Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

And perhaps allowing Australia to go to 5 teams that weren't sustainable financially were a failure of rest of Saanzar?

More sophistry. Five teams did not kill Aus rugby - the highly mutated, deformed competition did. As it did to RSA.

More local content (than last year's Super) is required to give rugby a national footprint which is a requirement of a successful comp here. Cutting teams cuts funds which then requires cutting teams - dejavu again. That is the spiral we need to abrogate.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

And perhaps allowing Australia to go to 5 teams that weren't sustainable financially were a failure of rest of Saanzar?

No the failure was not to find the right model where 5 teams could be financially stable - even a—league has more pro teams then oz rugby teams. It it ridiculous not to have an open borders policy if really want to grow the game as nz has best players in the world and gives us no breathing space to grow our game and you don’t do that by shrinking the domestic footprint which the A-league, NRL and AFL has shown. From a long term perspective I really do believe we harm creating a viable regional product if we don’t allow more free flow of players by restricting national eligibility to only only domestic teams instead of any team in the regional competition. If nz does not play ball I really do hope we execute the alternative scenario outlined in the Australian of domestic oz teams plus Japanese teams (note I would have thought japan teams off the table but only going off what was in the Australian of alternative scenario being considered) and with open borders policy twiggy proposed for rapid rugby but with salary caps. The nz proposed model with closed borders will never create a viable regional model and will only benefit n and to the detriment of others in the region.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think that if RA wants an Australian competition then they shouldn't try to run it themselves (we know how that ends)

For example (Only an example, the numbers are just examples before people start splitting hairs over percentages)

RA gives an unnamed billionaire the licence to run an Australian competition. Licence agreement includes financials and availability of players for test windows etc.

Clubs/groups of clubs/regions submit an EOI to be part of it, with criteria including financial viability etc

If example there are 8 teams who meet the criteria the teams each own part of the competition - let's say they each own 10% and the unnamed billionaire owns the remaining 20%.

Ownership structure of teams could be member-based, or privately owned or a mixture of both.


EDIT - And the state RUs are prohibited from having ANY involvement

Could use the GRR governance structure (but maybe shift instead of run outside of HK run out of Australia) as I agree would prefer this then run by RA and this set up as base for new competition. I can’t see some of these GRR teams being part of it though and from twiggy dialogue he appears to agree.

 

[Set piece magic]

And perhaps allowing Australia to go to 5 teams that weren't sustainable financially were a failure of rest of Saanzar?

Yep, to be honest, it probably was. But it wasn't the career-ending move that expanding it from 15 to 18 was, that just utterly destroyed the comp. I've admitted the ARU's shortfalls, will you now admit the NZRU's? Holding an 18 year grudge over losing the 2003 World Cup because of commercial incompetence would be a start

 

[Rugbynutter39]

To everyone who is getting their knickers in a twist, have you actually read what the Statement from NZR is? It includes this:

Robinson indicated that ownership models for the new competition had yet to be agreed upon.
He said that NZ Rugby had considered a range of different models and were open to having talks with private equity firms, who have injected capital into both the English Premiership and Pro14 competitions in Europe.

Oh shit do some of you screaming about a NZR owned comp think it time to stop being such drama queens!!

plus: “We think we can do that by virtue of what we are essentially doing, which is going out to the wider Australasian-Pacific environment to see what we can find out.
“At this stage we're working to 2021 but it’s our preference to work beyond that, but we've got a lot of work to do with Sanzaar around that.”

NZ Rugby has already held talks with Australia about the level of its potential involvement, and more detailed discussions will begin next week.

Dan the nz herald ba reported is that NZRU board will determine members of the competition!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

fair enough, I know little about rugby up there, I was running off said 'people'. Well then, the model works with 11 teams as byes are required anyway. 20 weeks of home and away plus finals.

yeh wcr thought japan was off the table but it stated in Australian today alternative option was domestic teams plus Japanese teams which to be honest surprised me for reasons you outlined

 

[molman]

No QHs if you read what they saying they want a comp set up and don't know who will own it yet

I'm not sure you want CVC style money as in Europe. I already have reservations up North where all that has happened. In part the lead up to their involvement is massive player wage inflation to the point where you have a product in which the numbers don't add up.

If you do get such involvement in a Super Rugby TT style comp, I would be curious how those investors would view NZR player rest policies, player shuffling etc.. because suddenly you have the competitng interest of a party trying to grow Super Rugby competition for the sake of itself and NZR trying to continue their AllBlacks first agenda.

Twiggy is a bit of a rare investor in so far as he seems to have a personal interest in where he's investing hence the almost charitable work around grassroots etc... I can't see a traditional equity investor being similarly sympathetic. Others like Twiggy may be around but there are always considerations when you bring in a new party to the table.

What I don't get in all this is what NZR would actually loose by playing the exisiting 4 Super Rugby teams and The Force next year. NZR will maintian a significantly larger share of income through their negotiated Sky deal (even with ajustments), it's likely to be the shape of the world for maybe one year and lets be honest it's going to have no real impact of the continued development of the All Blacks. To go hard at your closest Rugby neigbour, leveaging a global pandemic and your unique geographic good fortune does leave a bit of a bad taste.

 

[Derpus]

More sophistry. Five teams did not kill Aus rugby - the highly mutated, deformed competition did. As it did to RSA.

More local content (than last year's Super) is required to give rugby a national footprint which is a requirement of a successful comp here. Cutting teams cuts funds which then requires cutting teams - dejavu again. That is the spiral we need to abrogate.

Exactly - a ten team 5/5 split presents us with the opportunity to undo the damage that Super Rugby has done to Australian Rugby over the past 10 years.

I really can't see why NZ wouldn't want it. The argument that 2/3 teams would be stronger is a weak one as there are so many reasons why cutting may not actually result in stronger teams. They would also be handicapping the financial possibilities of the comp from the get go.

It's also at odds with their argument for a Pasifika team which will have very little chance of being competitive and will in all likelihood be a bigger financial drain on the comp than any of the Australian teams ever would be.

The 5/5 split remains the obvious choice - and if ego gets in the way, whether NZs or ours, then rugby gets what it deserves.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Could use the GRR governance structure (but maybe shift instead of run outside of HK run out of Australia) as I agree would prefer this then run by RA and this set up as base for new competition. I can’t see some of these GRR teams being part of it though and from twiggy dialogue he appears to agree.

I'd like to see it run as a single entity league. Where each organisation holds an ownership stake and voting right. This structure comes with certain criteria of course in terms of gaining those rights. The first is a licencing fee and the second being annual cash calls required to maintain operations etc.

This then would allow for more equity to enter the current organisations and provide opportunities to outside parties to bid for inclusion. It's also a model that would help ease the reliance on broadcast income in order to pay players. With any money derived from broadcast used to run the competition operations and the cash call used feed in the salary pool to pay players. Clubs would be able to sign players but the league would hold the contract and have a say in distribution of talent in order to ensure competitiveness.

Any future broadcast revenue would then be distributed amount each member of the league as would any league wide sponsorship of merchandising. Franchises would be allowed to sign their own talent on the coaching side of the equation and derive revenue from sponsorship, gate and individual merchandising. This would actually place a great deal of emphasis on promotion and marketing. Which is something sorely lacking from Rugby.

 

[dru]

Some interesting issues.

The NZRU "low ball" offer has really galvanised responses here into a much more cohesive position - yes plenty of detail problems in the opinions but I think fair to say much more galvanised. That galvanised position has gone as far as to see many agree with hated/maligned A Jones. Who would have guessed. Commonality under a common threat.

The only fans happy with the proposal have NZ rugby as their driver, even if the the old platitudes of wanting strong rugby in Aus, the driver seems to be NZ rugby. ANything NZ does will be good for Aus. Fortunately Aus fans have woken to the platitude.

Wouldn't it be interesting if a similar thing is happening in parallel with the administrators at all levels?

Twiggy has again shown real vision and application engineering options around whatever eventuates. You would think NZRU would be happy with a Force EOI. HE also has an olive branch to McLennan. Whatever eventuates he will have a reasonable option available.

NZ, very predictably, starts here with solid strength. But they can't continue with any particular success with a 5 team comp. They need numbers. The only strength RA has here is to say "no". Friendly but firm. If NZ wish to continue discussions let them start with a different base. RA needs to be full mode alternative comp right now - with Forrest of course.

OF course it could be an opening to simply replacing Rebels with Force. If so it might have been a MUCH smarter position for NZRU to have started there. AND it is still something that should receive a firm "no".

Let 2021 be 2021, domestic based, build a foundation for a National comp. After 2021 further discussion can be had with NZRU as to where they wish to go. Time is not on our side right now for broadcast deals. But in the medium term, every season that passes where NZRU are restricted to Aotearoa is one more year before the strength to be very much with Australia.

Say no.

 

[molman]

yeh wcr thought japan was off the table but it stated in Australian today alternative option was domestic teams plus Japanese teams which to be honest surprised me for reasons you outlined

Japan involvement in a Champions League style format was reported earlier this year;

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...n-to-keep-japan-involved-20200514-p54sz1.html

... so whilst, yes Japan (JRU) has been looking at doing their own thing I don't think no involvement with AU/NZ n' co has been off the table. Australia is also a more attractive market for Japanese companies than NZ so their might be some appetite for them to see this as an opportunity to be involved and create some extra value out of their existing investments.

I'm not sure about the politics but I got the impression the new League was very much about the JRU trying to untangle itself from the Corporations which currently run the Top League so I'm not sure what the dynamics and different views are. Perhaps someone closer to Japanese Rugby might have some insight.

NTT (Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation) has made some large property purchases recently, perhaps they'd like to purchase an interest in a AU Rugby competition.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I'm just not sure why the NZRU need to be so combative about this. What do they stand to gain?

Surely they could achieve the same result with negotiation behind closed doors, which seems to be RA's tactic.

Maybe if they own the competition, they can push for a greater share of overseas TV revenue?

Could have asked the same question about us and the 2003 RWC. Some people have long memories

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ the 2003 RWC debacle resulted in an almost total cleanout at NZRFU: CEO, Chairman & several Board members. If there's any residual bitterness (& I doubt there is very much after all this time) it'd be over ARU voting for Japan as host for RWC 2011 mere months after NZRFU signed off on a fifth Australian Super Rugby franchise despite doubts, voiced at the time, that Australia had sufficient player depth & ARU had sufficiently deep pockets for it to be viable. Some would say that both have proven to be the case.

 

[hoggy]

Some interesting issues.

The NZRU "low ball" offer has really galvanised responses here into a much more cohesive position - yes plenty of detail problems in the opinions but I think fair to say much more galvanised. That galvanised position has gone as far as to see many agree with hated/maligned A Jones. Who would have guessed. Commonality under a common threat.

The only fans happy with the proposal have NZ rugby as their driver, even if the the old platitudes of wanting strong rugby in Aus, the driver seems to be NZ rugby. ANything NZ does will be good for Aus. Fortunately Aus fans have woken to the platitude.

Wouldn't it be interesting if a similar thing is happening in parallel with the administrators at all levels?

Twiggy has again shown real vision and application engineering options around whatever eventuates. You would think NZRU would be happy with a Force EOI. HE also has an olive branch to McLennan. Whatever eventuates he will have a reasonable option available.

NZ, very predictably, starts here with solid strength. But they can't continue with any particular success with a 5 team comp. They need numbers. The only strength RA has here is to say "no". Friendly but firm. If NZ wish to continue discussions let them start with a different base. RA needs to be full mode alternative comp right now - with Forrest of course.

OF course it could be an opening to simply replacing Rebels with Force. If so it might have been a MUCH smarter position for NZRU to have started there. AND it is still something that should receive a firm "no".

Let 2021 be 2021, domestic based, build a foundation for a National comp. After 2021 further discussion can be had with NZRU as to where they wish to go. Time is not on our side right now for broadcast deals. But in the medium term, every season that passes where NZRU are restricted to Aotearoa is one more year before the strength to be very much with Australia.

Say no.

Agreed, they are relying on Aus weakness, in the SMH this morning just hours after the release of the NZRU preference, Stephen Hoiles (why the f--k his opinion is considered vital 12hrs after NZ vision is released i don't know). He is advocating for the axing of the rebels.

This is part of the issue with the game here, we never present a united front. The Kiwis advocate just 2 teams, so then all of a sudden having 4 teams is considered a good compromise.

With everything up in the air why not go domestic for a couple of years what have we really got to lose, if it doesn't look like green shoots in a couple years then look at crossover options.

 

[ForceFan]

An interesting article from today's West Australian with some quotes from Andrew Forrest.
The financial backing of at least one Australian team appears sound.
How do the four Australian Super Rugby franchises prove financial viability without RA having income from a broadcast deal for 2021?

 

[Derpus]

An interesting article from today's West Australian with some quotes from Andrew Forrest.
The financial backing of at least one Australian team appears sound.
How do the four Australian Super Rugby franchises prove financial viability without RA having income from a broadcast deal for 2021?

View attachment 11622

Cant secure funding until a comp is agreed. That simple.

 

[Dan54]

I'm not sure you want CVC style money as in Europe. I already have reservations up North where all that has happened. In part the lead up to their involvement is massive player wage inflation to the point where you have a product in which the numbers don't add up.
. Others like Twiggy may be around but there are always considerations when you bring in a new party to the table.

What I don't get in all this is what NZR would actually loose by playing the exisiting 4 Super Rugby teams and The Force next year. NZR will maintian a significantly larger share of income through their negotiated Sky deal (even with ajustments), it's likely to be the shape of the world for maybe one year and lets be honest it's going to have no real impact of the continued development of the All Blacks. To go hard at your closest Rugby neigbour, leveaging a global pandemic and your unique geographic good fortune does leave a bit of a bad taste.

I actually think all Aus teams will play if they can afford it, though I still think Twiggy will be buying some Rebels back. All NZR says that all teams have to add something to the comp, I gather if RA guarantees the money , then that would be a huge step in right direction, whatever comp is set up can't afford to have a Force situation where they have to be cut because RA can't afford to support them. I think if private equity money goes in would also be good.

 

[Dan54]

Dan the nz herald ba reported is that NZRU board will determine members of the competition!

Really RN, how many times do WOB and I have to tell you that NZ Hurld is not and has never been a realiable scource!! I take no more notice of that being gospel than I do of anything written by Georgina Robinson etc in SMH. Even the Hurld in it's write up says it is my understanding?? Thats noy fact man, that's opinion!

 

[Derpus]

Really RN, how many times do WOB and I have to tell you that NZ Hurld is not and has never been a realiable scource!! I take no more notice of that being gospel than I do of anything written by Georgina Robinson etc in SMH. Even the Hurld in it's write up says it is my understanding?? Thats noy fact man, that's opinion!

Yeah - good to take anything that isnt a direct quote with a pinch (spoon, shovel?) of salt.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I regularly go onto the twf forum to get a barometer of sentiment from wa/wf supporters. Pleased to see sentiment to NZ proposal is we need to have 5 oz sides unite and stop the bickering seems to be general sentiment. Equally note as many TWF forum posters note that AF support in the media seems more about WF now then GRR and more aligned to joining TT competition proposed by NZ then domestic comp.

Be good to understand what twiggy supports / Current views as they seem to have changed.