Where to for Super Rugby?

[waiopehu oldboy]

OK, so an unknown number of NZR board members are sceptical whether RA can contribute four teams to a Super Rugby-replacement comp. Maybe they watched the same interview with RA's Chairman a coupla weeks ago as I did, in which he conceded that it would be "challenging" for RA to contribute four teams to a Super Rugby-replacement comp but maybe they could if sufficient o/s players could be recruited from e.g. SA, Argentina, Japan..........

 

[Dan54]

OK, so an unknown number of NZR board members are sceptical whether RA can contribute four teams to a Super Rugby-replacement comp. Maybe they watched the same interview with RA's Chairman a coupla weeks ago as I did, in which he conceded that it would be "challenging" for RA to contribute four teams to a Super Rugby-replacement comp but maybe they could if sufficient o/s players could be recruited from e.g. SA, Argentina, Japan....

Yep I saw same interview and thought it made a lot of sense.

 

[Dan54]

Of course he was going to say that, he is the coach. playing NZ in super is good for his position, is it good for the game in Australia.

Unfortunately like it or lump it Rugby's fortunes in Australia are tied into Wallabies success!

 

[KOB1987]

While I’m inclined to say Fuck NZ and go it alone, I don’t think now is the right time to do that. Firstly, there just isn’t enough time to establish a pro domestic comp in between now and the start of the season - a lot of research needs to go into the proposed teams, they need to be funded, etc. Secondly, RA needs test rugby to generate revenue and there is going to be fuck all of that over the the next 12-18 months. So we wouldn’t be able to pay the players.

If NZ are going to play hard ball and insist on 2 teams I’d say run with it for next year. There are a few reasons for this. 1) RA has stated it’s intention is to focus on keeping the top 30 or so players, and a similar amount of developing players. In going with 2 teams they can keep 70-80 across two pro squads. 2). NZR will see pretty quickly that 5 NZ franchises are going to get rogered by 2 Aussie ones and will soon have a change of mind. 3). They’ll also realise how important Australian money is for their survival. 4) This comp would mostly be in lieu of test rugby for next year. 5) Having 2 Australian teams performing strongly could reignite interest in the sport ahead of a possible domestic comp.

The two teams will have to be Qld and NSW, this has to happen to keep the interest of 90% of the fan base, merging sides would just be too confusing and would do more harm than good. The Brumbies, Force and Rebels would just have to be parked for the year.

Meanwhile, remaining players would return to club rugby and possibly the proposed national club comp, while in the background a pro domestic comp is being formulated and built.

Note this a Covid recovery for next year only, not a long term proposal. The only way I can see a domestic comp being financially viable from next year is to build it from the existing 5 franchises, but this will be completely reliant on private equity, the broadcast dollars just won’t generate enough to keep the players, and if we lose the players no one will watch it. It will quickly go into a death spiral.

 

[zer0]

The news will come as a blow to proponents of the 10-team trans-Tasman model.....

Why? Seems as though it's a 50/50 split, with no decision made, and the Aratipu report supposedly strongly recommending a 10-team TT competition. Surely that pushes them in favour of a TT 10-team competition?

But if you are of of those board peeps interested in having three non-NZ teams, why would you fluff around with an Island team instead of three Australian teams? Surely the only way it'd not be a financial hole is if WR (World Rugby) is footing all the bills. Even then, you'd probably get much better mileage by having Forrest foot all the bills for the Force instead.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

guess some at NZRFU think "2 or 3 aus teams, concentrated talent, competitive comp. 5 aus teams, spreads the talent too thin, they might lose 40 in a row again and the aus fans will say fuck this, not watching/going to this loser shit, and the last remaining 82 diehards will switch off forever, broadcasters pull the plug and we'll all be back to square 1"

 

[drewprint]

I’m concerned about the strength of the NZ teams and their ability to contribute to a level, consistent competition. Therefore I’d like to propose an 8 team comp: 5 Aus, 2 NZ (Blues and Crusaders?), and Fiji. This would ensure a more consistent product with less blowout scorelines as there is less NZ teams. I think it’s a fair proposal, and I hope NZRU can take it in the spirit it is intended. It’d be easy to cull down to two teams, surely?

 

[Dan54]

Why? Seems as though it's a 50/50 split, with no decision made, and the Aratipu report supposedly strongly recommending a 10-team TT competition. Surely that pushes them in favour of a TT 10-team competition?

But if you are of of those board peeps interested in having three non-NZ teams, why would you fluff around with an Island team instead of three Australian teams? Surely the only way it'd not be a financial hole is if WR (World Rugby) is footing all the bills. Even then, you'd probably get much better mileage by having Forrest foot all the bills for the Force instead.

Yep zer0 , I actually think you bang on with Twiggy footing some bills, I know after listening to McCellan the is seems RA is not convinced they got the players to field 4-5 teams, so maybe 3 team, NSW and Qld (though I think Brumbies shouid be there for a 4 team) and see if Twiggy wants to have the Force playing and encourage him to get a fairly good number of overseas players in Force from Argenrina, or somewhere, not wanting to rape Pumas of their players either, but it maybe a way for them to have players in pro comp?
I still think we will end up with 5 teams NZ, 4 teams Aus and maybe a PI team based wherever! I not even convinced that NZ is insisting on 2 teams, and think that just paper talk anyway!

 

[Bandar]

There is no point joining uneven competition, I believe there has to be;

1. An equal salary cap for all teams
2. Players can be picked for national teams from any club in the comp
3. Cap on the number of foreign players

I don't care how NZ fund their teams but in Australia we need to allow private ownership (already exists with the Force)

 

[Dismal Pillock]

This would ensure a more consistent product with less blowout scorelines as there is less NZ teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

If NZ do play hardball or decide to go their own way it will be interesting to see what sort of private investment interest there is in Australia in funding new teams or a new Australian professional competition. I think an 8 team competition with our players plus a decent number of Argentinians, South Africans and Pacific Islanders could be great.

It would need significant financial backing but as long as those investors have a high amount of control over the teams and the competition (within certain parameters set by RA) I feel optimistic that there would be interest. Mainly because I imagine that if I had a very high net worth it'd be something I'd be very interested in. And if I could participate in an own the force type initiative either for the competition itself or for a Northern Sydney team I'd take part.

 

[Dctarget]

Ray Bloody Purchase

 

[Dan54]

If NZ are going to play hard ball and insist on 2 teams I’d say run with it for next year. There are a few reasons for this. 1) RA has stated it’s intention is to focus on keeping the top 30 or so players, and a similar amount of developing players. In going with 2 teams they can keep 70-80 across two pro squads. 2). NZR will see pretty quickly that 5 NZ franchises are going to get rogered by 2 Aussie ones and will soon have a change of mind. 3). They’ll also realise how important Australian money is for their survival.

.

Um isn't NZ rugby getting a shitload more money for TV rights than Australia? Perhaps it actually opposite, but Aus rugby need NZ rugby to get TV money? I not suggesting that is the case by any means, but I think it a bit of a furphy to say NZ get more tv $s playing Aus teams, or that Aus teams bring more money to the table! I would imagine even with population difference there are a shitload more people watching NZ rugby in Aus than there is NZ people watching Aus rugby in NZ? As I said 10pm kick offs are not good for viewing in NZ and rightly or wrongly NZ rugby's time frame works a sight better for Aus (as a lead up toAus games) and also is good for NH breakfast viewing! In saying that I not in anywat suggesting that one should have more power than other , just what each brings to table!

 

[RebelYell]

Interested in your thoughts behind this suggestion RY. The Brumbies have arguably the best current and future-proofed rosters in the country. Why would you think they'd be looking for 6-8 Fiji/Samoa players? And both teams struggle for crowds at home. Costs of playing a couple of games in the Islands might send either one to the wall.

From a roster perspective, the Brumbies are certainly the benchmark. However, both them and the Rebels have the smallest fan bases and attendances, and therefore the least to lose by selling some home games. My theory is that World Rugby would cover the costs, and potentially chip in some extra $$$ as an incentive, for any team willing to play games in the PI as it ticks a lot of boxes for them as 'meaningful investment' in developing that region.

Arguably makes more sense for the Rebels to do it - but the Brumbies are the shrewdest operators from a business perspective in the country, and have really empowered their PI players over the journey, so I guess if they saw it as a way to continue to safeguard their future they could steal a march on the Rebels by getting involved first.

The addition of 6-8 players was not necessarily to strengthen a particular team based on their roster now, but to strengthen the overall talent pool (for those saying we don't have the depth for 4 or 5 teams) and to incentivise the PIs to want to get involved.

 

[Derpus]

Assuming the NZRU board members actually do only want two Australian teams.........

Do they really think a competition that necessitates cutting two of the Rebels, Brumbies, Reds or Tahs has a better chance of success? By cutting out at least half of the Australia TV audience before even kicking a ball?

There is no point joining uneven competition, I believe there has to be;

1. An equal salary cap for all teams
2. Players can be picked for national teams from any club in the comp
3. Cap on the number of foreign players

I don't care how NZ fund their teams but in Australia we need to allow private ownership (already exists with the Force)

They would be proposing things like this to strengthen a proposed competition if they actually cared about the success of that competition, but they don't. What they actually want are 5 strong feeder teams effectively prepping All Blacks.

Even if we go it alone, if the purpose of whatever comes next is just to feed international rugby it won't succeed.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I wonder if they're trying to head off a 5th Australian side and most members' preferred position is to set up either a 6/4 or 6/3 plus a pacific side.

Bear in mind that Bart Campbell is at play here.

 

[sunnyboys]

Aus fans, lets be a bit honest with ourselves:

• NZ have the TV deals and the cash
• They don't need Australia to survive at the level below Test
• Australia don't have a tv deal past SRAu this year
• We have a tiny RUGBY market - that is trending lower
• Having 2 Aus teams isn't going to make the 5 NZ teams struggle (as was suggested elsewhere up the chain)
• Australia have almost zero bargaining power in this discussion (we couldn't even threaten to withdraw from test rugby as it would send us broke).
• NZ will be the ones making a decision for themselves, not us - and that's ok.

This pandemic is going to make people look inward, countries will become internally focused as they shut out the unknown from beyond their borders. Achieving certainty is what will be the focus. Trans national comps will be the hardest sports structures to implement. The outbreak in Melb will make NZ even more likely to choose a model that they feel they have more control over.
In 2022 things might look differently - but then again it might not - there is going to be residual mistrust of countries that haven't managed their Covid responses. Aus and NZ might be ready by then. But equally by that stage, NZ may have found that its just as popular, as lucrative and as easy to run SRA all the time.

 

[sunnyboys]

I wonder if they're trying to head off a 5th Australian side and most members' preferred position is to set up either a 6/4 or 6/3 plus a pacific side.

Bear in mind that Bart Campbell is at play here.

Yes Bart will be getting nervous about Twiggy and his money.

But Bart has the ear of NZR.

 

[Derpus]

• Australia have almost zero bargaining power in this discussion (we couldn't even threaten to withdraw from test rugby as it would send us broke).

What? When you say things like that i find it difficult to take the rest of what you've said seriously.

 

[molman]

Interesting reading the back and forward here. A lot of postulating on what should happen from a lot of people who don't have the slightest knowledge of the true economics or clear insight into what the real politics of the situation really are (outside the tidbits in the media). There are so many things we don't know such that I can't understand how some of you are firmly proposing things, stating this is what they should or shouldn't do.


For myself with Australian Rugby in mind, there needs to be key consideration towards a solution that nurtures Rugby here. The longterm viability of the sport relies on the positive association that the population has with the sport and the ability of the sport to continue to attract and inspire participation. We need the school kids to be talking about and inspiring to be part of the sport (I can guarantee you that they are not). There is obviously the argument that the Wallabies can provide all this (should they be winning), but I'm unconvinced, and it is way too fickle for those times when they aren’t (winning). The love has to be for the sport, not just a team. As such, any solution I feel needs to ensure that it enables people to experience and connect with the sport of Rugby in a positive and hopefully regular manner.


Is the solution domestic with a champions league setup, is it a TT comp with some number of teams against NZ... it's hard to say. I'm not sure that shrinking to 3 or 2 teams is a postive step but sometimes the realities of the situation force hard choices.


RA need to take some care in ensuring that it is about Rugby and the health of the sport in Australia vs. selling NZ Rugby to the Australian market.


I am also curious who is going to fund the PI team that keeps getting mentioned - NZ? World Rugby with all the loans they are giving out left and right? and if NZ is worried about the standard of AU teams how is a PI team going to be of a higher standard without a lot more investment? 




I don't care how NZ fund their teams but in Australia we need to allow private ownership (already exists with the Force)



It's my understanding that there is already private equity investment in the NZ Super Rugby Franchises.