Where to for Super Rugby?

[sendit]

So where have I been bitching that RA didn't have a plan, I said they didn't that not bitching, but that still doesn't stop me asking who from NZR has said that Aus can only have 2 teams, and I keep asking it, but noone will show me. I would add I have no idea of what NZR's plans are, they haven't released any for alternatives, and don't think they should until preferred model is scrapped. We do know their prefeeerred model don't we ,that's what a lot of the bitching is about.

when you go on about it as much as you have i think that could go very close to bitching territory.......

They havent explicitly said 2 but they've said preference is 8-10 and high priority for a pacific team. Therefore doing simple maths part of their preferred model could very well mean only 2 aussie teams

 

[Derpus]

So I keep asking when and where NZR said that. Their original proposal was the, as until then RA etc hadn't even suggested one, not sure how you lot negotiate , but without a starting point you got nothing!

I mean, im sure someone has pointed out that NZRs proposal by implication had space for 2 or 4 Australian teams.

 

[Number 7]

Yep I heard of the Aritipu report commissioned by NZ rugby,it is just that a report, it had members of NZR on it and people from outside ie commercial interests , now I will ask you where NZR said Australia should only have 2 teams? I have only ever heard NZR say while that any comp would have to be what all parties want and they wanted the best one in world if possible.
And to add the preferred model was 8-10 team so you even got that wrong!

Here you go, an article which directly quotes Mark Robinson:
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-...competition-future-feature-of-aratipu-report/
(Used a NZ source for you too)

Some quotes:
When talking about the Aritipu report: "NZR Chief Executive Mark Robinson said the NZR Board had approved a number of key recommendations aimed at establishing a new competition in 2021". He then went on to talk about the number of teams in their proposed comp and said he "hoped to have between eight and ten teams involved.".

Pretty easy to see how one might think only two Australian teams might be welcome. Because Mark Robinson effectively said it!

 

[Dan54]

Here you go, an article which directly quotes Mark Robinson:
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-...competition-future-feature-of-aratipu-report/
(Used a NZ source for you too)

Some quotes:
When talking about the Aritipu report: "NZR Chief Executive Mark Robinson said the NZR Board had approved a number of key recommendations aimed at establishing a new competition in 2021". He then went on to talk about the number of teams in their proposed comp and said he "hoped to have between eight and ten teams involved.".

Pretty easy to see how one might think only two Australian teams might be welcome. Because Mark Robinson effectively said it!

Pretty easy to see what you want in it, but 8-10 teams even if there one PI team still is 4 Aussie teams if wanted. I glad you pointed out the PROPOSED comp, and still have not seen where I have seen here that NZR have said here is our comp you can have 2 teams, and noone is showing me different. And if you read it it says they have to still confirm the licenses for the 5 NZ clubs! So even they had to be confirmed.

 

[Dan54]

I mean, im sure someone has pointed out that NZRs proposal by implication had space for 2 or 4 Australian teams.

Exactly and not 2 is all I am saying for 4 teams from Australia which is what Aus had in Super rugby. Don't forget, when this report was written, Aus didn't have Force involved in future as Twiggy had GRR as his main aim, and Twiggy and RA had said Force were in Super AU comp for this year.

 

[sendit]

Pretty easy to see what you want in it, but 8-10 teams even if there one PI team still is 4 Aussie teams if wanted. I glad you pointed out the PROPOSED comp, and still have not seen where I have seen here that NZR have said here is our comp you can have 2 teams, and noone is showing me different. And if you read it it says they have to still confirm the licenses for the 5 NZ clubs! So even they had to be confirmed.

correction, there's potential for 4 aussie teams, there's also potential that they may want 2, you cant just select one of the numbers because it suits your argument

 

[Derpus]

Exactly and not 2 is all I am saying for 4 teams from Australia which is what Aus had in Super rugby. Don't forget, when this report was written, Aus didn't have Force involved in future as Twiggy had GRR as his main aim, and Twiggy and RA had said Force were in Super AU comp for this year.

Yeah - maybe. But it's pretty clear that Twiggy wants in and we want him in. It's the best opportunity we will likely ever get to undo some of the damage that absolute clusterfuck did.

Plus he brings money and the fastest growing Rugby market in Aus. If NZR had simply said they envision the current four Super Rugby Aus teams involved then that would have cleared the matter up.

Which brings us back to the primary issue, being how NZ have chosen to communicate about future options. I.e. Terribly and with considerable arrogance.

 

[Rob42]

There's a lot of harking back to previous seasons as opposed to looking at result from this season. I actually think something RA should be looking to invest heavily in is quality coaches. That has is been and is the difference between the two sets of teams. Not the mythical depth or talent issue.

This needs more likes.

 

[qwerty51]

There's a lot of harking back to previous seasons as opposed to looking at result from this season. I actually think something RA should be looking to invest heavily in is quality coaches. That has is been and is the difference between the two sets of teams. Not the mythical depth or talent issue.

YES

 

[Dan54]

correction, there's potential for 4 aussie teams, there's also potential that they may want 2, you cant just select one of the numbers because it suits your argument

Why you seem to be selecting numbers and quotes that suit yours, I just trying to point out none of us know what really is on offer. I notice everyone avoiding talking about Hamish supposedly saying RA will let NZR have a bigger part of the TV money.

 

[Dan54]

Yeah - maybe. But it's pretty clear that Twiggy wants in and we want him in. It's the best opportunity we will likely ever get to undo some of the damage that absolute clusterfuck did.

Plus he brings money and the fastest growing Rugby market in Aus. If NZR had simply said they envision the current four Super Rugby Aus teams involved then that would have cleared the matter up.

Which brings us back to the primary issue, being how NZ have chosen to communicate about future options. I.e. Terribly and with considerable arrogance.

I agree , but we I agree the EOIs shouldn't have been sent out, but they sent them to people outside of Aus too and they were happy. I not saying anyone right or wrong, all I saying look at both sides. I am only pointing out the other side to get balance.

 

[Dan54]

There's a lot of harking back to previous seasons as opposed to looking at result from this season. I actually think something RA should be looking to invest heavily in is quality coaches. That has is been and is the difference between the two sets of teams. Not the mythical depth or talent issue.

I also can't like this enough!

 

[sendit]

Why you seem to be selecting numbers and quotes that suit yours, I just trying to point out none of us know what really is on offer. I notice everyone avoiding talking about Hamish supposedly saying RA will let NZR have a bigger part of the TV money.

Every single thing you’re posting is working under the assumption of 4 Aussie teams where in reality, that’s only one of multiple options by the NZRU

I’m gonna tap out here, you’re arguing with your heart not your head

 

[dru]

I'm not saying we should cut a team, there are more factors to consider than just on-field quality as you point out. But cutting a team IMO would help on-field product. And I really hate the expression 'shrink to greatness', FWIW. It's overused, overdone and frankly a little bit insulting to the valid points that support the view that we'd do better with less teams.

Barbarian, I can't think of a more accurate expression to cover the cutting proposals. Don't forget that it was first voiced no less than the CEO of RA. It is somewhat dismissive I'll grant and if offending reputable posters like yourself, I'll leave it out.

At the same time the view that cutting results in doing better is imo as incomplete as it is valid.

 

[barbarian]

Barbarian, I can't think of a more accurate expression to cover the cutting proposals. Don't forget that it was first voiced no less than the CEO of RA. It is somewhat dismissive I'll grant and if offending reputable posters like yourself, I'll leave it out.

It doesn't offend me, I was just in a crabby mood this morning and needed the rant. I don't mind what terms you all use

 

[dru]

It doesn't offend me, I was just in a crabby mood this morning and needed the rant. I don't mind what terms you all use

Christ, you are the least likely to rant on GAGR, mate. All the best.

 

[Braveheart81]

I can't think of a more accurate expression to cover the cutting proposals.

However it was sold, the driving force was financial, not a concentration of talent. I don't like the expression for that reason.

It implies that they did it because they thought it would greatly improve results as opposed to thinking they would be insolvent if they didn't because they couldn't afford to fund 5 teams.

 

[Up the Guts]

There's a lot of harking back to previous seasons as opposed to looking at result from this season. I actually think something RA should be looking to invest heavily in is quality coaches. That has is been and is the difference between the two sets of teams. Not the mythical depth or talent issue.

Pre-COVID the Waratahs were a complete motley crew but the coaching staff have turned it around completely.

 

[dru]

However it was sold, the driving force was financial, not a concentration of talent. I don't like the expression for that reason.

It implies that they did it because they thought it would greatly improve results as opposed to thinking they would be insolvent if they didn't because they couldn't afford to fund 5 teams.

The problem just goes around again, Braveheart. The design of the competition as it stood required net input of funding from RA and that isn't addressed. All that is achieved is to kick the can down the road to be discussed again shortly. Also the Clyne presentation actually showed that based on 5 team income (plus diverted WB revenue) they could afford 3 teams, not 4.

So it aided a solvency issue but actually did nothing to address changed commercial success.

Also, most of the advocates for cutting in the current discussions, especially from NZR are specifically intended to increase the talent density. I don't think that is simply an implication.

Anyway, I've dropped it.

Things will resolve as we go forward and at this point I'm comfortable with how RA are traveling.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah - maybe. But it's pretty clear that Twiggy wants in and we want him in. It's the best opportunity we will likely ever get to undo some of the damage that absolute clusterfuck did.

Plus he brings money and the fastest growing Rugby market in Aus. If NZR had simply said they envision the current four Super Rugby Aus teams involved then that would have cleared the matter up.

Which brings us back to the primary issue, being how NZ have chosen to communicate about future options. I.e. Terribly and with considerable arrogance.

Couldn't agree with this more. I'm hoping that RA and Twiggy are having an open dialogue to make the Force part of SRAU permanently. Get Fiji in, have a six team comp and then do the Super 8 and we're set. That's the product.

It's all become so clear to me through COVID and the emergency change of structure that this is the way to go. It helps that footy has been getting better and better too.