Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

A huge part of the issue of the Australian teams not having enough good players is down to the dwindling revenue and that causing many of our better players to head overseas.

Purely opening up the Australian teams to foreign players isn't really going to assist that substantially. The issue is money to sign players of sufficient quality. That's not suddenly going to be fixed by making it open slather to sign players who weren't good enough to get contracts with the New Zealand teams.

 

[hoggy]

How does it weaken their depth if those players who would move to Australia aren't playing Super Rugby already? What product is there to devalue if one doesn't exist? This is making no sense.

Also if Australia only fields 5 teams in a Trans Tasman comp, the whole thing will be dead before it begins.

You've got people stilled viewing this comp as a development comp for International rugby. I give up. Professional rugby is dead in Australia with views like this.

20 Years of Super Rugby in Australia proved what damage can be done to a sporting code, when the competitions prime objective is supporting the International game, especially unlike NZ with the All Blacks the code is not top dog in your own back-garden.

Super Rugby competed against AFL/NRL with pretty much one hand tied behind its back, subsequently it got its ass kicked.

Jumping into bed with NZ again is doing pretty much the same thing but expecting a different result.

 

[qwerty51]

20 Years of Super Rugby in Australia proved what damage can be done to a sporting code, when the competitions prime objective is supporting the International game, especially unlike NZ with the All Blacks the code is not top dog in your own back-garden.

Super Rugby competed against AFL/NRL with pretty much one hand tied behind its back, subsequently it got its ass kicked.

Jumping into bed with NZ again is doing pretty much the same thing but expecting a different result.

Explain how it's remotely similar? I'm saying do not give a stuff about the international game.

No restrictions on player's national eligibility. Have an Aus based team full of Kiwis for all I care. By combining with NZ we get more games. More local content to compete with NRL/AFL and more $$ broadcasting money. U want a national domestic comp with 5 teams? I don't understand the other solutions here.

It's not just Kiwis. Argentina and South Africa have no where to play. The ones that miss out of on Euro/Jap contracts will play in this comp. Look, it'll probably be a disaster to start off with. Shit teams, unbalanced and constant floggings but you provide the opportunities for local pro contracts and you persist with it and it'll turn into the premier comp in the world.

 

[Omar Comin']

A huge part of the issue of the Australian teams not having enough good players is down to the dwindling revenue and that causing many of our better players to head overseas.

Purely opening up the Australian teams to foreign players isn't really going to assist that substantially. The issue is money to sign players of sufficient quality. That's not suddenly going to be fixed by making it open slather to sign players who weren't good enough to get contracts with the New Zealand teams.

I think a lot of the best international players available would not be kiwis (unless the NZRU relent on opening up All Blacks eligibility to players based in Australia). Think of Argentina. They have a similar number of registered rugby players as Australia, yet even with the Jaguares and European based players there are a lot less professional Argentinian rugby players in the world. The main reason for this is clearly a lack of professional opportunities.

With the Jaguares now likely to be disbanded (or perhaps they'll move to the semi-professional SLAR competition), their entire squad will need to look elsewhere. While some of the top players will undoubtedly pick up good contracts in Europe, there will be many that don't because there just isn't enough positions available in top division European squads. Is there any reason why ~20 of Argentina's best 50 rugby players couldn't play for Australian based teams?

I think this would be good for multiple reasons. The main benefit is that they'd strengthen our squads, but it would also probably make test matches against Argentina a bigger drawcard if there were a few Pumas who played for Australian franchises and they were coming up against some of their teammates.

If SANZAAR are looking to include Fiji in the Rugby Championship as well it would also make sense to prioritise getting a few Fijian players in the Australian teams too.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think a lot of the best international players available would not be kiwis (unless the NZRU relent on opening up All Blacks eligibility to players based in Australia). Think of Argentina. They have a similar number of registered rugby players as Australia, yet even with the Jaguares and European based players there are a lot less professional Argentinian rugby players in the world. The main reason for this is clearly a lack of professional opportunities.

With the Jaguares now likely to be disbanded (or perhaps they'll move to the semi-professional SLAR competition), their entire squad will need to look elsewhere. While some of the top players will undoubtedly pick up good contracts in Europe, there will be many that don't because there just isn't enough positions available in top division European squads. Is there any reason why ~20 of Argentina's best 50 rugby players couldn't play for Australian based teams?

I think this would be good for multiple reasons. The main benefit is that they'd strengthen our squads, but it would also probably make test matches against Argentina a bigger drawcard if there were a few Pumas who played for Australian franchises and they were coming up against some of their teammates.

If SANZAAR are looking to include Fiji in the Rugby Championship as well it would also make sense to prioritise getting a few Fijian players in the Australian teams too.

I don't think you're really changing much whichever nationality of players you bring in. If the issue is the available money for contracting and you're still competing on a global market then the quality of players you can sign will be dictated by what you can spend.

I don't think there's a particular nation's players who will be far more inclined to relocate to Australia for a low value contract.

 

[qwerty51]

But people want 3-4 teams max and try to get a good broadcasting deal delivering how many games a week? 2? 3? They're kidding. Provide 8 local games and ~20 rounds rather than 16 and you're increasing the revenue.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't think you're really changing much whichever nationality of players you bring in. If the issue is the available money for contracting and you're still competing on a global market then the quality of players you can sign will be dictated by what you can spend.

I don't think there's a particular nation's players who will be far more inclined to relocate to Australia for a low value contract.

The point is that there's just not enough well paid positions in Europe for non-European players, or in Japan for non-Japanese players. Right now the 50th or 60th best Australian rugby player is likely to be a veteran professional on good money (well above the median Australian income). The 50th or 60th best Argentinian is probably semi-professional or even amateur. And I doubt there is a significant difference in talent or potential between the two. There's an opportunity there.

I'm pretty sure the average South African based Super Rugby player is on a fair bit less than the average Australian Super Rugby player as well. Playing professionally in Australia would be attractive for a lot of players around the world if the opportunity became available.

 

[Braveheart81]

But people want 3-4 teams max and try to get a good broadcasting deal delivering how many games a week? 2? 3? They're kidding. Provide 8 local games and ~20 rounds rather than 16 and you're increasing the revenue.

Yes, there's no doubt both us and NZ need each other to have a competition of the size that makes financial sense.

A 10 week comp each with a total of 19 games isn't going to provide long term interest or the necessary financial model to be sustainable.

A 10 team comp with 5 games a week is far more likely to be a marketable product that can run for a enough weeks to secure a good broadcast deal.

I don't think there's any prospect of a 16 team competition no matter how we slice it. Coming up with a 10 team comp will be hard enough as I don't think we can reasonably provide 5 teams without the available funding rising significantly so we can lure the necessary quality of players.

 

[Braveheart81]

The point is that there's just not enough well paid positions in Europe for non-European players, or in Japan for non-Japanese players. Right now the 50th or 60th best Australian rugby player is likely to be a veteran professional on good money (well above the median Australian income). The 50th or 60th best Argentinian is probably semi-professional or even amateur. And I doubt there is a significant difference in talent or potential between the two. There's an opportunity there.

I think there would be a big difference in quality there. Mostly based on the fact that you're comparing players who have been part of professional teams against those that haven't.

There would definitely be an opportunity to poach players at a lower level that would improve the standard of teams in Australia but I don't think this would really help fill Australian professional teams that are trying to compete against NZ teams.

 

[hoggy]

Yes, there's no doubt both us and NZ need each other to have a competition of the size that makes financial sense.

A 10 week comp each with a total of 19 games isn't going to provide long term interest or the necessary financial model to be sustainable.

A 10 team comp with 5 games a week is far more likely to be a marketable product that can run for a enough weeks to secure a good broadcast deal.

I don't think there's any prospect of a 16 team competition no matter how we slice it. Coming up with a 10 team comp will be hard enough as I don't think we can reasonably provide 5 teams without the available funding rising significantly so we can lure the necessary quality of players.

But is that really the best way forward for Australia. If some PE can be encouraged, what if both NZ & Aus run with 6 team individual domestic competitions. That gives you 6 games a week for broadcasters, plus the added advantage of a champions league at the end of each countries domestic advantage.

And Australia, a 6th team in NSW, grow your biggest market, a game each weekend.

Yes a TT comp looks likely, but is it the best long term option for Australia.

 

[Braveheart81]

But is that really the best way forward for Australia. If some PE can be encouraged, what if both NZ & Aus run with 6 team individual domestic competitions. That gives you 6 games a week for broadcasters, plus the added advantage of a champions league at the end of each countries domestic advantage.

And Australia, a 6th team in NSW, grow your biggest market, a game each weekend.

Yes a TT comp looks likely, but is it the best long term option for Australia.

How long are you going to run your 6 team competition for?

I think it is hard to justify running for longer than a double round robin so you get a 12 week competition including finals. I think a larger competition is going to give you a better chance of building something economically viable long term because you can run it for longer and there is more variety in opponents.

I think having a purely internal competition is going to continue sending our rugby backwards and won't provide nearly the increased interest because one of our teams will win it and every game is against another Australian team.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think there would be a big difference in quality there. Mostly based on the fact that you're comparing players who have been part of professional teams against those that haven't.

There would definitely be an opportunity to poach players at a lower level that would improve the standard of teams in Australia but I don't think this would really help fill Australian professional teams that are trying to compete against NZ teams.

There would be when you're comparing older players, but less so with the younger players. And even if you just focused on the Argentinians who have been part of the Jaguares set up in the last couple of years (and perhaps recent u20's graduates), plenty of those guys will not get European contracts. There's probably 15-20 players there of Super Rugby quality Australian teams could sign relatively cheaply.

I think this level of player is the most important actually. We can generally keep most of the key Wallabies players through central contracts, and guys who are closer to the 100th best Australian player don't really have many options to play overseas on good money. It's the guys on the fringes of the Wallabies, or who would have a shot of making an Australia A side who are harder to keep. If you add Argentinians of that level, to the Australians of that level that you do keep then you don't have to sign as many guys who are barely, or not quite good enough to compete with NZ Super Rugby players.

 

[hoggy]

How long are you going to run your 6 team competition for?

I think it is hard to justify running for longer than a double round robin so you get a 12 week competition including finals. I think a larger competition is going to give you a better chance of building something economically viable long term because you can run it for longer and there is more variety in opponents.

I think having a purely internal competition is going to continue sending our rugby backwards and won't provide nearly the increased interest because one of our teams will win it and every game is against another Australian team.

I hear what your saying, but I dis-agree that a TT will give you a better long term viable option.

Short Term Yes, but just as Super rugby did, it prevented any genuine long term planning.

A 12 week domestic competition can be followed by a champions league style comp with potentially Japan/Pacific teams involved that gives you say another 6/7 weeks of games but more importantly it gives you two revenue streams.

So how is an internal competition going to send the game backwards, and YES wouldn't it be good to have an Australian winner every year, that doesn't hurt the AFL/NRL.

Go with a TT comp and we might as well engrave the Crusaders on it for the next 10 years, Yes there a great team, but how does that help Australian rugby get any more popular.

 

[eastman]

So how is an internal competition going to send the game backwards, and YES wouldn't it be good to have an Australian winner every year, that doesn't hurt the AFL/NRL.



Go with a TT comp and we might as well engrave the Crusaders on it for the next 10 years, Yes there a great team, but how does that help Australian rugby get any more popular.

There's a fair bit to unpack here, but I'll try anyway;

I'd argue that one of the main reasons of the demise of Super rugby was that it was treated as a development tool for international rugby rather than as a stand-alone professional and sustainable competition. You make the inaccurate comparison against AFL/ NRL but for these sports, the competitions themselves are the focus- not the international game.

How many restrictions on international- eligibility are there in the NRL? Do you think the average Parramatta supporter cares that their best young player Dylan Brown is not eligible for the Kangaroos?

The focus needs to be on a professional and stand-alone competition. If that means that initially the Australian teams are filled with 60-70% Kiwis then so be it- being competitive and successful ( e.g. winning games) will do more to attract spectators and sponsorship then anything else.

 

[eastman]

A 12 week domestic competition can be followed by a champions league style comp with potentially Japan/Pacific teams involved that gives you say another 6/7 weeks of games but more importantly it gives you two revenue streams.

Two revenue streams means fuck all if there's no value in either.

 

[PhilClinton]

There's a fair bit to unpack here, but I'll try anyway;

I'd argue that one of the main reasons of the demise of Super rugby was that it was treated as a development tool for international rugby rather than as a stand-alone professional and sustainable competition. You make the inaccurate comparison against AFL/ NRL but for these sports, the competitions themselves are the focus- not the international game.

I like this point and I think it hits back to some of the real issues in Australian rugby at the moment. There is a bit of a stigma that if you're in your mid-twenties, went through the schoolboys, youth development pathways, playing consistent Super Rugby etc. and aren't in the regular Wallabies selection discussions, you've essentially failed. Playing out 10 seasons and being a stalwart for your Super Rugby team isn't really seen as an accomplishment. Pretty much it's time to pack up shop and head overseas and give up on the dream by 25. Now more than ever that age seems to be getting younger and younger.

And yes I know there's money, lifestyle etc that all contribute, but I believe playing for the Wallabies is firmly the identity that rugby players associate with, and super rugby is just a stepping stone. I'm sure many people on here will agree with that sentiment, and yes of course achieving the highest level possible should always be a goal, but if too much emphasis is placed on that milestone, it's lowers the value of everything else.

 

[RugbyReg]

There's a fair bit to unpack here, but I'll try anyway;

I'd argue that one of the main reasons of the demise of Super rugby was that it was treated as a development tool for international rugby rather than as a stand-alone professional and sustainable competition. You make the inaccurate comparison against AFL/ NRL but for these sports, the competitions themselves are the focus- not the international game.

How many restrictions on international- eligibility are there in the NRL? Do you think the average Parramatta supporter cares that their best young player Dylan Brown is not eligible for the Kangaroos?

The focus needs to be on a professional and stand-alone competition. If that means that initially the Australian teams are filled with 60-70% Kiwis then so be it- being competitive and successful ( e.g. winning games) will do more to attract spectators and sponsorship then anything else.

I don't think the average Parramatta supporter gives a shit about the Kangaroos.

Wallabies mean something to Australian fans and that's a point of difference that should not be lost.

The international league comp is basically non-existent. So the number of international quality players is pretty limited whereas the number of international quality players in rugby is huge.

I wouldn't get much joy from watching a QLD team filled with SAF, NZL and ARG cast offs. It's one of the things I dislike about the Force and Rebels approach

 

[hoggy]

Two revenue streams means fuck all if there's no value in either.

If theirs fuck all value in a champions league, then there'd be fuck all value in TT competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

If theirs fuck all value in a champions league, then there'd be fuck all value in TT competition.

How does that end up looking if our best team is inferior to 4 or 5 of the NZ teams? How many teams do we get to enter in it and how much of the revenue from it do we get?

I just remain wholly unconvinced that a solely domestic competition is going to lead anywhere if it doesn't have the necessary firepower to draw enough quality players to play in it and hence be a strong enough competition.

Anyway, clearly you are convinced that it is easily the best option moving forward.

 

[hoggy]

There's a fair bit to unpack here, but I'll try anyway;

I'd argue that one of the main reasons of the demise of Super rugby was that it was treated as a development tool for international rugby rather than as a stand-alone professional and sustainable competition. You make the inaccurate comparison against AFL/ NRL but for these sports, the competitions themselves are the focus- not the international game.

How many restrictions on international- eligibility are there in the NRL? Do you think the average Parramatta supporter cares that their best young player Dylan Brown is not eligible for the Kangaroos?

The focus needs to be on a professional and stand-alone competition. If that means that initially the Australian teams are filled with 60-70% Kiwis then so be it- being competitive and successful ( e.g. winning games) will do more to attract spectators and sponsorship then anything else.

So how do you think the Kiwis with All Blacks as the prime driver are going to treat a TT comp any differently than Super rugby, My comparison with the AFL/NRL is because they are our competition for eyeballs.

Okay fill your Aus teams with 60-70% Kiwis if they let you, or a bunch of SA/Argentinean journeyman, because you won't be able to afford the good ones.