Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

Let me add fellas, I would support a comp if it is as you say, I just pointing out why I believe what you suggest can never work, I wonder if we a bit hopeful if we put our eggs in the Twiggy basket too, I not sure he will be that keen on putting a lot of dollars into rugby , he just thrown $100m at stuff for Covid 19 medical gear, and may get enough good publity over that and not need to spend too much more.

 

[hoggy]

OK, so we're currently playing 3 tests in July at home generally against Northern Hemisphere opposition then 7 tests from August to October in the Rugby Championship / 3rd Bledisloe and then 4 in November against Northern Hemisphere teams in Europe.

Which tests are you moving and which are you dropping completely?

We've played at minimum a 2 test Bledisloe series every year since 1994 and has been annual since 1982. Nothing has changed except us not being able to win the thing.

If the new competition is truly independent and the teams are not directly controlled by RA/NZRU/whoever then how do you compete with test matches that are offering the best players big dollars to be involved in?

What do you mean by restructure the southern tours? When are they moved to and does the competition play through that period?

I agree with you that it is bad that the main season for the bulk of the players ends by the start of July however I think the answer has to be to play through test matches rather than expect them to be cut back substantially.

In a normal year we play 14 test matches so dropping that number by 2 hardly frees up a lot of weeks to have your other competition running for longer.

Agree with pretty much most of what you post here Braveheart, in fact I don't think we are that far apart. Maybe reduce NZ by one game, and yes ultimately we will have to play through some part of the Test calendar. I am against the RA contracting players, so Test players should be played match fees.

look I don't have all the answers, but we can't go on as present it is pretty much been a downhill trajectory for 10 years now, Test rugby has to give the space below some breathing space.

 

[hoggy]

Look in Wales you can't play for an English club and play for Wales, they have exception, and it is their business how they make those rules surely to god.
Of course noone can tell Aussie or NZ teams where they buy players from, but neither can you tell them where they pick players from. Are you suggesting all players should be contracted to each team, and not to to RA or NZRU? So if a couple of Wallabies were playing in NZ super team, and was required for Wallaby camp, you would be happy if they weren't allowed to attend?
I think I would much rather each country look after their own test players or at very least decide what the criteria they want to nake a player available , and I think it arrogance to think anyone else should tell them what it is!
Do you think that Australian teams should be able to play unlimited number of overseas players? Because Man United could, if you chose to use them as an example, and they still don't tell other countries who they have to select from. I would prefer Aussie teams to bring through Aussie players!

Yes that is exactly what i am advocating, an open market with a salary cap or some sort of agreed draft or limited overseas players, maybe allow each team one marque player. Of course i would prefer aussie teams to select Australians, but if the competition is to survive and prosper then you can't allow specific self interest to compromise that.

Test players are paid match fees and you open selection to all player eligible regardless of where they play, ultimately the competition has to find its own level, why is it arrogant, 99% of professional sporting leagues operate like this.

 

[Joe King]

I understand what you saying dru, and I do understand what you are saying, but for any new comp or alternate comp to work it has to suit everyone. And I just don't think the idea of one more NZ team is all that bad, although I not sure at this stage where it would be done. As for RA saying that NZRU would have to let players be picked for ABs if they were playing for an Aus team is beyond arrogance, as it would be for NZRU to give RA instructions on who should be available for Wallabies. I still not comvinced that a Trans-Tasman comp would be popular in NZ anyway, as I haven't ever seen a great appetite for it from NZ rugby followers, really what is in it for a NZ rugby fan? Ok with ones like me living in Australia, I can watch kiwi teams play, but the general fan at home I don't think is crying out to watch Aus teams play. Even our own WOB says he as a rule doesn't watch games from Aus as a rule as time not good. I go and watch Reds play almost every game (because I a rugby tragic) and know which teams bring in biggest crowds at Suncorp at least, they are usually The Tahs and NZ teams. I not sure RA can go to any tables around the world and bargain from a place of strength, because to be honest I not sure they got enough to tempt anyone with. In saying that I don't want and don't think they would, do I want NZRU going to table with unreasonable demands, what we all have to remember is although the comp will probablt be reset in some way, lets get it rest so it suits EVERYONE, not just Aussie, or NZ or SA.

I think that just leads us back to the same as what we had before, which doesn't work too well in Australia anymore. It's fine for NZ, but Aus desperately needs something different in that space - something that has the potential to grow and blossom in time. People say we can't afford to have something else. But we really can't afford to keep going the same.

Perhaps the COVID-19 situation opens up a small possibility for something different that was too risky to try previously.

But I agree, I don't think NZ is looking for a TT comp.

 

[VassMan]

What do you think NZ would do if Super dies and they don't want a TT comp. Make the Mitre 10 cup the main comp or just play the 5 Super teams against each other or some version of both.

 

[Lindommer]

Let's do a bit of basic planning here on G&GR for a future competition.

1. What do we want in the future for first class professional rugby?
2. How much money might there be to fund such a competition?
3. What would/should New Zealand's involvement be? Personally, I think NZ have the rugby quality but not the money and/or population.
4. Apart from New Zealand what other non-Australian teams could be included?
5. When should such a competition be conducted?
6. What media involvement would there be? Frankly, I think there's gotta be some form of free-to-air TV. Other than that, Kayo or streaming.

If we could start a thoughtful discussion right from the very basics we could come up with something sensible.

I'll open the bowling: let's start with some sort of tight geographical grouping, no Saffer or Argentinian teams.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Let's do a bit of basic planning here on G&GR for a future competition.

1. What do we want in the future for first class professional rugby?
2. How much money might there be to fund such a competition?
3. What would/should New Zealand's involvement be? Personally, I think NZ have the rugby quality but not the money and/or population.
4. Apart from New Zealand what other non-Australian teams could be included?
5. When should such a competition be conducted?
6. What media involvement would there be? Frankly, I think there's gotta be some form of free-to-air TV. Other than than, Kayo or streaming.

If we could start a thoughtful discussion right from the very basics we could come up with something sensible.

I'll open the bowling: let's start with some sort of tight geographical grouping, no Saffer or Argentinian teams.

1) I'd like to see a scenario based largely on the Australian time zones with some notable exceptions. That being the inclusion of the likes of Fiji etc.

2) I think it should be run independent of RA with them holding a seat at the table but not directly involved in administering the competition. Something that's been a major failing of SANZAAR and Super Rugby has been that its been treated more as a extended trial system than a going concern.

Operating as a single entity all expenses in terms of operational costs and talent remuneration would run through a central body. We'd likely have to change up the salary cap initially. Personally, I'd go for an initial cap of $3.5m for a squad of 35 with everyone on $100k. to start plus an additional $500k for emerging talent. That can be as few or as many players as you want. As long as it fits within the cap.

In terms of playing , training for Rugby it would be a strict cap. Though I'd install added work around but only a few. One would be accommodation. Players could have the cost of their accommodation supplemented without it being counted. Another would be a narrow field of employment linked to either a sponsor or the organisation.

3) None. At least initially. Mainly because they don't seem to want any.

4) Fiji and a combined Samoa/Tongan team. With the latter based in Australia to access facilities and the diaspora here. Also, economics.
5) Same window as Super Rugby. I'd say later in the year but "it's too hot" will be the prevailing argument against that.

6) FTA and streaming.

 

[Dan54]

Yes that is exactly what i am advocating, an open market with a salary cap or some sort of agreed draft or limited overseas players, maybe allow each team one marque player. Of course i would prefer aussie teams to select Australians, but if the competition is to survive and prosper then you can't allow specific self interest to compromise that.

Test players are paid match fees and you open selection to all player eligible regardless of where they play, ultimately the competition has to find its own level, why is it arrogant, 99% of professional sporting leagues operate like this.

Yep I agree on an open market, and up to a point it is, any NZ player can play for Aus teams, and have always been able to, so are Welsh players etc, they just have to be prepared to not play tests. Look do you think we can tell Wales, or Agentina etc etc that they have to select who we want them to select? Probably the best way is for maybe Australian super teams to have the rule that they can pick whoever they want from around the world, we agree on that, but we don't tell others who to pick, there is plenty of other players in world who not going to be test players, and also be prepared for fact that I think development of Wallaby players will slow down an awful lot.

 

[hoggy]

I would add
2.) agreed a salary cap, and it has to sustainable $3.5m, but maybe $3 or $2.5m whatever is manageable, what we can't do is mirror the current situation of a select few all doing very well out of the game while the rest are living of scraps.
3.) agreed, as attractive as kiwi involvement would be, we have to learn to walk on our own two feet, NZ do very well out of Super rugby while the game here drowns.
4.) Look at basing a pacific team partially in Western Sydney & say Fiji, the point is having a game every weekend in NSW the biggest market in Aus
5.) The season can't be a deterrent to the competitions survival, it can't play second fiddle.

 

[Dan54]

What do you think NZ would do if Super dies and they don't want a TT comp. Make the Mitre 10 cup the main comp or just play the 5 Super teams against each other or some version of both.

I think a version of both, sure there not the population in NZ, and they would suffer, but maybe would also be propped up a bit by the appetite there seems to be for NZ rugby on a global market. Mitre 10 cup is shown all around the world and tends to be good breakfast time in Britain etc. I do think some TT comp will find it's way in, but don't underestimate the idea of a expanded NZ comp with final series with SA teams, as a compromise. Both countries tend to have a respect for each other's rugby.

In fact when I think of it I like it, 8 team comp in NZ (could include an Island team based in Auckland), and top 3-4 playoff with top 3-4 SA teams??

 

[kiap]

NZR following suit. Inside New Zealand Rugby's fight for survival - CEO Mark Robinson:

​

"The overall impact on revenue is significant. The absolute worst case scenario, if we weren't able to get on the field this year, there is potential risk of north of $100 million in revenue at stake," Robinson said. "…Preserving cash is absolutely critical."​

​

… "We've gone to a 40 per cent cut in staff salaries across the spectrum – from the board through to all staff in all areas. It's been very consistent. We've been very fortunate with the government support subsidy that we've been able to still pay people at four days per week. We're very grateful for that initiative.​

​

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12321391​

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

NZR following suit. Inside New Zealand Rugby's fight for survival - CEO Mark Robinson:

​

"The overall impact on revenue is significant. The absolute worst case scenario, if we weren't able to get on the field this year, there is potential risk of north of $100 million in revenue at stake," Robinson said. "…Preserving cash is absolutely critical."​

​

… "We've gone to a 40 per cent cut in staff salaries across the spectrum – from the board through to all staff in all areas. It's been very consistent. We've been very fortunate with the government support subsidy that we've been able to still pay people at four days per week. We're very grateful for that initiative.​

​

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12321391​

NZRU predicting a similar loss to RA but taking less stringent cost down measures. They also haven't come to an agreement on player wage reductions and there is nothing from their Super teams. As per usual we are only seeing Castle being criticised.

 

[Dan54]

NZRU predicting a similar loss to RA but taking less stringent cost down measures. They also haven't come to an agreement on player wage reductions and there is nothing from their Super teams. As per usual we are only seeing Castle being criticised.

Yep, think they might be happy with the cash reserves they got!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think a version of both, sure there not the population in NZ, and they would suffer, but maybe would also be propped up a bit by the appetite there seems to be for NZ rugby on a global market. Mitre 10 cup is shown all around the world and tends to be good breakfast time in Britain etc. I do think some TT comp will find it's way in, but don't underestimate the idea of a expanded NZ comp with final series with SA teams, as a compromise. Both countries tend to have a respect for each other's rugby.

In fact when I think of it I like it, 8 team comp in NZ (could include an Island team based in Auckland), and top 3-4 playoff with top 3-4 SA teams??

Each run their own competition and then have a Super 6-8 competition involving teams from each plus the Top League.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Yep, think they might be happy with the cash reserves they got!

What cash reserves? They haven't released their 2019 financial statements. In 2018 they had less than $20m which is about the same as RA had at the same point.

 

[Dan54]

What cash reserves? They haven't released their 2019 financial statements. In 2018 they had less than $20m which is about the same as RA had at the same point.

I was under the impression there was cash reserves of $45-55 mill, in 2018 but maybe I read wrong!! I think they had $60 odd mill in 2016 and had a Lions tour since.

 

[kiap]

Is it something a mug punter can look into?

 

[Braveheart81]

NZRU had the best part of $90m in the bank at 31 December 2018. They have the distinct advantage that they had the most recent Lions tour. In 2016 (prepayment of broadcast deals) and 2017 (all the matchday etc.) they added a huge amount to their cash reserves.

 

[dru]

In fact when I think of it I like it, 8 team comp in NZ (could include an Island team based in Auckland), and top 3-4 playoff with top 3-4 SA teams??

And yet earlier you were unhappy with guarantee of finals games and home games?

I dont have a problem at many levels with a "championship" style series.

 

[Omar Comin']

Let's do a bit of basic planning here on G&GR for a future competition.

1. What do we want in the future for first class professional rugby?

I think RA have 3 options:

1) Move to a national club competition (no foreign teams) as our primary tier of professional rugby beneath the Wallabies, with some limited provincial rugby (or state of origin) on top of it. Sydney and Brisbane clubs that are able to meet certain criteria would make up most of the teams. I think with this option we'd definitely have to open up Wallabies selection to all overseas based players as the money available wouldn't be able to retain many test level players.

2) Partner with Twiggy Forrest to use our current 5 professional teams as the basis of a new competition (mostly domestic, maybe with a team from Fiji and a combined Samoa/Tonga team) replacing GRR and Super Rugby, and run more independently (RA can focus on grassroots and national teams). I think there would need to be at least 8 teams for a meaningful competition and that this option would require Wallabies selection to be opened up at least a little more to overseas based players as the wages won't be enough for top stars.

3) Reduce our high performance professional teams to 3 (or potentially even 2), which could play in a further contracted Super Rugby competition. This may allow Wallabies selection criteria to stay the same as it is now, and perhaps a full season, semi-professional National Club competition could develop beneath it.

I think the order of likelihood is 3, 2, 1 but I'd prefer the 2nd option.