Where to for Super Rugby?

[oztimmay]

Sound like RA are going to stick to their guns with 5 teams in any TT comp. Force are secure financially, Qld & NSW are untouchable, Vic govt invests heavily in rugby and would play a major role in RWC2027, leaving only the Brumbies which could be cut, which is the team most wanted by NZ. Outside equity and a solid broadcast deal to be the main financial drivers, and to allay the player depth concerns, up to 3 imports per franchise to be allowed.​

​

From the Aus this morning.​

And woud like sell out the MCG hosting the Lions in a few years time. The Victorian government love to invest in sports as they understand the beneficial impacts tothe Victorian econmney. Their investment in Rugby would seem small compared to the windfall from a incoming Lions tour.

 

[Wilson]

And woud like sell out the MCG hosting the Lions in a few years time. The Victorian government love to invest in sports as they understand the beneficial impacts tothe Victorian econmney. Their investment in Rugby would seem small compared to the windfall from a incoming Lions tour.

100%, with a Lions tour and a world cup just about locked up we need to consider what is the best position to be in to take advantage of the money and popularity when it arrives. If a team was cut now they'd likely be looking to add a 5th team back in at that point, which makes cutting them now pissing money away. Much better to find a way to keep them alive until that cash and popularity injection arrives, where they're best placed to take advantage of it.

Last time we had the world cup and Lions double we made the mistake of not being ready to take advantage of the surge until well after, launching the ARC + Force in 2006/7 rather than having something ready to go around 2003 when interest was at it's peak. Hopefully we won't be making that mistake again.

 

[Dan54]

100%, with a Lions tour and a world cup just about locked up we need to consider what is the best position to be in to take advantage of the money and popularity when it arrives. If a team was cut now they'd likely be looking to add a 5th team back in at that point, which makes cutting them now pissing money away. Much better to find a way to keep them alive until that cash and popularity injection arrives, where they're best placed to take advantage of it.

Last time we had the world cup and Lions double we made the mistake of not being ready to take advantage of the surge until well after, launching the ARC + Force in 2006/7 rather than having something ready to go around 2003 when interest was at it's peak. Hopefully we won't be making that mistake again.

Yep and love the idea of buying in a bit of depth from overseas, imagine the Reds with a few elctric backs to go with that forward pack, and if most teams do it while developing young players, and have them learn off the imports etc, would be so beneficial!!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Sound like RA are going to stick to their guns with 5 teams in any TT comp. Force are secure financially, Qld & NSW are untouchable, Vic govt invests heavily in rugby and would play a major role in RWC2027, leaving only the Brumbies which could be cut, which is the team most wanted by NZ. Outside equity and a solid broadcast deal to be the main financial drivers, and to allay the player depth concerns, up to 3 imports per franchise to be allowed.​

​

From the Aus this morning.​

Honestly. I'd be fine if they opted for 5 imports per team.

 

[Rebels3]

Im happy with imports but they cant be squad members (have to be genuine first teamers) and they have to add value.

 

[hifflepiff]

Im happy with imports but they cant be squad members (have to be genuine first teamers) and they have to add value.

Agreed. I'd also prefer if we went with the Irish model of teams having to justify why they need a foreign player in place of an Australian.

Top level foreign players can benefit teams by acting as senior heads as mentoring young aussie players, but they can also do a lot of damage if implemented poorly.

With only 5 teams, Aus has a very limited number of starting players and too many imports in key positions can really hamstring the development of up and coming Australian players by locking them out of starting game time.

 

[Dan54]

Honestly. I'd be fine if they opted for 5 imports per team.

Me too WCR, it will add value to both comp and the learnings of younger players, only suggestion I would make is only so many imported players for any one position in Aus teams so we don't end up with no 9 or 10 that as an example!

 

[RugbyReg]

Im happy with imports but they cant be squad members (have to be genuine first teamers) and they have to add value.

RA needs to sign off on them though. Can't have foreign hookers, for example, at each team.

 

[Braveheart81]

RA needs to sign off on them though. Can't have foreign hookers, for example, at each team.

Agreed. You'd definitely need some sort of quota system where it's first come first served in terms of registering a player ineligible for the Wallabies.

Depending on the number of imports allowed you might have a marquee and a development categorisation based on the size of a contract.

I.e. if someone signs a NZer to be their third choice hooker that doesn't stop someone else signing a NZer to be their first choice hooker. Certainly you would limit specialist positions to only one side having each as a first choice player. Obviously 10s can play in different positions but I would include 2, 9, 10 as those specialists and then have prop, lock, backrow, centre and back 3 as the other groupings.

You could also put a ceiling on the total that can be spent on foreign contracts.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Im happy with imports but they cant be squad members (have to be genuine first teamers) and they have to add value.

Absolutely. They cannot be there to purely hold the pads at training. They have to be at a minimum good enough to be in the starting XV even if they are on the bench.

 

[Braveheart81]

Absolutely. They cannot be there to purely hold the pads at training. They have to be at a minimum good enough to be in the starting XV even if they are on the bench.

I think it goes both ways though. Signing a Mitre 10 Cup player who just missed an NZ contract might be outside your best XV on paper but they might be cheap enabling you to retain a 2nd choice Wallaby who would otherwise go overseas.

I tend to think we're going to improve our squads most by signing players in the middle of our squads in terms of quality, not trying to spend big on a current All Black.

 

[Rebels3]

RA needs to sign off on them though. Can't have foreign hookers, for example, at each team.

Agreed. Perhaps one foreigner per position (maybe 2 for wingers and locks) across all the franchises. 4 Aussies per week (or at least one about to qualify to be one) per position starting.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think it goes both ways though. Signing a Mitre 10 Cup player who just missed an NZ contract might be outside your best XV on paper but they might be cheap enabling you to retain a 2nd choice Wallaby who would otherwise go overseas.

I tend to think we're going to improve our squads most by signing players in the middle of our squads in terms of quality, not trying to spend big on a current All Black.

I'm not even considering the potential of signing a current All Black. Nor would they if they still fancy their chances in terms of selection. I seriously doubt NZR are going to agree to free movement if their recent posturing is to remain consistent.

 

[hifflepiff]

I think it goes both ways though. Signing a Mitre 10 Cup player who just missed an NZ contract might be outside your best XV on paper but they might be cheap enabling you to retain a 2nd choice Wallaby who would otherwise go overseas.

I tend to think we're going to improve our squads most by signing players in the middle of our squads in terms of quality, not trying to spend big on a current All Black.

Signing a current All Black is never going to be worth it in terms of price, especially as they're likely to be older and there's no guarantee that they'd keep producing at a high level. However there are plenty of underrated, young Puma/Jaguares players going around at the moment

 

[Braveheart81]

Signing a current All Black is never going to be worth it in terms of price, especially as they're likely to be older and there's no guarantee that they'd keep producing at a high level. However there are plenty of underrated, young Puma/Jaguares players going around at the moment

Agreed. Ultimately foreign signings need to represent good value for money otherwise we are just shooting ourselves in the foot by spending too much money that will be in scarce supply on players that can't play for the Wallabies.

 

[Rebels3]

The realistic targets would be fringe Puma's and the Tyler Ardrons of the world. Not over priced and too good for the level they are playing at. Perhaps some fringe Boks players that are wanting lifestyle over a pay day and settle down with the family.

 

[Wilson]

I think it goes both ways though. Signing a Mitre 10 Cup player who just missed an NZ contract might be outside your best XV on paper but they might be cheap enabling you to retain a 2nd choice Wallaby who would otherwise go overseas.

I tend to think we're going to improve our squads most by signing players in the middle of our squads in terms of quality, not trying to spend big on a current All Black.

Yeah, I'm not too sure what level they're at really matters as long as there aren't too many in a given position across the competition or too many in a given team/match day squad. At the end of the day teams aren't going to sign foreign squadies if it means they miss out on an opportunity to pick up an import they'll actually use. Hopefully it will help us avoid the situation where there's a whole layer foreign players at a team blocking opportunities for up and coming Australians, like we've saw at the rebels at the start of the season.

 

[hifflepiff]

Regardless of who the foreigners being signed are, the Aus teams should have to provide a justification for why they're needed at a particular price point, and why they're going to help develop Aus rugby rather than hinder it.

 

[eastman]

The realistic targets would be fringe Puma's and the Tyler Ardrons of the world. Not over priced and too good for the level they are playing at. Perhaps some fringe Boks players that are wanting lifestyle over a pay day and settle down with the family.

How strong is their English and in reality how good is a 'fringe' Puma?
Not a xenophobic comment but are fringe pumas really better value than the someone of comparable talent from Aus (or NZ) when you factor in the support structure they would require.

 

[eastman]

RA needs to sign off on them though. Can't have foreign hookers, for example, at each team.

So basically you want to revert back to the previous model that didn't work with Super Rugby, where it acts primarily a talent developer rather than a solid stand-alone product.

Why make everything so complex with ARU Approvals etc- give each team a salary cap and let them manage their squad and finances as they see fit.