Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

No mate I am quoting John O'Neil who recently conveyed what I have stated - don't shoot the messenger....

 

[Braveheart81]

No mate I am quoting John O'Neil who recently conveyed what I have stated - don't shoot the messenger..

Sure, but you also have to question how close something was to being a reality that clearly very few people were aware of at the time.

 

[hoggy]

No mate I am quoting John O'Neil who recently conveyed what I have stated - don't shoot the messenger..

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-over-trans-tasman-plans-20200612-p55235.html

"We had the model fully-costed by the broadcasters and us in 2009. It was viable financially and much more user friendly in terms of time zone and vastly reduced overheads," O'Neill said.


"But New Zealand blinked at the last moment and left South Africa in. The rest is history; 18 teams later, a disaster by any measure."

 

[Dan54]

Dan there lies the problem - we only have 2 to 3 pro teams in the face of nrl and afl expansion over the last decade we face being irrelevant. Very few oz fans are interested in a closed border trans tasman competition that limits us to only having 2-3 oz based teams to follow. To grow we need to be in a competition that provides room for growth which a closed borders trans Tasman competition does not allow for. So we either have a model that allows for oz teams with open borders and marquees policy or we do our own domestic competition.

The problem is looking at a closed borders competition as the answer - it isn’t - look at Japan and its expanded new pro league - but if Japan relied just on a competition that involved nz with a closed borders policy they would be limited too just one team.

Sorry the answer is not shrinking to greatness as it is being in this flawed closed borders shoe rugby competition that has been a major part of the problem (as well as others such as lack of investment in grass roots etc)

I agree the 4-5 team Aus representation is great with marquee players is the best way to go, even allowing for the shit time of games from Perth. You know Aus teams are not that far away from being properly competitive, a few players to add depth is a great answer.So will RA allow the policy, and drop the requirement that their teams only have 2-3 player not eligible for Aus to play in teams? And if so why are they not in the market buying players so they can do it, you know most of Argentina's players are already signed up north don't you? And they need to decide before the new pay deals are done at the end of September so they can have it worked into their budget to play the aforementioned players, as they not cheap! And not shrinking to greatness is correct, neither is diluting your teams and playing a lesser standard of rugby, you won't grow the game without a good product! We actually really agree that we want good Aus teams playing that will be well supported. I know we can say just an Aus comp may go good, let me remind you of how much support there is for NRC which just involve Aus teams?

 

[qwerty51]

Hamish already said he’ll get rid of player restrictions.

And yes we’re shooting ourselves in the foot by not having the comp set up already. 80% of the Jags have been signed up in Europe already.

I did read NZ want to finalise the comp for next year by Friday.

 

[oztimmay]

They can "want" all they like, but the cold realaity is the model will be dicticated by the pandemic. THey can establish a preferred position, sure. But to lock it in, nope.

 

[molman]

And yes we’re shooting ourselves in the foot by not having the comp set up already. 80% of the Jags have been signed up in Europe already.

That's really sad if that's true. You've got to feel for Argentina and what the future of Rugby there is going to look like. I really enjoyed the Jaguares and thought they were really developing into a notable team.

 

[The Honey Badger]

That's really sad if that's true. You've got to feel for Argentina and what the future of Rugby there is going to look like. I really enjoyed the Jaguares Pumas and thought they were really developing into a notable team.

FIFY

 

[qwerty51]

Yep just unfortunate they’re so isolated. I think once MLR gets bigger that’s their future.

 

[molman]

Yep just unfortunate they’re so isolated. I think once MLR gets bigger that’s their future.

Perhaps, but how long might it be before the MLR is up to a similar standard, not to mention what impact COVID will have on trying to build up this fledgling competition. With the way things are going in the US I can't see next season not being impacted at this stage.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I agree the 4-5 team Aus representation is great with marquee players is the best way to go, even allowing for the shit time of games from Perth. You know Aus teams are not that far away from being properly competitive, a few players to add depth is a great answer.So will RA allow the policy, and drop the requirement that their teams only have 2-3 player not eligible for Aus to play in teams? And if so why are they not in the market buying players so they can do it, you know most of Argentina's players are already signed up north don't you? And they need to decide before the new pay deals are done at the end of September so they can have it worked into their budget to play the aforementioned players, as they not cheap! And not shrinking to greatness is correct, neither is diluting your teams and playing a lesser standard of rugby, you won't grow the game without a good product! We actually really agree that we want good Aus teams playing that will be well supported. I know we can say just an Aus comp may go good, let me remind you of how much support there is for NRC which just involve Aus teams?

I think we agree on where we want to get to but not how we get there but also we won’t get there overnight but got to have right conditions to get there long term. Private equity for 5 oz teams in trans Tasman plus marquees policy plus open borders policy. Don’t get the latter I probably prefer domestic comp.....

 

[kiap]

Perhaps, but how long might it be before the MLR is up to a similar standard, not to mention what impact COVID will have on trying to build up this fledgling competition. With the way things are going in the US I can't see next season not being impacted at this stage.

I think it will be (a) Pumas stars in Europe, (b) development team perhaps in Currie Cup, or (c) local SLAR team, etc.

 

[dru]

I think we agree on where we want to get to but not how we get there but also we won’t get there overnight but got to have right conditions to get there long term. Private equity for 5 oz teams in trans Tasman plus marquees policy plus open borders policy. Don’t get the latter I probably prefer domestic comp...

+1

 

[Dan54]

I think we agree on where we want to get to but not how we get there but also we won’t get there overnight but got to have right conditions to get there long term. Private equity for 5 oz teams in trans Tasman plus marquees policy plus open borders policy. Don’t get the latter I probably prefer domestic comp...

We got open border policy, don't know who told you there isn't, any NZ player can play for Aus team. RA has a policy that each team can only field 2-3 non eligible Australian players!

 

[dru]

We got open border policy, don't know who told you there isn't, any NZ player can play for Aus team. RA has a policy that each team can only field 2-3 non eligible Australian players!

Utter sophistry. AB selection criteria is a gap in your statement large enough for a semi.

And yes, the RA requirements also need revisiting which clearly they would - given the discussion around "big bash" style comp.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ as previously noted, AB selection policy only applies to the ~50 in the AB frame at any given time. There's nothing to stop an Australian franchise signing someone from the ~120 who aren't in the frame & most likely never will be. Yet with very few exceptions your franchises don't sign them & when they do there's people on here complaining that, for example, 2/5 franchises have 10's who aren't Wallabies-eligible.

 

[KOB1987]

Someone posted this comment on Wally Mason's latest attempt to put the boot into SRAu. I watched part of that Eels game and thought it was atrocious so was planning to try to find these stats myself.

It is worth discussing a comparison between League and Union.
So perhaps we should compare the game involving the best team in the NRL (top of the ladder) from last week, Parramatta (1)- Newcastle (5).
The score was 10 - 4. Three tries were scored, the match winner from a quick tap after a penalty. The stats show 30 errors and 10 penalties. It included a spectacular 64 missed tackles.
One Rugby League commentator noted “It should have been a blockbuster between two top-eight sides, but instead the Eels beat Knights in a sloppy game where both teams looked like they hardly wanted to score a try”.
Rugby in Aus has been gutted by poor Administration, every post World Cup year sees a defection of players, but I watched the Parramatta- Knights game and the Waratahs- Force game, the Rugby game was far superior.
Yes, Rugby in Aus is close to its weakest, but even at that point it produced a better game that the top league team

 

[Dan54]

Utter sophistry. AB selection criteria is a gap in your statement large enough for a semi.

And yes, the RA requirements also need revisiting which clearly they would - given the discussion around "big bash" style comp.

Isn't Aus selection the same? But what in hells name gives you any idea that changing NZ's selection criteria would make any difference, because a; where is all this money to pay aforementioned players, RA props up the teams with money anyway, b; no way regardless of policy is an AB selector going to be very interested in selecting a player in an Aus team for a Bled game etc, because the Aus team (as any team) would absolutely hammer their top line player to get money's worth out of them, and they would have no interest in making players stay fit for international rugby. Why do you think that NH nations like Wales and England now do exactly the same thing, do you fellas not actually follow the game? They also do it and seem to be able to handle it. What in hell would NZ or As team's academy spend money on real top line players to then see them be encouraged to play elsewhere? And the other very moot point is how the Hell does NZ have the right to tell Aus who they have to make available or vice versa? As WOB points out there are still 120 or so Super quality players you can get from NZ, if RA was to allow more 'guest' players !

 

[Braveheart81]

Even if the Australian teams could sign the top NZ players would it really benefit us? We'd surely be paying overs to lure any of them across here and losing out at the other end by having less money to sign the rest of the team.

The Australian teams would definitely improve by signing more NZ players at the middle and bottom end of our squads either Mitre 10 Cup players who can't get Super Rugby gigs or guys who don't make the starting XV who could be offered more opportunity.

 

[Derpus]

I agree the 4-5 team Aus representation is great with marquee players is the best way to go, even allowing for the shit time of games from Perth. You know Aus teams are not that far away from being properly competitive, a few players to add depth is a great answer.So will RA allow the policy, and drop the requirement that their teams only have 2-3 player not eligible for Aus to play in teams? And if so why are they not in the market buying players so they can do it, you know most of Argentina's players are already signed up north don't you? And they need to decide before the new pay deals are done at the end of September so they can have it worked into their budget to play the aforementioned players, as they not cheap! And not shrinking to greatness is correct, neither is diluting your teams and playing a lesser standard of rugby, you won't grow the game without a good product! We actually really agree that we want good Aus teams playing that will be well supported. I know we can say just an Aus comp may go good, let me remind you of how much support there is for NRC which just involve Aus teams?

Id say they dont have the funds. No TV deal in place - things are so uncertain they arent even sure they can retain Aussie players.

It's a decent idea but executing it will be difficult. I also think you are better off looking to the Islands for supplementary talent. More interest on their part and it would be cheaper.

I also don't think NRC is a useful case study. It's a development comp two tiers away from prime time Rugby.