Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
That it's a direct quote from McLennan is wild. No leak, no rumour, just "here's the chairman of the board recounting what the CEO said about the whole thing".
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
That it's a direct quote from McLennan is wild. No leak, no rumour, just "here's the chairman of the board recounting what the CEO said about the whole thing".
hifflepiff
Charlie Fox (21)
Won't happen. Japan are in the process of setting up a fully fledged domestic pro league.
Japan have stated a preference for including their teams in a 'Champions League' style post-season competition, but they're not going to go anywhere near Super Rugby.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Panda is suggesting if RA goes it alone they'll set up an 8 team competition with the Drua, Sunwolves and and Argentinian team...........
I don't buy it.
Ultimately, I think once all of the cold war style negotiation and posturing is done with NZ and RA will agree to an initial 10 team competition with a Pasifika team added in future.
I don't buy it.
Ultimately, I think once all of the cold war style negotiation and posturing is done with NZ and RA will agree to an initial 10 team competition with a Pasifika team added in future.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
It's good to see RA stand firm on the 5 team or nothing line, and NZ can't go it alone and need Aus teams to fill out a viable competition.............
I would hope common sense prevails in the end, but in the meantime they all seem to be pandering.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
As Wilson alludes to it was the direct quotes by our one which were the pertinent parts. However he points out in the article today that the NZ Hurld said Australian rugby ‘was embarrassingly out of its depth’ by wanting to compete with NZ rugby and then highlights the most recent results from the pre-Covid games. So the more middle fingers the better IMO, I don’t care who they come from or how many Robbos get spelt wrong.
I said on Friday that we saw NZs lowball offer, were now seeing our first reply, and like you I suspect we will meet in a sane place in the middle. That said we still need to recognise at this point in time there isnt a TT travel bubble. We can manage a few Bledisloes with the current restrictions, not a full comp though. So the domestic option needs to be seen and considered.
I agree. Ultimately both countries need each other and they know it. NZ started the negotiations with the position that they were going to control the comp and dictate how it would go and who else would get to enter.
Australia have fired back saying they will go it alone and take in the non NZ team that NZ wants.
Ultimately they will meet somewhere in the middle.
Deep down NZ knows that no matter how good their sides are they don't have a viable product with only 5 teams.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
All this speculation is just errrr speculation. We will know what the new set-up is when it is officially announced. Until then we can watch the local comp, and enjoy it for what it is. Not to mention the Shute Shield.
wamberal this entire thread is pretty much based on speculation...nobody knows where rugby is headed but everyone has an opinion - welcome to G&GR
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
I'm a bit torn at the moment in terms of what I'd like to see next year. I didn't think I'd enjoy an all Aussie comp but I'm finding it surprisingly enjoyable. Add in a Drua team, maybe one more and I'd tune in. Just not sure how commercially viable that is.
If we go in the Trans tasman direction, I think you need to kill off the Rebels (sorry Rebels fans) and move forward with just the Reds / Brumbies / Tahs, and if Twiggy is happy to privately fund the Force's inclusion in the comp then that's a bonus. We just don't have enough talent to have more than 3 competitive teams, and if they're not going to be winning games them there's no point in going down that road.
If we go in the Trans tasman direction, I think you need to kill off the Rebels (sorry Rebels fans) and move forward with just the Reds / Brumbies / Tahs, and if Twiggy is happy to privately fund the Force's inclusion in the comp then that's a bonus. We just don't have enough talent to have more than 3 competitive teams, and if they're not going to be winning games them there's no point in going down that road.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
You right, both know they cannot have viable 5 team comps, my guess is a 9 or 10 team comp next year (travel permitting) and then maybe ending up in a few years with maybe something like 11-12 teams. The make up I am not sure of, a lot will depend on RA's finances I think.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Not sure, but a little amusing that NZR proposes a comp that may or may not include all present Aus teams, and it causes outrage, yet someone claims that RA could set up one with only ONE of Japan's teams and also one from SA , it is deemed quite alright?
mmmmm most interesting!!
Number 7
Darby Loudon (17)
The Australian article is definitely worth reading if you can get behind the paywall.
McLennan was surprisingly undiplomatic based on the quotes in the article. When referring to the video hookup between Rob Clarke and Mark Robinson seeking Australia's "expression of interest", McLennan was quoted in the article as saying "Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’". The article then goes on to say "A Kiwi request to send over the contract documents for Australia to peruse was rejected by Clarke, who flatly insisted they would not wash." That quote would most likely have also come from McLennan. Smith also went on to describe the New Zealand Herald as "NZR’s unofficial media arm" and launched a heavily sarcastic critique of ht NZ Herald's (Gregor Paul's) criticism of Australian results in Super Rugby.
It certainly reads like RA are taking a Trump-like scorched earth approach to negotiations at the moment.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
To me, it doesn’t seem like NZRU did their homework on McLennan. He likes to play hardball, there was no way he was going to let NZ dictate the terms of the competition on the basis of perceived skill level.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
It's such an obvious conclusion that many people (aside from those discounting any kind of future professional comp altogether) realised long before any 'negotiations' kicked off. So why do we have to have this amateur, bullshit pissing contest. It's bleedingly obvious we need each other.
It's also pretty obvious next year will still be a Covid-19 clusterfuck so why would you seek to complicate the simplest format - i.e. the 10 currently existing teams most likely to be able to play each other? it's such a classic self-damaging rugby fuck around that makes it look like it never left the amateur era.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think, despite the classic NZ arrogance (which seems to only exist in the rugby sphere), we have a pretty strong grounding for negotiation. The reality is NZ need teams to play against, and we are the most realistic country to provide those teams for next year and likely the year after. You think that fat juicy TV money is going to keep flowing if they have to show Chiefs v Highlanders for the fourth time every year? of course not. Particularly if the ABs can't do the ordinary rounds.
Number 7
Darby Loudon (17)
It really does seem like NZRU have handled this poorly. Firstly deliering the death-knell of Super Rugby to their SAANZAR partners via a press release, then the unilateral delivery of the Aritipu review without consultation of potential partners prior to release seems very clumsy from a negotiating perspective.
In other interesting news there has been another two senior players in NZ come forward today and say the NZ-only comp is unsustainable and called for greater diversity of opponent.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
It's such a waste of time and energy isn't it? Everyone in rugby is watching this part of the world right now and this shit fight is such a wasted opportunity.
NZ need some number of Australian teams for the model they want but it's clear as day there is no appetite at RA to cut back to 3 so there's no real chance of getting those teams with RA's backing. Without actual backing from RA those teams wouldn't be competitive, so the idea that they can go around RA to poach a couple (or even the unattached Force) is ridiculous, there's just no way those teams would be able to hold top end talent with RA's input. Given that, the most they can really negotiate on is 4 or 5 Australian teams, but given those 5 teams all actually exist and are demonstrably competitive with each other right now, you cant really argue 4 teams is more competitive.Given that 5 teams from Australia has to make for a better product - more content, an extra timezone to work with, more markets to reach viewers in sell to sponsors and greater potential for growth (the stable iterative kind, rather than the artificial super rugby has pursued in the past).
So as near as I can tell it all comes down to control of the competition and potential revenue sharing, a majority of Kiwi teams means they get a controlling share of the competition and have more ability to overrule partners down the line. Hopefully that doesn't happen. Instead the competition should be managed by some sort of independent commission made up of the stake holders, but one that's actually present, empowered and visible, with the best interests of the competition at heart, unlike what SANZAAR has been for super rugby.
This puts into words what I've been thinking the last few days. SuperAU has been surprisingly fun. I'm getting just as much enjoyment from it as I would Super Rugby, with the added convenience of only having to check the schedule to see which teams are playing on Friday night and which are playing on Saturday night.
But the million dollar question is just how much cash we can extract from a seven team local comp with limited crowds.
I'm still pro TT comp as the future, but I'm not as worried about the domestic-only option as I was a month ago.
- Status