Where to for Super Rugby?

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

Lots of commentary in various news articles and in this thread of what Super Rugby could potentially look like moving forward. Much of the commentary examines the merit of number of Aussie based teams and number of NZ based teams with the power balance seemingly in NZ with the Sky Sports NZD$100M television rights and RA with nothing but a prayer and hope. In addition, there is the perception (and fact) that the Kiwis have a greater talent pool, their teams are more competitive and the assumption is that the Aussies would be the perennial whipping boys of the competition (whether it be 3, 4 or 5 teams).

I'd be curious to understand what a change to both Aus and NZ eligibility to mean to a proposed trans-Tasman competition. A change whereby you have to play in the trans-Tasman competition to be eligible for national team honours rather than to be playing in the country. There could be thresholds on numbers of o/s players per team (Say 25%) to ensure there is sufficient pathways for local talent.

A myriad of obstacles to overcome, but certainly worth exploring.

 

[dru]

How is a TT with 5x NZ and 3x Aus funded? Currently RA broadcast $ is basically -ve for the Super component. Presuming that NZ does not consider they should commercially support the Aus franchise then the co tribute on from RA is a straight deficit to RA. With a broadcast environment that has nil chance of changing that situation.

There may be some balance point where the shrink to greatness is survivable as a cost to the internationals but only at a lack of ability to invest elsewhere eg purported National club comp. Other than new finance being found, the perennial issue of Super continues - it is simply not sustainable.

Certainly it works for NZ, taking the best Aus talent for a comp that works for them with little visible related to support to Aus. We should drop Super, period. What will happen is that deals will eventuate where the Aus franchises that NZ want will defect. And those franchises along with NZRU can resolve the funding without further impact on Aus rugby.

The Super fans are already down to the rust so that won’t significantly worsen. Let them go for it.

Australia needs to start focussing internally in Australia.

 

[RedsHappy]

And as the weekend showed, it will just be heaps better rugby.

Yes! And i just amazes me the degree to which many posters here are still mock-designing new Aust prop comp structures with lots of imagined Aust teams when the really key issue is:

.........the actual playing quality (and, to a material degree, player quality) of our 4 Super teams has been declining markedly for over a decade. Look at the Super 15 comp table pre COVID, only the Brumbies were attaining a respectable table position!

Do we think this is not a substantial and highly financially important issue for any future Super comp redesign here? FFS, it's THE issue! Filling any comp with a team-numbers driven model as the first priority will only perpetuate the very problem we have today - teams size expansion before team rugby quality improvement - that is driving fans and viewership interest away, slowly but surely. The issue of '2am SA games' is a total side-show issue.

The core of _any_ financially viable new Aust rugby pro comp has to answer this question before anything else: (a) how do we credibly get the average playing and player calibre of Aust pro teams going quickly upwards and (b) how is that going to be resourced (esp wrt coaching quality and adequacy of specialist coaches, etc) and financed and whom realistically will do and provide that resourcing and financing?

If that question is not - yet again - credibly answered and up front all we will do is _at best_ slow down the suicidal path we are on now.

Adding say Fiji and NZ teams in a new pro comp structure - I agree, yes, highly desirable - will not in any way fix our core quality problems, we must fix these ourselves and quickly.

 

[Rebels3]

Some might laugh at this, but would 3 Aus teams mean Aus would be stronger than the majority of NZ teams. Therefore reversing the issue of competitiveness in the other direction? If that was the case would it cause issues in the other direction?

 

[Derpus]

Australia needs to start focussing internally in Australia.

I really disagree with this. Despite Rugby's strength in NZ i don't think a domestic only competition does them any favours.

Rugby dies in Aus outside clubland if we drop the professional element and without hundreds of millions of private equity we can't establish a viable domestic only competition.

In my view, we definitely need each other (though we certainly need them more than they need us).

If i was CEO i'd be pushing as hard as i could for a 10 team TT comp including the 5 Kiwi franchises and the Force. Id fund it by selling equity to interested private parties, including Twiggy. Provided with sufficient investment the Australian teams could even attempt to repatriate some of the hundreds of professional Aussie rugby players overseas increasing the existing teams competitiveness.

I'd also implement a limited number of foreign players allowed per team. There will be Fijian and Argentinian players looking for opportunities. Assuming the comp is being run for it's own benefit and not for the benefit of the Wallabies (which i think it will need to be, to be viable) then the loss of a few opportunities for local talent is gained by the comp being stronger overall.

A competitive 10 team TT comp is clearly the most palatable from a viewer and broadcaster perspective.

I doubt the above will pan out, but it's what i'd be trying for.

 

[Mick The Munch]

Wasn't it wonderful to see full stadiums on the weekend, it highlighted to me how important local rivalries are. Can you imagine the stadiums being full if the match was Blues vs a SA team.

I know we won't have capacity stadiums next month so I hope RA take notice and work towards an Aussie competition in the future - Australia can support 5 teams if they just relaxed the 2 international rule - why relax that to 6-8 overseas players, pick up some kiwis, SA, PI, even European players (think Haskell, Cippers et al)

 

[Derpus]

Some might laugh at this, but would 3 Aus teams mean Aus would be stronger than the majority of NZ teams. Therefore reversing the issue of competitiveness in the other direction? If that was the case would it cause issues in the other direction?

I doubt it, i think if we cut a team most of that talent will just go overseas.

 

[RedsHappy]

I really disagree with this. Despite Rugby's strength in NZ i don't think a domestic only competition does them any favours.

Rugby dies in Aus outside clubland if we drop the professional element and without hundreds of millions of private equity we can't establish a viable domestic only competition.

In my view, we definitely need each other (though we certainly need them more than they need us).

If i was CEO i'd be pushing as hard as i could for a 10 team TT comp including the 5 Kiwi franchises and the Force. Id fund it by selling equity to interested private parties, including Twiggy. Provided with sufficient investment the Australian teams could even attempt to repatriate some of the hundreds of professional Aussie rugby players overseas increasing the existing teams competitiveness.

I'd also implement a limited number of foreign players allowed per team. There will be Fijian and Argentinian players looking for opportunities. Assuming the comp is being run for it's own benefit and not for the benefit of the Wallabies (which i think it will need to be, to be viable) then the loss of a few opportunities for local talent is gained by the comp being stronger overall.

A competitive 10 team TT comp is clearly the most palatable from a viewer and broadcaster perspective.

I doubt the above will pan out, but it's what i'd be trying for.

Fundamentally, I think you're right and this will definitely require private equity to fund it all. But, as a am boringly saying over, only if there is an RA strategy within an overall comp redesign strategy to financially and operationally ensure a very credible, immediate plan is in place to drive up the average calibre of all Aust pro teams within the 9 or 10 teams. Otherwise it will all be for nothing within 2-3 years on from 2021.

 

[hoggy]

Yes! And i just amazes me the degree to which many posters here are still mock-designing new Aust prop comp structures with lots of imagined Aust teams when the really key issue is:

...the actual playing quality (and, to a material degree, player quality) of our 4 Super teams has been declining markedly for over a decade. Look at the Super 15 comp table pre COVID, only the Brumbies were attaining a respectable table position!

Do we think this is not a substantial and highly financially important issue for any future Super comp redesign here? FFS, it's THE issue! Filling any comp with a team-numbers driven model as the first priority will only perpetuate the very problem we have today - teams size expansion before team rugby quality improvement - that is driving fans and viewership interest away, slowly but surely. The issue of '2am SA games' is a total side-show issue.

The core of _any_ financially viable new Aust rugby pro comp has to answer this question before anything else: (a) how do we credibly get the average playing and player calibre of Aust pro teams going quickly upwards and (b) how is that going to be resourced (esp wrt coaching quality and adequacy of specialist coaches, etc) and financed and whom realistically will do and provide that resourcing and financing?

If that question is not - yet again - credibly answered and up front all we will do is _at best_ slow down the suicidal path we are on now.

Adding say Fiji and NZ teams in a new pro comp structure - I agree, yes, highly desirable - will not in any way fix our core quality problems, we must fix these ourselves and quickly.

Well its hard to see how shrinking the codes presence in Australia to a niche sport is going to answer questions A & B

 

[RedsHappy]

Well its hard to see how shrinking the codes presence in Australia to a niche sport is going to answer questions A & B

The code's presence has already shrunk severely, we are a 'niche' sport today (eg, contrast AFL and NRL viewership on Foxtel with Super Rugby's). The playing calibre decline of the Wallabies and our Super teams has IMO been a very big part of why.

None of this will change without answers being rapidly developed to my (a) and (b) points above. If they aren't answered, we will become on par with ice hockey here.

 

[hoggy]

The code's presence has already shrunk severely, we are a 'niche' sport today (eg, contrast AFL and NRL viewership on Foxtel with Super Rugby's). The playing calibre decline of the Wallabies and our Super teams has IMO been a very big part of why.

None of this will change without answers being rapidly developed to my (a) and (b) points above. If they aren't answered, we will become on par with ice hockey here.

But I fail to see how being a subservient partner in a Trans Tasman competition which will ultimately be for the benefit of NZ's professional rugby set-up and All Black support wagon will long term help improve the Wallaby playing calibre, because as the game slowly heads into obscurity here, none of those athletes needed will be playing the game.

 

[RedsHappy]

Btw: the other myth floating around is that 'grassroots, schools and clubland rugby' will all be just fine if pro rugby collapses in Aust.

Have a look at the gross $s that RA and the local RUs funnel down to these levels from pro incomes. It's multi-millions.

Then, separate point, we have the fact that NSW and QLD GPS Schools rugby (a large feeder to both pro and post school club rugby) is on the schools' sports playing-share decline as soccer, AFL and basketball all are taking material schools' share from rugby. Partly as RA and the RUs have been totally complacent re rugby inside GPS Schools for way too long and just took it for granted that these player development factories would go on as they used to, forever.

 

[KOB1987]

Btw: the other myth floating around is that 'grassroots, schools and clubland rugby' will all be just fine if pro rugby collapses in Aust.

Have a look at the gross $s that RA and the local RUs funnel down to these levels from pro incomes. It's multi-millions.

Then, separate point, we have the fact that NSW and QLD GPS Schools rugby (a large feeder to both pro and post school club rugby) is on the schools' sports playing-share decline as soccer, AFL and basketball all are taking material schools' share from rugby. Partly as RA and the RUs have been totally complacent re rugby inside GPS Schools for way too long and just took it for granted that these player development factories would go on as they used to, forever.

Basketball? Wrong season.

 

[barbarian]

But I fail to see how being a subservient partner in a Trans Tasman competition which will ultimately be for the benefit of NZ's professional rugby set-up and All Black support wagon will long term help improve the Wallaby playing calibre, because as the game slowly heads into obscurity here, none of those athletes needed will be playing the game.

In what way would we be subservient? If it's a better commercial prospect for RA (likely), a better standard of rugby (certain), and more popular with fans (likely), then I can't see how it won't improve our playing calibre compared to a local comp.

 

[RedsHappy]

Basketball? Wrong season.

Not in QLD GPS Schools. I vividly recall how my son's cheering on Churchie's GPS rugby teams competed in the very distance with yells of support for our Basketball teams not too far away, both start in July (pre COVID anyway).

 

[The Honey Badger]

I think the answer is they are trying to do both ie this is where national club competition comes in - maybe there is intent if get a broadcast deal for this they allow some payments for those in top tier ie semi pro type competition for the national club competition

I really do hope so, as that would be the best of both worlds.

Lets say an NRC comprising of,

QLD City
QLD Country
NSW City
NSW Country
Brumbies
Rebels
Force
+ 1 more (All states Barbarians playing for TAS/SA/NT Or the North Sydney All Codes CLub or Fiji)

A home and away comp Plus finals - Wallabies and all players of national interest spread around - each club funded the same with a a salary cap. And yes there will be quite a few amateur players running around, playing for not much. - I see this as a good thing and building our player base.

Then after that comp lets form a State of Origin side for NSW Waratahs and QLD Reds, and a third side being the highest qualifier out of the Brumbies, Rebels and Force who can recruit from anywhere. Should be 3 very competitive teams.

Those 3 sides play in the SRTT series, and maybe this needs to be a 1 round comp vs the NZ sides ( but perhaps H&A for the AUS 3 Super Rugby sides)

 

[RedsHappy]

In what way would we be subservient? If it's a better commercial prospect for RA (likely), a better standard of rugby (certain), and more popular with fans (likely), then I can't see how it won't improve our playing calibre compared to a local comp.

Indisputably. Same deal as NZ in principle loving playing vs SA teams and their typical strength up front. NZRU knew this was a desirable ingredient to, eg, steeling up NZ teams' forwards play.

Coupled with the fact that, deep down, NZRU knows that, with a NZ popn of 4.8m or so, 'totally going it alone' is both skills- development-wise and financially a very risky proposition in the medium-to-long terms.

 

[hoggy]

In what way would we be subservient? If it's a better commercial prospect for RA (likely), a better standard of rugby (certain), and more popular with fans (likely), then I can't see how it won't improve our playing calibre compared to a local comp.

Isn't that Super rugby

 

[KOB1987]

Not in QLD GPS Schools. I vividly recall how my son's cheering on Churchie's GPS rugby teams competed in the very distance with yells of support for our Basketball teams not too far away, both start in July (pre COVID anyway).

That's odd. Basketball only exists at Sydney GPS schools for people who couldn't be arsed giving up either a half or full day for rowing or cricket respectively.

 

[KOB1987]

I really do hope so, as that would be the best of both worlds.

Lets say an NRC comprising of,

QLD City
QLD Country
NSW City
NSW Country
Brumbies
Rebels
Force
+ 1 more (All states Barbarians playing for TAS/SA/NT Or the North Sydney All Codes CLub or Fiji)

A home and away comp Plus finals - Wallabies and all players of national interest spread around - each club funded the same with a a salary cap. And yes there will be quite a few amateur players running around, playing for not much. - I see this as a good thing and building our player base.

Then after that comp lets form a State of Origin side for NSW Waratahs and QLD Reds, and a third side being the highest qualifier out of the Brumbies, Rebels and Force who can recruit from anywhere. Should be 3 very competitive teams.

Those 3 sides play in the SRTT series, and maybe this needs to be a 1 round comp vs the NZ sides ( but perhaps H&A for the AUS 3 Super Rugby sides)

Not opposed to this in concept, but QH does make a good point re the Qld and NSW sides. To have some tribalism they need to have some geographic identity - so Qld city would be the Brisbane Reds, and the other team needs to be Sunshine Coast, or Darling Downs or whatever is deemed most appropriate. Similarly NSW city would be the Sydney Waratahs and the other team Western Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast or whatever. However, I do think all the country zones should be affiliated with these second teams.