Where to for Super Rugby?

[hoggy]

Yep I understand what you saying , but do you think NRL and AFL would be successful with only 5 teams. I not against Aussie winners as you say, but I thinking more you have to give the public a decent comp to watch to maintain interest. If you really want a comp with only Aus teams perhaps the answer is to get another 4-5 teams, so something like NRC? Anyway perhaps we should just agree to disagree, I don't think a 5 team comp will be substainable, and perhaps you do. No worries. be interested to see what Stan want.
\

Yep that's okay to dis agree, we are least discussing options. But to clarify, I never said a 5 team competition is sustainable. The way forward would at least be a commitment to a 6 team domestic competition, with a long term goal of 8 and possibly 10 teams.

 

[Dan54]

Yep that's okay to dis agree, we are least discussing options. But to clarify, I never said a 5 team competition is sustainable. The way forward would at least be a commitment to a 6 team domestic competition, with a long term goal of 8 and possibly 10 teams.

Yep, and it bloody good that we all got opinions and I believe we all looking at what we think is best for Rugby .

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yep that's okay to dis agree, we are least discussing options. But to clarify, I never said a 5 team competition is sustainable. The way forward would at least be a commitment to a 6 team domestic competition, with a long term goal of 8 and possibly 10 teams.

In order to pull that off we're going to need to see significant levels of investment.

 

[Dan54]

Actually, I just had a thought, someone mentioned on here about NH and there comps. Ask Scotland, Wales and Ireland why they don't have sperate club comp. They could have 5 team seperate comps, or perhaps go back to clubs teams that worked in 70s where they had more, but the competition suffers because you don't have top teams. So they play a mixed united comp where they can have strong teams playing in a meaningful comp, and you know what, they are pretty good comps, and a lot of us down here watch the rugby as well as them being reasonably successful and hold interest of supporters.

 

[dru]

Returning to 100% TT comp would be a backwards step. There is nothing wrong with a domestic comp followed by TT and there are plenty of options on how to arrange it. It also does not stop the development of more teams going forward.

We don't have enough teams - this seems obvious. But recall that NZR actually wants us to have fewer. There are plenty of structural and attitudinal issues that dictate being very careful about hoisting our petard solely to NZ. Those are the issues that spell the death-nell of Australian rugby. Pushing a domestic first comp is necessary.

 

[Derpus]

Returning to 100% TT comp would be a backwards step. There is nothing wrong with a domestic comp followed by TT and there are plenty of options on how to arrange it. It also does not stop the development of more teams going forward.

We don't have enough teams - this seems obvious. But recall that NZR actually wants us to have fewer. There are plenty of structural and attitudinal issues that dictate being very careful about hoisting our petard solely to NZ. This are the issues that spell the death-nell of Australian rugby. Pushing a domestic first comp is necessary.

We need to expand Rugby in Aus and i think we can do that carefully over time. But equally, i think we need to ensure we still have that international element and our teams also get tested against the best (ie Crusaders).

Regular comp followed by some kind of cross-over (or Champions league) works for me. It will probably need to be refined if we want to make the domestic comp bigger.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Returning to 100% TT comp would be a backwards step. There is nothing wrong with a domestic comp followed by TT and there are plenty of options on how to arrange it. It also does not stop the development of more teams going forward.

We don't have enough teams - this seems obvious. But recall that NZR actually wants us to have fewer. There are plenty of structural and attitudinal issues that dictate being very careful about hoisting our petard solely to NZ. This are the issues that spell the death-nell of Australian rugby. Pushing a domestic first comp is necessary.

For any expansion of teams we need the capital to get it done. That's the biggest obstacle. Not only to set up 2-3 more teams but bring back and sign talent from overseas. It's going to cost a lot of money. If we could find the money then I'd be all for it.

 

[kiap]

Okay sign up for a TT, but how does that get the game here any closer to more domestic content, how do we ever get to 8-10 teams.

Dunno about 8-10, but I think a medium-term 7 teams is an achievable SRAu number (and that possibly still even includes Drua). But bear in mind, whether it's 5, 6 or 7 in an Au format, it would still make sense for there to be an Aotearoa TT crossover on top.

So how do we get closer to this increased domestic content? I like to look at data trends. Pro rugby has been here roughly 25 years. Projecting forward another 25 years can tell a story.

On simple weight of numbers we're looking at a projected 15 million extra people here since 1995, along with the associated economic growth. That means there's room for even a 2nd-tier sport like rugby to expand into, provided it's managed sensibly.

We will never compare to AFL or NRL, but the point is we don't need that. It's still possible to grow the game here.

 

[Dctarget]

Dunno about 8-10, but I think a medium-term 7 teams is an achievable SRAu number (and that possibly still even includes Drua). But bear in mind, whether it's 5, 6 or 7, in an Au format, it would still make sense for there to be an Aotearoa TT crossover on top.

So how do we get closer to this increased domestic content? I like to look at data trends. Pro rugby has been here roughly 25 years. Projecting forward another 25 years can tell a story.

View attachment 12125

On simple weight of numbers we're looking at a projected 15 million extra people here since 1995, along with the associated economic growth. That means there's room for even a 2nd-tier sport like rugby to expand into, provided it's managed sensibly.

We will never compare to AFL or NRL, but the point is we don't need that. It's still possible to grow the game here.

Very good point. We have something over almost all other big rugby nations and that is we have essentially unfettered population growth. We don't have to increase our market share, just maintain it and naturally we'll have more & more players.

 

[dru]

We should also look GDP along with population trends. Australia's economy easily dwarfs a combined NZ + PI. It is also an economy that includes a huge spend on sport. We only need tweak that spend a few percentage points to make a massive difference the sport of rugby. To do that we need a product that is determinedly directed towards Australian interests.

NZ is a minor economy and the sport of rugby is at peak hence the NZRU desire for international elements. This is workable but only where the overall structure works for Australia.

Where Super had taken us was a sport that was not attractive to sponsors or fans. That must be the first consideration, irrespective of Kiwi/PI wants and desires. If Kiwi connections can be managed on the back of full resolution of the Australian national interest then that would be fantastic. But not otherwise.

Reducing Aus teams is not in National interest. Teams swanning it in weird time slots overseas, is not in the National interest. A lopsided comp is not in the National interest. A comp dominated by Kiwi teams is not in the national interest. Insufficient local content is not in the National Interest.

I'm all for a TT following a domestic system. But only where that TT is not arranging diversion of funds from Aus teams to say, PI teams.

AND sort things out here first.

 

[Derpus]

Id be kind of okay with drua getting some TV money if they played in the comp and brought a competitive side.

 

[liquor box]

I like the 5 team competition and would only move to 6 teams to allow for one Friday game and two on Saturday.

I like a short season where every game is important and missing a bonus point can be costly, the stakes are very high and this adds to the intensity.

I also like the idea of a TT season too.

Having two separate seasons is not a bad thing in my opinion.

I would not change much until the game is sustainable and I would keep it Australian only until the TT season.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I like the 5 team competition and would only move to 6 teams to allow for one Friday game and two on Saturday.

I like a short season where every game is important and missing a bonus point can be costly, the stakes are very high and this adds to the intensity.

I also like the idea of a TT season too.

Having two separate seasons is not a bad thing in my opinion.

I would not change much until the game is sustainable and I would keep it Australian only until the TT season.

I think in order to make it sustainable we're going to need more than 5 teams. Likely a minimum of 7 to 8. The question is how much is will cost and how best to get there.

 

[Rebel man]

Well I do remember playing for Croyden, when I used to live in Melbourne. Sadly my rugby ability never matched my enthusiasm.
Then maybe a TT is an option but again just make sure your not having to rip the band of in 10 years, what are the structural steps that need to be put in place that you have that option in 10 years.

You aren’t the only one in that boat I was always shit unfortunately.

Every comp needs to have a plan to expand even the NFL the worlds biggest football league is talking about expansion. I firmly believe that in the short term having a trans Tasman comp is by far the best option. We should be looking first to build the depth of our 5 existing sides and then look to expand to 6 Aus sides and so on and so on

 

[Rebel man]

We should also look GDP along with population trends. Australia's economy easily dwarfs a combined NZ + PI. It is also an economy that includes a huge spend on sport. We only need tweak that spend a few percentage points to make a massive difference the sport of rugby. To do that we need a product that is determinedly directed towards Australian interests.

NZ is a minor economy and the sport of rugby is at peak hence the NZRU desire for international elements. This is workable but only where the overall structure works for Australia.

Where Super had taken us was a sport that was not attractive to sponsors or fans. That must be the first consideration, irrespective of Kiwi/PI wants and desires. If Kiwi connections can be managed on the back of full resolution of the Australian national interest then that would be fantastic. But not otherwise.

Reducing Aus teams is not in National interest. Teams swanning it in weird time slots overseas, is not in the National interest. A lopsided comp is not in the National interest. A comp dominated by Kiwi teams is not in the national interest. Insufficient local content is not in the National Interest.

I'm all for a TT following a domestic system. But only where that TT is not arranging diversion of funds from Aus teams to say, PI teams.

AND sort things out here first.

We are never going to grow the game if we have a 5 game comp with two games a weekend

 

[dru]

We are never going to grow the game if we have a 5 game comp with two games a weekend

And we have a demonstrated fail too obscurity and worse with Super. Both issues are poisonous but one at least comes with opportunity.

A domestic followed by TT is about the only compromise available.

 

[Rebel man]

And we have a demonstrated fail too obscurity and worse with Super. Both issues are poisonous but one at least comes with opportunity.

A domestic followed by TT is about the only compromise available.

The issue with super rugby was games in South Africa. You talk about NZ having shit time zones but the games come in for a great time for viewers on the east coast.

If we to domestic comp plus TT you are playing 13 games it’s not enough it leaves sides with 6 home games.

A short season is shit and why is that because as soon as rugby is off tv everyone turns to footy and league and Union gets forgotten. We need a proper length season

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The issue with super rugby was games in South Africa. You talk about NZ having shit time zones but the games come in for a great time for viewers on the east coast.

If we to domestic comp plus TT you are playing 13 games it’s not enough it leaves sides with 6 home games.

A short season is shit and why is that because as soon as rugby is off tv everyone turns to footy and league and Union gets forgotten. We need a proper length season

This season. Next season it goes to 16 games.

 

[Rebel man]

This season. Next season it goes to 16 games.

Even that is too short we need a full length season also 16 weeks split across two comps in a horrid set up

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Even that is too short we need a full length season also 16 weeks split across two comps in a horrid set up

I'm not sure there's the appetite for a full double round robin competition of 22 rounds.