Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

Do they Japanese want involvement at a provincial level, or they intent on simply upgrading their own domestic calendar which already works reasonably well and growing on that?

There's only one way to find out.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

WOB I don’t think anyone is suggesting that NZRU are not doing well here. The concern is that in spite this the arrangements are a very poor outcome for Australia. A TT may well be pie in the sky for NZ under circumstances where they do not suffer the consequences.

For Australia it is a slow speed train crash where each year is worse than the last and the Super advocates re-state each year “well we are not strong enough this year to address it”.

While NZ might like the arrangements of Super, I maintain that a broad Super view would conclude that the result is poor for the competition as a whole, irrespective of Kiwi strength. But 5 Kiwi teams does not a competition make.

Australia should depart. Let NZ ride the tiger of Super while we try to rebuild something that better suits the Australian market. Logically NZ would be welcome at any time, though a “best for competition” approach would be required not a “best for NZ” followed by “we need a strong Australia” platitudes.

It is well time for us to depart.

I think NZR might keen on (or at least not utterly opposed to) something Trans-Tasman at M10/NRC level, whether combined or end-of-season cross-over (Champions League-style), but I just don't think it's viable as a Super Rugby replacement & I think RA also recognise that.

 

[hoggy]

I think NZR might keen on (or at least not utterly opposed to) something Trans-Tasman at M10/NRC level, whether combined or end-of-season cross-over (Champions League-style), but I just don't think it's viable as a Super Rugby replacement & I think RA also recognise that.

Much of the viability issue comes back to Super Rugby essentially being a purpose built training camp for each countries National teams. The inherent structural restraints and compromises this brings renders any replacement not viable, unless those underlying issues are addressed.

The catch 22 for Australia is this is a perfect fit for NZ where the All Black brand is king and rugby dominates the market, for all its flaws Super rugby works for them.

Whereas in Australia rugby is a bit player, struggling for any relevance especially domestically. Test rugby still has a level of value and interest, however it is near on impossible to gain any market penetration domestically with Super rugby, hence the death by a thousand cuts, as that supporter base slowly dwindles.

 

[half]

Why would private money be interested in the NRC?

They would own the teams and the competition they play in

And why would they want that?

Go back and find my posts on using US franchise systems. I have written almost essays on how and why.

With great fear I speak the unspeakable.

The A-League if I posted and compared ratings and crowds, the general concusses would be they are worst than we are?

So lets assume A-League crowds and ratings are worst than ours. Lets also acknowledge two things they are just out of a 3 year civil war resulting in their clubs taking ownership of the local domestic competition.

So what you might say.

Roughly two and a bit years ago FFA called for bids by private investors to buy teams in the A-League and received 15 bids of which two got in.

Today an article, so the timing is perfect a News soccer journalist has gone back to 11 of the losing bids. All still want in.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/8c53cc34ddc9bdfd89fb08d813829a35

Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, Gridiron, Netball all have private owners in their leagues.

People like owing sporting teams. There is no reason why Australian rugby would be any different.

 

[hoggy]

The problem rugby faces is it doesn't want private money, it just wants someone to pay the bills. As you say people like owning sporting teams and rich people will happily invest large sums, but they at least want some sort of ownership, a level of ego is involved here. With Super rugby you can't get them to invest and then give them a list of conditions.

Harold Mitchell happily gifted the Rebels back to the VRU, because he realized it was just a money pit, he had no control of the team or competition. No input into any changes necessary to make them at least viable.

 

[Lorenzo]

Is there private money lining up to buy into GRR?

 

[Derpus]

Is there private money lining up to buy into GRR?

I mean, GRR is entirely private.

There is also a shitload of private money looking to buy into all levels of European rugby.

 

[Lorenzo]

Yet only one Aus team, despite apparent widespread Aus interest in owning teams?

 

[Derpus]

I guess buying a team that exists in a competition that exists is important to them.

 

[half]

Yet only one Aus team, despite apparent widespread Aus interest in owning teams?

In my post on the previous page I posted in part the following.

"""

To me it seems we have always demanded near certainty in outcome before we proceed. This combined with poor nay diabolical analysis of our position at every point. Total over execration and reading of our positions and equally overly pessimistic on even small changes.""""


You seem so pessimistic that no one will wanta invest and I have already posted you where Lang Walker wanted to help rugby but finished up helping an A-League team.

Instead of saying private investors won't come.

You should be asking what can we do to get private investors to invest. It's not like people don't like owning sporting teams.

No one BTW especially me says walk away with a big bang. My timetable has always been five years. It's just we never want to start.

Timetable

Years 1 & 2

Unify various stakeholders and develop a concept for a workable sustainable Plan B.

Year 3

Further develop the concept, and invite private investors.

Year 4

Development of the agreed plan, introduction of private investors.

Year 5

Implementation

The issue is we are running out of time and if we can't get decent media dollar we will rush things and fuck them up.

As an aside, and the reason for the long unity and discussion phase. Its whats needed if you want it to work. Best example I have is the ""Nobody Really Cares" competition was develop by Pulver in under six months and has 32 games, the previous one developed by Flower was developed in under 4 months and it did not last past its first year.

The FFA in developing their FFA Cup, which has the final 32 games broadcast on Fox, FFA spend just under two and a half years getting all levels from park team, to A-League teams to agree and its grown every year and is considered one of the few things FFA management did well.

 

[half]

The problem rugby faces is it doesn't want private money, it just wants someone to pay the bills. As you say people like owning sporting teams and rich people will happily invest large sums, but they at least want some sort of ownership, a level of ego is involved here. With Super rugby you can't get them to invest and then give them a list of conditions.

Harold Mitchell happily gifted the Rebels back to the VRU, because he realized it was just a money pit, he had no control of the team or competition. No input into any changes necessary to make them at least viable.

Very astute

Very true

Very sad

 

[kiap]

Yet only one Aus team, despite apparent widespread Aus interest in owning teams?

Yep, because RA has forbidden Aus teams to enter.

Rugby Australia and their counterparts over the ditch indicated they would not support his plan to get a team each in western Sydney and New Zealand in time for the 2019 season kick-off in March.​

​

With the new Super Rugby agreement to start in 2021 and the global calendar on a similar time frame, both Rugby Australia (RA) and NSW Rugby want more time to work out how a second professional team playing in a different competition would work in the existing landscape.​

​

It means that apart from the Western Force, World Series Rugby will not have any Australian or New Zealand teams until 2020 at the very earliest.​

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ow-to-world-series-rugby-20181011-p508zc.html​

​

Nothing moves while Super Rugby is still scraping its undercarriage through the burning eucalyptus tree tops.

 

[Lorenzo]

No way! Well there you go. That does sound shortsighted.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I am beginning to think with behaviour towards GRR others in connected circles telling me is we have to have an entire spill of the board and key management to move forward.

We need a campaign for the ‘Broom and clean sweep for a better rugby administration’

Dick Marks your a legend - with this Current mob
We are clearly on the path to irrelevance for rugby...

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The problem rugby faces is it doesn't want private money, it just wants someone to pay the bills. As you say people like owning sporting teams and rich people will happily invest large sums, but they at least want some sort of ownership, a level of ego is involved here. With Super rugby you can't get them to invest and then give them a list of conditions.

Harold Mitchell happily gifted the Rebels back to the VRU, because he realized it was just a money pit, he had no control of the team or competition. No input into any changes necessary to make them at least viable.

It’s time - time for a major purge in Australian Rugby board

 

[dru]

I think NZR might keen on (or at least not utterly opposed to) something Trans-Tasman at M10/NRC level, whether combined or end-of-season cross-over (Champions League-style), but I just don't think it's viable as a Super Rugby replacement & I think RA also recognise that.

Hey WOB. I see it and I hear you. It still doesn't work for Australia. Doesnt actually meet pretty much any of the issues i have suggested are key.

I admire NZ rugby admin, greatly. But it is time for Australia to depart. If it works slightly, then NZ can evaluate the importance of Australia in a different envirnoment. If it doesn't work, well we were stuffed anyway.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yep, because RA has forbidden Aus teams to enter.

Rugby Australia and their counterparts over the ditch indicated they would not support his plan to get a team each in western Sydney and New Zealand in time for the 2019 season kick-off in March.​

​

With the new Super Rugby agreement to start in 2021 and the global calendar on a similar time frame, both Rugby Australia (RA) and NSW Rugby want more time to work out how a second professional team playing in a different competition would work in the existing landscape.​

​

It means that apart from the Western Force, World Series Rugby will not have any Australian or New Zealand teams until 2020 at the very earliest.​

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ow-to-world-series-rugby-20181011-p508zc.html​

​

Nothing moves while Super Rugby is still scraping its undercarriage through the burning eucalyptus tree tops.

Thinking about this Kiap I suppose really what this is about is RA and NZRU did not want to entertain a Western Sydney or NZ team whilst still negotiating a new Super Rugby deal. As yes they would be concerned this may impact negatively on broadcast deal negotiations. Once broadcast deal signed for Super Rugby that would then allow opportunities for Western Sydney and NZ team to enter GRR. While I am disappointed Western Sydney team won't be in place for 2020 GRR or indeed a NZ team, I get the commercial reality whilst negotiations for Super Rugby broadcast deal are still in play. As given interest in Super Rugby fallen off a cliff negotiations will be challenging to strike a good deal.

 

[kiap]

RA and NZRU did not want to entertain a Western Sydney or NZ team whilst still negotiating a new Super Rugby deal.

I'd say that's so (super plus non-euro tests - the former really can't stand alone without the latter).

Sanzaar wanted this wrapped up quite some time ago but, while NZR have their home market deal, RA is still waiting for a dance.

Once broadcast deal signed for Super Rugby that would then allow opportunities for Western Sydney and NZ team to enter GRR.

Maybe, but we don't really know that.

It will depend on what happens with:

(a) that deal, and how much 'exclusivity' it locks up, and​

​

(b) the ongoing constituency of RA itself.​

given interest in Super Rugby fallen off a cliff negotiations will be challenging to strike a good deal

Yes, a challenge. I'd maintain that Super Rugby represents a minor component that adds value by bulking out pay tv slots for rugby subscribers. So, to the extent that there are such subscribers – and test matches have viewer demand – there will still be something to sell.

RA will get a deal.

The issue is whether it keeps hollowing out the game over the next 4-5 years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think NZR might keen on (or at least not utterly opposed to) something Trans-Tasman at M10/NRC level, whether combined or end-of-season cross-over (Champions League-style), but I just don't think it's viable as a Super Rugby replacement & I think RA also recognise that.

That'd be interesting. Something like either two groups of 8. So 8 NZ provincial squads plus our 5 (minus Wallabies) and Fiji, Samoa and either Tonga or even potentially Hong Kong playing each other once for 7 game with the top 4 from each going to the a finals series. Or 2 groups split into two pools each playing home and away in pool and teams from another pool for 10 game plus an 8 team finals series.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I'd say that's so (super plus non-euro tests - the former really can't stand alone without the latter).

Sanzaar wanted this wrapped up quite some time ago but, while NZR have their home market deal, RA is still waiting for a dance.


Maybe, but we don't really know that.

It will depend on what happens with:

(a) that deal, and how much 'exclusivity' it locks up, and​

​

(b) the ongoing constituency of RA itself.​

Yes, a challenge. I'd maintain that Super Rugby represents a minor component that adds value by bulking out pay tv slots for rugby subscribers. So, to the extent that there are such subscribers and test matches have viewer demand, there will still be something to sell.

RA will get a deal.

The issue is whether it keeps hollowing out the game over the next 4-5 years.

Good point Kiap - RA will likely get another deal for Super Rugby given mixed with tests etc but as you say will it just continue to hollow out and dimiish fan appeal. My point being there has to be something done to refresh interest in Super Rugby...whether adopting some of the GRR innovations maybe or something else - yes i am not clever to work that out but the current format is tired and needs a revamp.