that they can, but one thing is certain - nothing will be achieved by any reliance on the failed bureaucracies otherwise known as RA and its client state RUs.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Imagine beating the All Blacks 3 times a year for 4 years in a row.

 

[BDA]

How can you take any competition seriously with under 10 teams (and likely 7-8??).

I've said this a thousand times, the only way forward for a sustainable comp is to replicate the AFL & NRL in local content per week and length of competition.

I agree completely with this. it's worth noting though that both the NRL and AFL had less than 10 team when they started and had to build from there, which took decades.

It seems to me that the best way forward involves a partnership with NZ, but at the same time it's absolutely crucial that we have a domestic tournament (no matter how small or short in duration) which allows us crowning a Domestic champion team every year. I've been harping on this point for years and i stand by it - the reason that domestic comps like NRL and AFL cultivate such staunch, life long fans is because they have an Australian team lifting the trophy every year. i think most people would agree that getting to experience your team (whether it be at shute shield level or super rugby level) win a title is a special feeling that helps solidify your life long commitment to the club.

It's also worth noting that one thing that AFL and NRL doesn't have that rugby does have is genuine international competition and a genuine interest among viewers in seeing Australian teams compete with teams from other nations.

Going straight to a 16 team comp in Australia would undoubtedly be a financial disaster. I think you need to start small and build from there. I seems to me the best way forward is to lay the ground work for a short cut throat aussie comp. honestly I think maybe 7 or 8 teams would be ideal. I'd throw in Fiji Drua (which seems to be a bit of fan favourite in terms of the type of rugby they bring) and maybe 1 other side. Honestly one of the reasons I use to prefer the Super Rugby was that it was short (like 13 weeks?) and that you basically could only lose a game or two if wanted to make the finals (much like the NFL). The conference system destroyed that. You then couple the domestic compy with some type of Trans tasman champion match/tourny.. and maybe even a short knock out champions league which involves SA and Japan.

 

[rugboy]

It seems to me that the best way forward involves a partnership with NZ, but at the same time it's absolutely crucial that we have a domestic tournament (no matter how small or short in duration) which allows us crowning a Domestic champion team every year. I've been harping on this point for years and i stand by it - the reason that domestic comps like NRL and AFL cultivate such staunch, life long fans is because they have an Australian team lifting the trophy every year. i think most people would agree that getting to experience your team (whether it be at shute shield level or super rugby level) win a title is a special feeling that helps solidify your life long commitment to the club.

I wouldn't mind seeing an NFL type approach. They play the teams in their own division twice and then two other divisions once. They still crown divisional champions and still head to play offs. In terms of a TT competition the OZ teams play all other OZ teams twice as do the NZ teams in their conference, ensuring enough derby games. The Oz teams also play the NZ teams once, providing OZ v NZ content as well. This would provide 13 games with an Australian conference winner declared as first past the post after the 13 rounds. A select number of teams would then go into a playoffs. This could be 4 teams (2 from each conference) with a 1 v 2 play off before a final giving 15 rounds in total. If 16 is desired number 3 teams progress to playoffs with top team from each conference getting bye in first round and 2 v 3 crossover playoff before highest place winner plays lowest place winner and so on before a final. Alternatively the top two teams in each conference progress and then the 2 teams with the next best records regardless of conference, top team still get first round bye and the remaining 4 are seeded by W/L record and play accordingly.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

And it's not even like the Kiwi Super teams haven't played on ANZAC day. I remember seeing Cru games that coincide with that day. Like others have said, the author is entitled to their view but it's not how a lot of Aussies (and Kiwi's by the sound of it) view the occasion.

ANZAC Day is certainly acknowledged at all NZ sporting events that I know of, the frustration for NZ rugby fans is that here was perfect opportunity to pair off our teams with Australia's - even on a permanent basis e.g. Brumbies v Hurricanes, Crusaders v Rebels - in a dedicated round & its just never been attempted. Somehow Crusaders v Sharks, Blues v Jaguares just doesn't feel like ANZAC Day match-ups.