Where to for Super Rugby?

[barbarian]

Good point Kiap. How can we trial the investor model without knocking down the comp and starting again?

Didn't we try that with the Rebels? I could be wrong, I can't say I followed the ins and outs of that ownership model particularly closely.

If we can chart a middle ground between the status quo and a local comp with privately owned teams, that could be great.
.

 

[cyclopath]

Castle is paid to present that more inclusive public face. It's the only reason she was hired by the re-branded ARU, but it's still the same dysfunctional organisation.

• RN's “long list of wealthy benefactors” go to soccer's door in the first place because they're invited.

• Strewth and Cyclo chose to focus on “foreigners” investing here, while brushing off—or ignoring—the two Aussie magnates quoted to them.

Australian rugby people are conservative people. That's not about political leanings, but being distinctly averse to change – to the point of incurring continuous significant loss to tread the old familiar path. This applies to the alickadoos at the top table, right down to the mug punters typing on this page.


To be fair, yes there should be some strings attached to investment. The reality, though, is that RA doesn't want significant investment with what it entails. They prefer sponsorship cash.

So the question of “Where to for Super Rugby” has to be about the incremental change needed to evolve the competition, without “foreign” money.

Baby steps.

The right ones can even help.

Er, no. I noted that one was invested in WA Rugby, with no definite indication at this stage that the arrangement will go any further; the other apparently wants to invest in soccer. So your point was what?
I really resent being cast as averse to change. I'm averse to nebulous ideas without any substance, which is pretty much what has been presented thus far. It's not the same.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Maybe I am just trying to reconcile how Super Rugby and WSR will operate....as Super Rugby has oz teams - WSR has the force, WSR want Japanese side - Super Rugby has a Japanese side.....WSR want Fiji - Super Rugby wants Pacific Islands team....

Oz fans want uncertainty of outcome and more oz pro rugby content - how do we reconcile that. How much benefit will WSR benefit oz rugby - well at least with stronger WA / Force and pathways there sure can't hurt at least Wallabies. Would other current Super Rugby sides join WSR - no idea - lots of questions and not many answers as we have no idea what is planned for WSR and SANZAAR with Super Rugby just seem to have no ideas on how to make it more appealing (with best laid plans so far considering round robin format which will do bugger all to help create more oz interest in super rugby)

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Someone just wake me when they have better answer that gets me back to watching more pro rugby in this country.....until then I half in and half out

 

[Strewthcobber]

• Strewth and Cyclo chose to focus on “foreigners” investing here, while brushing off—or ignoring—the two Aussie magnates quoted to them.

To be fair to me I choose to focus on the A-League as a model, because it gets brought up "Half" the tim. And they do have an awful lot of foreign funding

So I have a look at that model and see if it's applicable to the situation we have with rugby.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Good point Kiap. How can we trial the investor model without knocking down the comp and starting again?

Didn't we try that with the Rebels? I could be wrong, I can't say I followed the ins and outs of that ownership model particularly closely.

If we can chart a middle ground between the status quo and a local comp with privately owned teams, that could be great.
.

Tried it twice with the Rebels, and had a go with the Tahs as well.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I wonder if we end up going the South Africa route with our teams playing in 2 pro comp's, i.e. super rugby and World Series rugby. As I could see another oz team possibly joining WSR and this aligning with WA/Twiggy interests (to have more games against local time friendly oz teams)…

Anyway I suppose we are all waiting to see what happens but less hopeful of any radical change for Super Rugby despite everyone agreeing it needs it if we are to believe messages coming out in the media from SANZAAR singapore meeting whilst most of us (including me) have no idea of what is planned for WSR at this stage for 2019......

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I wonder if we end up going the South Africa route with our teams playing in 2 pro comp's, i.e. super rugby and World Series rugby. As I could see another oz team possibly joining WSR and this aligning with WA/Twiggy interests (to have more games against local time friendly oz teams)…

Anyway I suppose we are all waiting to see what happens but less hopeful of any radical change for Super Rugby despite everyone agreeing it needs it if we are to believe messages coming out in the media from SANZAAR singapore meeting whilst most of us (including me) have no idea of what is planned for WSR at this stage for 2019..

I actually wouldn't mind the idea of Aus teams playing in two different competition providing that all Aus eligible players remain just that and the seasons are reasonably aligned. Perhaps we could see the Rebels move across to WSR and in the most ideal of scenarios a third Aus team join them. For the Rebels a lot of focus on promoting local talent supplemented as with the Force by international imports/ returning Aus players.

It could also open the door to an interesting crossover opportunity. Say if we went down the path of 3 in Super Rugby and 2 or 3 in WSR then we could look to run some sort of play off series post both Super Rugby and WSR between the teams to determine which is best season on season.

 

[kiap]

Er, no. I noted that one was invested in WA Rugby, with no definite indication at this stage that the arrangement will go any further; the other apparently wants to invest in soccer. So your point was what?

That there are Australians with money to throw at Australian sport, including rugby.

I really resent being cast as averse to change. I'm averse to nebulous ideas without any substance, which is pretty much what has been presented thus far. It's not the same.

It was a friendly shot that I thought easy enough to shrug off – but in hindsight things are a little different around this place from 18 months ago.

Relax, I know you're a good guy.

I really do think you've brushed off Forrest, though.

Do these "nebulous ideas without any substance" include World Series Rugby? I would have thought that it encompasses boundaries a lot further than WA Rugby. The dude has spent $14m on rugby this year. There's no guaranteed certainty in starting that new path, by definition, but there's enough data there to see there's substance.

The point to be made on private investment is that the potential sellers (within Aus rugby) have to be honestly open to that investment. They haven't been in that position.

As an example, the ARU turned down a superior bid led by Alan Whinney for the Rebels that would have absorbed all Melbourne's future losses from 2015 onward. They didn't want that private investment. Finally they were forced into actually *paying* Andrew Cox to take it away, then *paying* again to get it back.

They racked up millions on the ARU's own tab to hold it. By choice! And then millions more to offload it, then take it back.

Australian rugby willingly incurs significant losses staying on their old broken path. The mindset is nuts.

 

[kiap]

Good point Kiap. How can we trial the investor model without knocking down the comp and starting again?

Didn't we try that with the Rebels? I could be wrong, I can't say I followed the ins and outs of that ownership model particularly closely.

If we can chart a middle ground between the status quo and a local comp with privately owned teams, that could be great.
.

See my comment on the Rebels in the post above.

I've moved on from the big overhaul in the last few months on this thread. It's not going to happen in Super Rugby. That doesn't mean it can't be evolved in a (perhaps) less radical way to be improved.

Well, my thoughts are still radical but it would remain within Sanzaar and even keep SA on board if they chose. It makes too much sense to actually be considered, of course.

Really it's a case of seeing how the old rehashed soup survives, or dies, from 2021 on.

---
For the investor model in rugby, I think that's going to come down to WSR. Starting it from scratch certainly won't be easy and patience and persistence will be required. It will be a case of seeing how that survives or dies as well.

Oz rugby will get to see that without funding it or helping in any real way. That's a good thing, although many will pooh-pooh the standard and lack of substance.

The model may yet turn out to be a life raft for a sinking code.

 

[cyclopath]

That there are Australians with money to throw at Australian sport, including rugby.



It was a friendly shot that I thought easy enough to shrug off – but in hindsight things are a little different around this place from 18 months ago.

Relax, I know you're a good guy.

I really do think you've brushed off Forrest, though.

Do these "nebulous ideas without any substance" include World Series Rugby? I would have thought that it encompasses boundaries a lot further than WA Rugby. The dude has spent $14m on rugby this year. There's no guaranteed certainty in starting that new path, by definition, but there's enough data there to see there's substance.

The point to be made on private investment is that the potential sellers (within Aus rugby) have to be honestly open to that investment. They haven't been in that position.

As an example, the ARU turned down a superior bid led by Alan Whinney for the Rebels that would have absorbed all Melbourne's future losses from 2015 onward. They didn't want that private investment. Finally they were forced into actually *paying* Andrew Cox to take it away, then *paying* again to get it back.

They racked up millions on the ARU's own tab to hold it. By choice! And then millions more to offload it, then take it back.

Australian rugby willingly incurs significant losses staying on their old broken path. The mindset is nuts.

OK, 2 guys (as I acknowledged) and as I pointed out, Forrest thus far has committed to WA Rugby and no further, which I thought was fair enough after he was rebuffed by RA earlier; the other has indicated interest in soccer which doesn't help us much. I certainly have not brushed off Forrest, I just don't think that he, currently, wants to save Aus rugby, and neither should he.
No, WSR is not a nebulous idea, as it is happening (or going to). The few models thrown about here as the "answer" are though - some sort of Club or NRC on steroids, or Trans-Tasman comp (which the Kiwis have clearly rejected so far) and so on. So too the idea that a bunch of cashed up entities are going to set up a private comp. Great idea, but I think at the moment, fanciful, until we see people putting up their hands (and money) to that effect.
Sure, RA has to change, I don't think anyone is rationally arguing otherwise, but there are many other steps that need to happen too.

 

[kiap]

OK, 2 guys (as I acknowledged)

Only after I typed 'cyclo' in a post … c'mon, does Half have to go trawling through the web to find names who've stumped up buy-in money for teams so you can keep a tally? Surely it can be taken as given that there's more than two guys out there. I named the head of the BidCo syndicate in my last reply.

I certainly have not brushed off Forrest, I just don't think that he, currently, wants to save Aus rugby, and neither should he.

Well, let's agree on that!

I don't go along with the suggestion that he's only committed to WA Rugby, though – unless of course your horizon only extends to Aus rugby postcodes starting with 2, 3, or 4 … certainly for now.

There's already work that's been done and money spent internationally which, incidentally, is not antithetical to Australian rugby. Even this could be useful to Australia down the track.

The few models thrown about here as the "answer" are though - some sort of Club or NRC on steroids, or Trans-Tasman comp (which the Kiwis have clearly rejected so far) and so on.

You somehow seem to have missed my model.

In many ways it's quite conservative. Sanzaar as the peak body would still market it. No countries kicked out. No teams forced out. Fewer NZ derbies. A consistent run (and greater number) of Aus prime time matches. A theoretical 83% chance of an Aus team winning a grand final … all this and much, much more!

Hey, it might not be enough, given the poor state of the Soup as a starting point, but it may remove some of the whinge.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yeh WCR with all of us struggling to find answers for perfect professional rugby comp for us to be involved in perhaps the answer is to be involved in both and not have all our eggs in one basket.

It appeals to me at this point...I would like to see more than one oz side in WSR as would get me to watch more matches....

 

[dru]

I actually wouldn't mind the idea of Aus teams playing in two different competition providing that all Aus eligible players remain just that and the seasons are reasonably aligned. Perhaps we could see the Rebels move across to WSR and in the most ideal of scenarios a third Aus team join them. For the Rebels a lot of focus on promoting local talent supplemented as with the Force by international imports/ returning Aus players.

It could also open the door to an interesting crossover opportunity. Say if we went down the path of 3 in Super Rugby and 2 or 3 in WSR then we could look to run some sort of play off series post both Super Rugby and WSR between the teams to determine which is best season on season.

This is one of the key concepts (via Curry Cup) of the RSA model. They've also used it to bring through the less prominent RUs. AND to involve externals such as Namibia. Food for thought there.

 

[half]

Cyclopath

I find your response still is one that is demanding proof.

You question another soccer reference implying I am not sure what, but I am sure to some it means something. To me soccer is the most obvious code to compare ourselves too. Both have been around a long time in Australia both international, and both light years behind AFL & League.

But lets leave soccer aside.

My belief is we need a national domestic competition. My reasons for this are it works all over the world and the most successful competitions are those run by the teams themselves under licence from their governing bodies.

Do you wish to debate this point. Essentially do you wish to debate the principal that world over almost every successful sporting competition is run like this. American Football, FIFA competitions in most countries operate using this model, Baseball competition world over mostly use model, Basketball world over mostly uses this model, In India both the IPL in cricket and a similar competition in soccer also use this model.

You seem to be demanding, or insisting that we can’t even discuss this model unless there is proof of willing investors.

THIS then is my answer, I have enormous faith in the game. So much faith in the game that I believe there are a number of people willing to invest if models similar to the USA models were established.

I also believe two other things, first the national domestic competition is way more important than national teams as national teams are strengthen by strong domestic leagues.

Second by far the greater risk for rugby today is to continue to do what is obviously failing. To repeat the same mistake over and over is negligence.

Rugby has no separation of powers which a corner stone or foundation stone in is most successful in countries like Australia. We need private capital if for no other reason than to break momo control over rugby that RA enjoy.

 

[wamberal]

AFAIK there is absolutely nothing stopping any of this multitude of rich dudes busting to put money into rugby actually doing something about it.


Are we really supposed to believe that RA is actually refusing to cooperate with a battalion of rich sugar daddies who love the game?

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclopath


You seem to be demanding, or insisting that we can’t even discuss this model unless there is proof of willing investors.

No. I am not. Discuss as much as you want. It's just my opinion that I do not think there are a lot of private equity individuals or groups that want to invest substantial sums in Rugby in Australia. Just as your opinion is that there are. That's all. Differing opinions is all that is happening. As I have said multiple times now, if they are there, and they appear, and they invest, fantastic.
Saying that I don't think that model is going to happen is not saying that I want to see the same things happening and same mistakes repeated. Stop conflating the two things.

 

[Derpus]

Is this the longest thread in internet history?

 

[hoggy]

The point is that under the current Super Rugby and Test model that we are connected to in Australia, you are not going to be able to garner any real level of private investment.

The problem lies in the level of control the national bodies have. Yes they need to control Test rugby, but it is there involvement at the level below, Super rugby that is the issue. They want there cake and eat it as well.

 

[oztimmay]

Is this the longest thread in internet history?

Yes. No doubt. Soon, the Donald will take credit for it.