Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
i personally agree that aus can't sustain 5 teams with its own players and that if they want to keep 5 teams, some form of foreign player accommodation has to be made, beyond the current allowance. i.e if japan were to be cut (along with two south african teams) then allow japanese players to be signed outside of salary cap. to keep japanese interest in the tournament, maybe the austrlian teams could do a pre-season cup each year in japan for actual prize money.
the timezone is nearly the same and if top japanese players are playing in super rugby, japanese people will watch. combine that with a test most years between japan and aus, and the game will grow.
i personally think south africa should join europe. japan, argentina, NZ, PI team (based out of Aus, Singapore/HK or NZ) and aus should play in a comp. why arg? they play great rugby for tv and their timezone actually works for australia unlike SA.
i live in melbourne and no one i know - even rugby fans - care about nor watch the south african games.
even for a rugby fan - south african rugby has been decimated. the top players don't play super rugby anymore. the boks pick too many players from europe. unless radical change occurs, the boks will be down below ireland, wales, scotland soon. they are on an awful trajectory. far worse than aus in my opinion. that said, and of track, i think aus is heading towards being ranked behind Ireland, Eng and NZ very soon. three countries on absolutely the right track.
if ever there was an argument for picking players from overseas, then south africa is it.
the timezone is nearly the same and if top japanese players are playing in super rugby, japanese people will watch. combine that with a test most years between japan and aus, and the game will grow.
i personally think south africa should join europe. japan, argentina, NZ, PI team (based out of Aus, Singapore/HK or NZ) and aus should play in a comp. why arg? they play great rugby for tv and their timezone actually works for australia unlike SA.
i live in melbourne and no one i know - even rugby fans - care about nor watch the south african games.
even for a rugby fan - south african rugby has been decimated. the top players don't play super rugby anymore. the boks pick too many players from europe. unless radical change occurs, the boks will be down below ireland, wales, scotland soon. they are on an awful trajectory. far worse than aus in my opinion. that said, and of track, i think aus is heading towards being ranked behind Ireland, Eng and NZ very soon. three countries on absolutely the right track.
if ever there was an argument for picking players from overseas, then south africa is it.
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
nothing about the above prevents the RC from happening as well.
the current super rugby format is helping the NH teams close the gap.
the current super rugby format is helping the NH teams close the gap.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I have to add that those who call for a Trans Tasman competition and/or restructure of super rugby to involve conference style pools with playoffs against other conference winners....this is NOT the sole answer and will surely fail if we don't address other issues.
NZ are just leaps and bounds ahead so if have Trans Tasman competition with 5 oz sides and 5 NZ sides plus any bits and bobs (e.g. Sunwolves added or whatever) it WILL FAIL.
As no-one will enjoy seeing NZ sides wipe oz sides as they are now as gulf just too wide (at least short term). Hence, we need in Trans Tasman Competition to allow less restrictions on recruiting players from other countries than currently on place...which means if NZ player plays for Oz side for example (and vice versa) then still eligible for All blacks and vice versa (and with quota's in place for set number of domestic players to be in squad).
So why would NZ agree to this..Simply put (early on at least) would allow more NZ players playing professional rugby. So why would OZ allow this as same would allow more competitive teams and interest and hence grow fan interest and hence grow grass roots interest whilst sort out our long term grass roots and coaching issues to create more domestic players etc).
I get frustrated that only part of the puzzle often being put forward as do people REALLY believe just having a TRANS TASMAN competition will solve all our problems.
I get increasingly disturbed that Trans Tasman competition gets touted but needs more than just this.
NZ are just leaps and bounds ahead so if have Trans Tasman competition with 5 oz sides and 5 NZ sides plus any bits and bobs (e.g. Sunwolves added or whatever) it WILL FAIL.
As no-one will enjoy seeing NZ sides wipe oz sides as they are now as gulf just too wide (at least short term). Hence, we need in Trans Tasman Competition to allow less restrictions on recruiting players from other countries than currently on place...which means if NZ player plays for Oz side for example (and vice versa) then still eligible for All blacks and vice versa (and with quota's in place for set number of domestic players to be in squad).
So why would NZ agree to this..Simply put (early on at least) would allow more NZ players playing professional rugby. So why would OZ allow this as same would allow more competitive teams and interest and hence grow fan interest and hence grow grass roots interest whilst sort out our long term grass roots and coaching issues to create more domestic players etc).
I get frustrated that only part of the puzzle often being put forward as do people REALLY believe just having a TRANS TASMAN competition will solve all our problems.
I get increasingly disturbed that Trans Tasman competition gets touted but needs more than just this.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Like 'the search' segment on fox sports rugby - is it just marketing but is it also promoting grass roots opportunities for more elite coaching and skills development...something I like in this...with media exposure...wrong thread maybe...but a lot of where we are is about grass roots failures....so maybe not
half
Dick Tooth (41)
I have no idea how to do this and what it entails as I have never given it any consideration.
But now.
How are the ARU board members elected, is it via the state unions, and if so how are the state union boards made up.
Is it worth running well hmmmm a sorta people's team to run the ARU.
But now.
How are the ARU board members elected, is it via the state unions, and if so how are the state union boards made up.
Is it worth running well hmmmm a sorta people's team to run the ARU.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yep NTT you have worked out the insecurity of BH who has an overinflated opinion of his own opinions.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No game tonight is (a) huge hole (even I'm watching the mungoes)(b) the problem with so many time zones
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Ignoring the fact that central contracting is a fundamental component of the NZRU's professional programme, how do you see an Australian side enticing any decent NZ player to Australia where the worst NZ side is, arguably, better than the best Australian side? What incentive is there to go to a less professional environment with seemingly inferior coaching skills at every level?* If you don't believe that many NZ players would rather play out of position, sit on the bench or twiddle their thumbs in the WTG for a good side rather than start for a poor one, just looks at all the first-fives who have spurned the Blues over the last decade or so.
Second, the NZRU would also ensure that next to no Australian players would be signed to the NZ franchises. So I wouldn't be pinning too much hope on the NZ sides signing huge swathes of Australian players to up-skill them out of the goodness of their hearts.
Finally this idea seems to contradict the general theme on this thread that having five franchises gives Australia an equal footing with NZ vis-a-vis professional playing numbers. Surely opening up even more professional spaces for NZers to occupy will just push NZ further ahead? Given that they would all, presumably, also be playing in the NPC, Australia wouldn't even be able to poach them as their residency timer would reset every season (cf. Henry Speight playing for Waikato).
*Based on observation from matches and comments on various thread on here.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Simple answer - $'s.......
Andrew Cox's argument is soooo right....
And you missed my point that NZ would have to change its stance on central contracting and see the benefit of more NZ players playing professional rugby which means more stronger NZ position...and....
Secondly, better competition that is more even means more dollars for all as more fans, more broadcast dollars and more growth and hence more opportunities for more teams and more professional opportunities for BOTH NZ and Oz rugby players.
Sorry mate but this is a bigger picture win win for all concerned...just takes a bit more vision from NZ and others to see....
Andrew Cox's argument is soooo right....
And you missed my point that NZ would have to change its stance on central contracting and see the benefit of more NZ players playing professional rugby which means more stronger NZ position...and....
Secondly, better competition that is more even means more dollars for all as more fans, more broadcast dollars and more growth and hence more opportunities for more teams and more professional opportunities for BOTH NZ and Oz rugby players.
Sorry mate but this is a bigger picture win win for all concerned...just takes a bit more vision from NZ and others to see....
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
And might add make these changes would encourage more private investment in teams ie. more Andrew Cox's!!!!!!
zer0
John Thornett (49)
So, basically, your solution is for the NZRU to tear down the entire infrastructure that makes NZ rugby successful at multiple levels just to help Australia out because they can't compete? Would you also like the NZRU to give the ARU 50% of the Adidas and AIG deals?
No. As I've said before on this thread, the NZRU would rather watch Australian rugby die before it puts the All Blacks brand at risk, which is exactly what this idea would do.
No. As I've said before on this thread, the NZRU would rather watch Australian rugby die before it puts the All Blacks brand at risk, which is exactly what this idea would do.
dru
David Wilson (68)
And right there is the argument why we should not be lining up behind NZ.
You blokes back yourselves. Respect there.
Time for the ARU to understand their constituency. Not a NZRU dominated SANZAR. Aus may not be a main strength to trans Tasman rugby, but I'd gamble that we are realistically more important than a potential Japan/US return.
Aus time to draw a line is now.
Reckon NZ would be talking again in a couple of years, if not? Fine. We are not here simply to support the AB brand.
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
How hard can it be to organise a Super Rugby game at 5.30 and 7.30 on both Friday and Saturday nights for AEST? Surely with all their resources and a few logarithms in the mix they could sort that out. But no, I've got F**King NRL and no Rugby. This is shit house in the extreme. I know, lets cut some Aussie teams and have less local content so I can watch some foreigners play at odd hours - Yes that should do it.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
No I am asking NZ to consider longer term ambition mate.....and think of a competition that could be commercially more successful that would give them even more benefits...
They don't want to play they don't want to play as what has to be tabled would have to be commercially lucrative proposition. And no that is stupid as not for one minute have I suggested this is helping out just oz but a win win for all.
Think EPL type competition....difference is with Trans Tasman NZ would have major equity stake in this.
Stop trying to give perception this is just painting something that would benefit Oz as you are not interpreting correctly what I am saying.
They don't want to play they don't want to play as what has to be tabled would have to be commercially lucrative proposition. And no that is stupid as not for one minute have I suggested this is helping out just oz but a win win for all.
Think EPL type competition....difference is with Trans Tasman NZ would have major equity stake in this.
Stop trying to give perception this is just painting something that would benefit Oz as you are not interpreting correctly what I am saying.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Dru yes we are on the same wave length
That is my whole point NZ of course will look after its own interests so the Trans Tasman competition has to benefit all commercially to be more profitable and better competition that grows the pie...and if NZ think seriously a Trans Tasman competition or current super rugby cluster fuck will do that without some innovation they are misguided.
So we put a commercial proposition together which would create more competitive Trans Tasman competition that could create competition that attracts more fans, more dollars and more growth for all involved, and as I explained more professional opportunities for NZ's means stronger All blacks proposition.....
They don't like the deal then yes we go alone and let NZ do whatever they want with SA or whatever, as frankly we equally don't need to be held hostage to NZ interests as was promoting a concept that could grow the pie to benefit of all...
Not that hard to grasp really...and just got to be open to different propositions that if commercially make sense to at least consider....as contrary to popular opinion NZ could even commercially do better than what current situation offers if they show some ability to consider different options as it won't be just NZ who determines whether Super Rugby or whatever variation is successful.
That is my whole point NZ of course will look after its own interests so the Trans Tasman competition has to benefit all commercially to be more profitable and better competition that grows the pie...and if NZ think seriously a Trans Tasman competition or current super rugby cluster fuck will do that without some innovation they are misguided.
So we put a commercial proposition together which would create more competitive Trans Tasman competition that could create competition that attracts more fans, more dollars and more growth for all involved, and as I explained more professional opportunities for NZ's means stronger All blacks proposition.....
They don't like the deal then yes we go alone and let NZ do whatever they want with SA or whatever, as frankly we equally don't need to be held hostage to NZ interests as was promoting a concept that could grow the pie to benefit of all...
Not that hard to grasp really...and just got to be open to different propositions that if commercially make sense to at least consider....as contrary to popular opinion NZ could even commercially do better than what current situation offers if they show some ability to consider different options as it won't be just NZ who determines whether Super Rugby or whatever variation is successful.
- Status