Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

Let's dive into this concept a bit more then. Given we're talking 2020 here you have to assume the June internationals are being pushed back to July, so we have a clear timeline of Aussie Comp/Champions League/July Internationals/TRC.

I assume by 6 teams you are talking about the current four plus Force and Sunwolves. Fiji Drua could be a good addition too.

My one thought is do you think it would get a bit stale? Playing the same teams, watching the same teams, playing in a competition with low stakes? There is no trophy at the end, just a chance to play in the 'Champions League'.

I think it could help the top teams, for sure. There would definitely be interest in the Champions League once it starts. But would the lower teams supporters get along to the 'Challenge Cup' or whatever you call the 2nd tier league? I'm not sure.

So you might end up with the Tahs playing in front of 20k while the Brumbies play in front of 2k.

Not trying to appear overly critical, I like this idea. Just want to dive into it a bit more and work through the kinks.
.

Initially I'm talking about the current 4 plus the Force as you say. For the 6th team I'm open to options - would need to be looked at in depth as to what was the best long term option. Including the Sunwolves massively increases overheads as it would involve flying teams to and from Tokyo every week. My preference (subject to economics, but I think it would work), would be a combined Pacific Islands team playing out of Western Sydney. (The recent Tonga v Samoa league test drew almost 20,000 to Cambelltown stadium for a one off test with nothing on the line but pride)

There would be a tophy at the end after the 1st v 2nd playoff.

I'm certainly open to modification and acknowledge that it needs to be part of a whole game restructure in Australia which involves professional, semi-professional and amateur rugby. The lack of coherent structure in that area is a huge problem, whether this proposal is adopted or the current model continues. Possibly the full-time professionals go back to play with semi-professionals during the chamions league as some would be needed for Wallaby duty.

IMO Australian rugby may need to take a small step backwards to consolidate the game in the short term. Clearly the current structure isn't working, it's borderline dysfunctional in so many ways with multiple layers of overlapping unions and bureaucracy. Where we are at the moment, there just aren't a range of fantastic options. We need to try to find the least worst option which has the greatest chance of developing the game long-term, even if it involves short term pain.

As Ireland have shown, it's possible to change and improve based on changes to structure at administrative and operational levels. The whole game in Australia needs change - not just to boards and committees, but to the whole way the game is structured. So many vested interests in maintaining the status quo are a problem. There are many things in Australian rugby worth keeping and preserving, but everyone is going to have to give a little to make it work - it can't just be decisions handed down from on high without meaningful consultation and input from a range of stakeholders.

 

[Quick Hands]

I agree with this. The finances around running a club with only 5 guaranteed home games would be pretty diabolical.

Local derbies are generally good for TV but it can't be ignored that a significant portion of the rugby supporter base are expats. The Rebels for example have often had their best crowds against NZ teams because those fans turn up to those games.

Change is needed but it is crystal clear that there is no option that is obviously the best way forward.

You realise that the Waratahs are only guaranteed 8 home games a year in the current set-up? A current set-up which includes significant international travel and accomodation costs.

So I suspect that the "diabolical" finances involving 5 home games and only domestic travel would be nowhere near as "diabolical" as the competition with only 3 extra guaranteed home games but has to fly it's whole team and support staff across the globe? Noting also that when they go to South Africa and Argentina, they tend to spend a week there which involves significant costs. i.e. 7 nights hotel accomodation, bus transfers, hire of training facilities etc, etc, etc.

I can't see how having an extra 3 home games is going to pay for all that international travel and accomodation.

In fact as I type I see that you have provided me with even more belief that it's the current competition which is far more financially diabolical than anything that I could come up with.

 

[Braveheart81]

You realise that the Waratahs are only guaranteed 8 home games a year in the current set-up? A current set-up which includes significant international travel and accomodation costs.

So I suspect that the "diabolical" finances involving 5 home games and only domestic travel would be nowhere near as "diabolical" as the competition with only 3 extra guaranteed home games but has to fly it's whole team and support staff across the globe? Noting also that when they go to South Africa and Argentina, they tend to spend a week there which involves significant costs. i.e. 7 nights hotel accomodation, bus transfers, hire of training facilities etc, etc, etc.

I can't see how having an extra 3 home games is going to pay for all that international travel and accomodation.

In fact as I type I see that you have provided me with even more belief that it's the current competition which is far more financially diabolical than anything that I could come up with.

Yes, but the difference between 5 games and 8 games is massive. The costs don't go down substantially by having a shorter season.

The travel costs are significant but a relatively small cost in the scheme of the annual budget. Wages are by far the biggest cost.

 

[Rebels3]

Those 3 extra games translate into more TV dollars, more exposure to the community, more exposure for potential sponsors = dollars they are prepared to invest and that's not just per teams, it's stadium sponsors, competition sponsors, etc.

I appreciate the theory behind your idea, but economically it wouldn't be viable. There isn't one major professional sporting competition in the world that survives on 10 games. For my mind, super rugby is too short as it is, it's even shorter than the NFL which is saying something. Personally the best way forward in my eyes would be an 11 team (5 x Aus, 5 x NZ, 1 x Fiji) over 20 weeks home and away plus some finals (set rotating finals venue), then a short 4-6 week long tournament involving teams from other nations (SA, Arg, who ever), Bledisloe played during the season etc. but due to historical factors (the NPC, etc.) it's just not an option at the moment.

 

[Quick Hands]

Those 3 extra games translate into more TV dollars, more exposure to the community, more exposure for potential sponsors = dollars they are prepared to invest and that's not just per teams, it's stadium sponsors, competition sponsors, etc.

In case you haven't noticed, the community aren't watching.

There isn't one major professional sporting competition in the world that survives on 10 games. For my mind, super rugby is too short as it is, it's even shorter than the NFL which is saying something. Personally the best way forward in my eyes would be an 11 team (5 x Aus, 5 x NZ, 1 x Fiji) over 20 weeks home and away plus some finals (set rotating finals venue), then a short 4-6 week long tournament involving teams from other nations (SA, Arg, who ever), Bledisloe played during the season etc. but due to historical factors (the NPC, etc.) it's just not an option at the moment.

Nor is there one major sporting competition in the world which involves international travel across 4 continents and multiple time zones.

In fact, almost all professional sporting competitions around the world are purely domestic leagues. The NHL in North America is about the only one that I can think of that isn't. Any club-based multi-national competitions around the world are champions league type ones. No one has copied the super rugby model and nobody will.

NZ won't agree to a Trans-Tasman competition, so it's off the table.

The only thing that prevents it from being more than 10 weeks is that there isn't the player base at the moment to go much beyond 6 teams - you could stretch it to 8 using the NRC groupings, but expansion beyond that is long term.

With the greatest respect, you've fallen into the trap of thinking in the short term only. Australian rugby needs to do what every other major sport in Australia does and stand on our own two feet with a domestic league. 12,000 spectators (many of whom were kiwi expats) at a quarter final in a city of almost 5,000,000 people. If this isn't an illustration that the concept of super rugby is a failure, then nothing will convince you.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes, but the difference between 5 games and 8 games is massive. The costs don't go down substantially by having a shorter season.

The travel costs are significant but a relatively small cost in the scheme of the annual budget. Wages are by far the biggest cost.

Just so I don't misrepresent you, are you saying that 5 home games is financially unsustainable but 8 home games (i.e. and extra 3) is? Are you also saying that flying upwards of 30 people business class and accomodating them for 5-7 nights is "relatively small"? (relative to what?)

EDIT: If the number of home games is your only issue, playing 3 rounds guarantees 7 home games in one year and 8 the next.

 

[Rebels3]

You won't have a player base for 3 teams let alone 5/6 if you have a 10 week competition. Young prospects would either play league or Union overseas, and the pros at a decent level would be in France, Japan and England getting paid, a lot that fall in the middle just wouldn't play due to work commitments and the threat of injury. The standard would be below NSW Cup Rugby League.

There needs to be a balance.

 

[Braveheart81]

No one is arguing that the current competition is working Quick Hands.

Returning to the problems with the current competition doesn't mitigate the issued raised with a 10 week competition.

A domestic league isn't going to solve our problems if it is NRC standard. It will greatly exacerbate them because we'll have fewer good players playing in the country, fewer people watching games and hamstring the Wallabies to the extent that the one thing that actually generates positive cashflow will be less competitive.

 

[Quick Hands]

You won't have a player base for 3 teams let alone 5/6 if you have a 10 week competition. Young prospects would either play league or Union overseas, and the pros at a decent level would be in France, Japan and England getting paid, a lot that fall in the middle just wouldn't play due to work commitments and the threat of injury. The standard would be below NSW Cup Rugby League.

There needs to be a balance.

Then give some other options that aren't the super rugby model. If someone is able to provide a better model that me, I'm more than happy to acknowledge it and support. Nothing I suggest is set in stone and everything that I suggest needs to be costed. I've never said otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't work for RA, so I don't have access to the sort of information that I need.

If I was at RA, one thing that I would have already done is go to Foxtel and the FTA channels and engaged with them about what interest (if any) they would have in a professional domestic league. This sort of thing takes months, if not years, of planning and analysis.

 

[Quick Hands]

No one is arguing that the current competition is working Quick Hands.

Returning to the problems with the current competition doesn't mitigate the issued raised with a 10 week competition.

A domestic league isn't going to solve our problems if it is NRC standard. It will greatly exacerbate them because we'll have fewer good players playing in the country, fewer people watching games and hamstring the Wallabies to the extent that the one thing that actually generates positive cashflow will be less competitive.

If we truly want to grow the game in this country, then a domestic professional league is our only option. We have to find a way, some way, to make it work.

 

[hoggy]

Quick Hands - NZ won't agree to a Trans-Tasman competition, so it's off the table.





While SA are involved with Super Rugby and putting in the dollars in, they probably won't, but remove SA and i'd say they'd take about 8/9 seconds to be interested in a Trans-Tasman comp.[/quote]

 

[Braveheart81]

Just so I don't misrepresent you, are you saying that 5 home games is financially unsustainable but 8 home games (i.e. and extra 3) is? Are you also saying that flying upwards of 30 people business class and accomodating them for 5-7 nights is "relatively small"? (relative to what?)

EDIT: If the number of home games is your only issue, playing 3 rounds guarantees 7 home games in one year and 8 the next.

Yes, 8 home games is far more sustainable than 5. The costs of running a team don't drop dramatically with the shorter competition and the additional home games both in terms of gate takings and TV revenue go up substantially with the additional games.

You make it sound like the travel costs in Super Rugby are the biggest cost in the competition. They are far from it. Paying players and staff is well over 50% of the total expenditure for each team. That is the biggest cost.

Clearly it isn't a cheap cost to fly people round the world on a two week tour each season but it isn't also something that will totally transform the finances of the competition if you eliminate it.

If you increase the first part of the domestic season to 15 games, do you run out of time to play the international portion of the competition? Does playing the same sides 3 times each in the space of 15 weeks mean fans lose interest? Amount of content is important to every sporting competition but you'd need to consider whether more of the same content diminishes the value of that content too much. I don't know the answer to this.

 

[hoggy]

Then give some other options that aren't the super rugby model. If someone is able to provide a better model that me, I'm more than happy to acknowledge it and support. Nothing I suggest is set in stone and everything that I suggest needs to be costed. I've never said otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't work for RA, so I don't have access to the sort of information that I need.

If I was at RA, one thing that I would have already done is go to Foxtel and the FTA channels and engaged with them about what interest (if any) they would have in a professional domestic league. This sort of thing takes months, if not years, of planning and analysis.

But this is the catch 22 of the situation we are in. The RA will not pursue change as they are to linked to the Wallaby brand.

In 2020 we go to the ridiculous situation of dedicating 6 months of the year to Test rugby, the RA are not going to drive any real change as they are the ones that change will affect the most, and one of the main reasons why we cannot attract any real private investment.

 

[Braveheart81]

But this is the catch 22 of the situation we are in. The RA will not pursue change as they are to linked to the Wallaby brand.

In 2020 we go to the ridiculous situation of dedicating 6 months of the year to Test rugby, the RA are not going to drive any real change as they are the ones that change will affect the most, and one of the main reasons why we cannot attract any real private investment.

Do you really think Rugby Australia is in a position to dictate how World Rugby works and turn our back on the only thing that generates positive cashflow for rugby in Australia?

We have to work out the best thing to do with the first half of the year and then the best competition to play domestically whilst test rugby is going on. Test rugby itself is very unlikely to change anytime soon.

 

[hoggy]

Do you really think Rugby Australia is in a position to dictate how World Rugby works and turn our back on the only thing that generates positive cashflow for rugby in Australia?

We have to work out the best thing to do with the first half of the year and then the best competition to play domestically whilst test rugby is going on. Test rugby itself is very unlikely to change anytime soon.

This is a real dilemma for the game here, but there are real warning signs that in Australia this may very well ultimately destroy the game.

The upside down pyramid, we have turned Test team Wallaby Gold into Friday night Pizza and 6 pack, how can we justify 15/16 Tests a year in a game as physical as rugby, we play NZ 3 times every year, yet wonder why the stands are not full and half the TV's are not turned on.

Yes it creates the cash-flow, that's because we've sold the kitchen sink, what do we sell next.

Will Test rugby change soon, well yes I think the Northern Club comps will soon dictate that it will change, remember they are having to accommodate national teams that are playing 15/16 tests a year, most of these meaningless friendlies.

(Yes they may be those evil clubs, but they are the ones generating the dollars. And all indicators are that this is where future dollar growth is going to come from.)

I do not believe that you can generate support or a fan base with a top down model like the Wallabies, it may work in NZ where the game dominates, but in Australia IMO appears to be slowly driving the game to irrelevance.

 

[Braveheart81]

Will Test rugby change soon, well yes I think the Northern Club comps will soon dictate that it will change, remember they are having to accommodate national teams that are playing 15/16 tests a year, most of these meaningless friendlies.

(Yes they may be those evil clubs, but they are the ones generating the dollars. And all indicators are that this is where future dollar growth is going to come from.)

Most tier 1 teams are playing around 13 tests a year. I think we have once or twice played 15 but never 16.

Most years we play 14 tests.

The RFU still generates most of their revenue from test rugby. The top players are still generating a significant portion of their earnings from test rugby.

I don't think this is close to changing.

What makes you think the English clubs (as an example) are the ones generating the dollars?

 

[hoggy]

Most tier 1 teams are playing around 13 tests a year. I think we have once or twice played 15 but never 16.

Most years we play 14 tests.

The RFU still generates most of their revenue from test rugby. The top players are still generating a significant portion of their earnings from test rugby.

I don't think this is close to changing.

What makes you think the English clubs (as an example) are the ones generating the dollars?

Sorry, they haven't played 16, but the pressure is now constantly on for more Tests to generate revenue, from a source that's original wealth was from its scarcity, how can this be a viable long term strategy.

Agreed the top players are earning a major part of there income from Tests, but as in Australia we have the situation where 99% of your revenue is going to a very small part of the game.

The avenue for growth in English/french club rugby is clear to, with Test rugby we have maxed out our potential, as i said we've sold the kitchen sink.

If the English premiership grows 5% a year say, how long before that growth equates influence.

Look i don't know what the answer is. But I firmly believe especially in Australia's case, that the game here will never really see genuine growth using the structure that is proposed.

 

[Omar Comin']

While I think it might happen eventually, I believe we're still probably at least a decade away from the European clubs having the power to force a reduction in the length of the test season.

Given all the constraints (the length of the test season, finances, NZ and SA priorities, RA's high performance priority, international player market etc), the more I think about it, the more I think the best option may be to contract Super Rugby quite a lot and expand World Series Rugby or the NRC into a normal length, independently run competition.

i.e.

Reduce Super Rugby to 8-10 elite teams: All players and coaches etc centrally contracted by the unions. Something like 2 Australian teams, 3 from NZ, 2 from SA, 1 Arg (maybe), 1 Japan (maybe), 1 Pacific Islands (maybe). Could all be done and dusted in 10-12 weeks then onto the test season. As part of this we bring back Australia A to play a handful of matches per year, utilising the centrally contracted players and coaches etc. Would provide elite performance focus, allow the unions to keep hold of virtually every top player they want to, provide optimal test preparation and help extend careers as top players would play less.

World Series Rugby: At least 3 and hopefully more Australian teams, 2 NZ (if they want in), plus other teams from the islands and Asia. All teams run independently of the unions with budgets and player salaries determined by commercial interest and whatever Andrew Forrest and any other investors are willing to put in. Can focus on building rivalries and innovating. Maybe it grows and eventually takes over.

There's not many other options that work within the known constraints that don't look very much like the status quo.

 

[half]

Just so I don't misrepresent you, are you saying that 5 home games is financially unsustainable but 8 home games (i.e. and extra 3) is? Are you also saying that flying upwards of 30 people business class and accomodating them for 5-7 nights is "relatively small"? (relative to what?)

EDIT: If the number of home games is your only issue, playing 3 rounds guarantees 7 home games in one year and 8 the next.

In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of 9 east coast teams, plus Perth. With 11 home games to help pay the bills and travel bills maybe 10% of current cost.

And I somehow fancy that I’d like to change Super Rugby, to a local domestic competition as the seasons come and go.

 

[Quick Hands]

Quick Hands - NZ won't agree to a Trans-Tasman competition, so it's off the table.





While SA are involved with Super Rugby and putting in the dollars in, they probably won't, but remove SA and i'd say they'd take about 8/9 seconds to be interested in a Trans-Tasman comp.

[/quote]

Who's going to remove SA?