Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

I suspect what they'll see will be polar opposites. SRA will rate its backside off. There'll be 5 men and a dog watching SRAU.

That's not the ratings over the last several seasons has been saying. Once again. The highest rating games in Australia are the games featuring two Australian teams.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Bums on seats-wise, pre-sales for Eden Park hit 35K yesterday (capacity 48K), Dunners 16K (23K).

 

[RedsHappy]

Great to see a new Chair of Rugby Australia open to and encouraging radical new thinking re the pro code and its financing, long, long overdue. Interesting too that he emphasises in this context a ‘trans Tasman’ competition, he’s right to

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-for-rugby-says-mclennan-20200611-p551oh.html

Btw: I think he’s wrong though to exclude the Wallabies - if anything our problems are as great there as in Super Rugby

 

[KOB1987]

^^^ he is only excluding the Wallabies in the context of private ownership though isn’t he? I think if we fix the tier below and can keep and develop our players, then the flow on effects for the Wallabies will be huge. Although we are currently ranked 7th in the world we are really only a couple of converted tries away (one in attack, one in defence) away from being number 1. It’s not an insurmountable hurdle and the rest of the world should rightly be fearful if something financially viable emerges out of this that allows us to retain our players at the second tier level.

 

[Rebels3]

I'm not quite so sure that they're done:

2018 Ireland made a 3 test tour of Australia
2016 England made a 3 test tour of Australia
2014 France made a 3 test tour of Australia
2013 BIL 3 test tour of Australia
2012 Wales made a 3 test tour of Australia

***2019 and 2015 no inbound NH tours because of RWC

A 3 test NZ tour of Australia for example would actually involve LESS travel that the current TRC arrangements and thus have a far less impact on player welfare.

Even RA have worked out that 3 test inbound tours are the best way to capture public and media attention.

I was indicating tour matches etc.

Yes 3 game test match tours are well and truly alive but there would be very little chance of Ireland vs QLD etc. it’s not covered by world rugby regulations and would also require extra insurance to cover the players if they did play it.

It would be amazing for our franchises if it did happen tho.

 

[hoggy]

^^^ he is only excluding the Wallabies in the context of private ownership though isn’t he? I think if we fix the tier below and can keep and develop our players, then the flow on effects for the Wallabies will be huge. Although we are currently ranked 7th in the world we are really only a couple of converted tries away (one in attack, one in defence) away from being number 1. It’s not an insurmountable hurdle and the rest of the world should rightly be fearful if something financially viable emerges out of this that allows us to retain our players at the second tier level.

That is the balancing act though, essentially that's what Super rugby was all about, but the structural limitations that came with that was a massive part of what got the game to the current spot. Moving forward a sustainable 2nd tier is probably the most important thing to get sorted especially for growth, but the comp will need genuinely clear air to grow, it can't forever be some slave relation to Test rugby.

 

[Lindommer]

I wouldn't mind seeing an NFL type approach. They play the teams in their own division twice and then two other divisions once.

Sounds a lot like the clusterfuck that was Super 18.

 

[KOB1987]

That is the balancing act though, essentially that's what Super rugby was all about, but the structural limitations that came with that was a massive part of what got the game to the current spot. Moving forward a sustainable 2nd tier is probably the most important thing to get sorted especially for growth, but the comp will need genuinely clear air to grow, it can't forever be some slave relation to Test rugby.

Agree completely, the current Super Rugby model is both structurally and financially unviable. A new competition, either domestic or TT, that is backed by PE would hopefully be viable in both regards, and thus get that clear air to grow.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I was indicating tour matches etc.
Yes 3 game test match tours are well and truly alive but there would be very little chance of Ireland vs QLD etc. it’s not covered by world rugby regulations and would also require extra insurance to cover the players if they did play it.
It would be amazing for our franchises if it did happen tho.

I've pushed the idea of the Wallabies playing two three match tours annually. One home against a 6N team and one away against a different 6N team. This would occur every none RWC year. Touring teams would play two additional matches against

Wallabies schedule non RWC year
1 - PI team (alternate home and away and between the islands)
2 - 6N team
3 - 6N team
4 - 6N team
5 - TRC team (include Fiji and Japan, play each team once, alternating home and away)
6 - TRC team
7 - TRC team
8 - TRC team
9 - TRC team
10 - Bledisloe Cup
11 - Bledisloe Cup
12 - Tier two test (either USA/Canada or European team like Romania, Georgia, Spain, Romania, Russia or Portugal)
13 - 6N teams
14 - Tour Match (non test)
15 - 6N teams
16 - Tour Match (non test)
17 - 6N teams


7 or 8 tests at home each year.

 

[barbarian]

So from reading both Geerob in the SMH and Harris in the Guardian, the picture seems to be a little clearer.

There is no TV money flowing in from Fox, Optus or anyone. Some will call it bad luck, others bad tactics, but regardless we won't be signing a big deal with anyone for the next TV rights period. AFL and NRL have seen a significant drop in TV money so it's hardly a problem unique to rugby, but it is a big problem nonetheless.

So without TV money, we need to find another pot of cash so we can continue to pay our players a competitive salary.

This explains McLennan's very public call for private cash to come into the game. While I love that he's signalling an end to Super Rugby, the whole exercise is tinged with a bit of desperation. 'Come and buy us, please!'.

The other red flag here is timing. We need a deal in the next few months if we want to retain all of our players. That doesn't seem conducive to solid decision making IMO.

So it's a bit of mixed news to me. Great to see we're talking the end of Super, but I'm a bit nervous about throwing the keys to middle-tier rugby to some cashed-up venture capitalists out of desperation as much as anything else.

 

[Brumbieman]

Why is everyone so keen to see super rugby gone? Ditch the saffers and it's a fantastic comp again.

Would a domestic comp still include the current team or are they broken up? Fuck that..

 

[RedsHappy]

So from reading both Geerob in the SMH and Harris in the Guardian, the picture seems to be a little clearer.

There is no TV money flowing in from Fox, Optus or anyone. Some will call it bad luck, others bad tactics, but regardless we won't be signing a big deal with anyone for the next TV rights period. AFL and NRL have seen a significant drop in TV money so it's hardly a problem unique to rugby, but it is a big problem nonetheless.

So without TV money, we need to find another pot of cash so we can continue to pay our players a competitive salary.

This explains McLennan's very public call for private cash to come into the game. While I love that he's signalling an end to Super Rugby, the whole exercise is tinged with a bit of desperation. 'Come and buy us, please!'.

The other red flag here is timing. We need a deal in the next few months if we want to retain all of our players. That doesn't seem conducive to solid decision making IMO.

So it's a bit of mixed news to me. Great to see we're talking the end of Super, but I'm a bit nervous about throwing the keys to middle-tier rugby to some cashed-up venture capitalists out of desperation as much as anything else.

Barb, a few points:

1. With the right radical redesign of Super Rugby for 2021, and McL's good relationship with News Corp, I would expect Foxtel to come back in, but at _much_ lower $ levels pa than prior, and, almost certainly, any such $s tied to some package of outcome KPIs allowing them to cut back or cut completely if that new comp fails to deliver X eyeballs on their platform by Y period (which would be a healthy thing IMO to have such annual payment-contingent KPIs so as to force RA to be driven by fan engagement principles not just maximising $s for 5 fixed years and then just sitting back and spending the money as has been the laziness-inducing case in the past ).

2. Yes, we are financially and commercially desperate, there is no way around that fact. It will as you say, have consequences.

3. As I have said elsewhere: THERE IS NO PERFECT CHANGE AGENT GOING TO ARRIVE TO FIX AUST RUGBY.

We have to accept that the existing status quo has failed, we (ie the governance systems) have run out of money and ideas (no COVID, still would have happened soon anyway). The change agents that do arrive, McL, WR (World Rugby), private equity, Wiggs, Twiggy, whomever, will certainly bring a complex bundle of pros and cons and some great things, and some not so great things. Let's get real about this and stop whinging about these types of parties' failings as though something/someone much better (that we would only then approve of) was just around the corner or could be imagineered into a present reality.

Finding faults with every single one of the realistic potential change agents is not the point - the point is to articulate the best viable and alternative strategies we can here - as the final frontier, rusted ons - in order to maximise the chance of the code's survival in this country.

 

[zer0]

I guess if you ended up with some sort of TT competition then Sky NZ might be interested in broadcasting/streaming matches in Australia? Probably the ones involving NZ sides, at least. If that happened then it would mean they'd be broadcasting possibly up to 3/4's of the matches anyway (all matches in NZ, and all NZ matches in Aus), so might as well dive on in for the entire thing.

Not sure on the practicalities of it though nor whether they have the cash for both Aus and NZ rights. And I'd also, personally, prefer NZR to start streaming matches themselves, as has been brought up plenty of times on here.

 

[Omar Comin']

Why is everyone so keen to see super rugby gone? Ditch the saffers and it's a fantastic comp again.

Would a domestic comp still include the current team or are they broken up? Fuck that..

I think most people here either have a preference for a Trans Tasman or Asia-Pacific competition, or would be happy enough with one (whether it's still called Super Rugby or something else probably doesn't matter that much).

But there are advantages of a domestic competition if enough money came into the game to back it. The main ones being that an Australian team would win every year, 2 Australian teams would make the grand final every year, and it'd be easier to equalise the playing talent across the teams.

A problem with Super Rugby from an Australian perspective, even without the Saffers, is the dominance of the kiwi teams. There are a few potential ways to solve this, but it seems like the most likely one is for RA to go back to 3 teams, which means basically giving up on a whole market. And you'd still likely have Australian teams winning the competition well under 50% of the time.

A domestic comp would almost certainly include the Brumbies, Rebels, Force, Waratahs and Reds (the latter two potentially rebranded as Sydney and Brisbane) plus at least 3 others. Most likely a 2nd Brisbane or QLD team, Western Sydney and 1 or more of North Sydney, Newcastle and Fiji. Add a state of origin series and/or a short champions league with NZ teams and I think this could work.

 

[hoggy]

It will be very interesting to see the ratings over the next few months regards both comps in NZ & Aus and also presuming whatever replacement SA come up with for the next few months (if we get to view it).

Fox may be in a wait & see mood, strong viewing numbers may assist in a possible deal, as opposed to lukewarm numbers and any broadcaster may just decide to let it pass, also can Aus rugby go it alone if NZ games rate higher or even match Aus figures.

 

[RedsHappy]

I think most people here either have a preference for a Trans Tasman or Asia-Pacific competition, or would be happy enough with one (whether it's still called Super Rugby or something else probably doesn't matter that much).
.........
A domestic comp would almost certainly include the Brumbies, Rebels, Force, Waratahs and Reds (the latter two potentially rebranded as Sydney and Brisbane) plus at least 3 others. Most likely a 2nd Brisbane or QLD team, Western Sydney and 1 or more of North Sydney, Newcastle and Fiji. Add a state of origin series and/or a short champions league with NZ teams and I think this could work.

I know I have said this before OC, and I always like your thoughtful work here, but any new 2021 pro rugby comp concept simply must set forth in its plan for sustainable viability:

- how will _all_ the nominated teams be properly funded from January 1, 2021 (including competent-enough management), and​

​

- how will all teams assemble an adequate playing depth for total minimum viable squad size and type so as to be competitive enough in the new comp format, and​

​

- how will _all_ the nominated teams be adequately coached in sufficient depth and with sufficient calibre of coaches to ensure an appropriate level of skills, fitness and game preparedness so as to be competitive enough in the new comp format.​

We all have a tendency to start advocating newly designed comp schemes with lots of old and new fabricated Aust pro teams, but the above Qs must be properly answered for such schemes to be anything more than a fun fantasy plan.

These Qs would not be so relevant if we possessed the AFL's funds and code depth, but they are highly relevant to Aust rugby's current condition and where we have clearly struggled to get any new pro teams outside the old fortresses and Super teams of Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane into a commercially viable shape and continuity.

 

[Adam84]

Yeah expanding by such a significant amount runs the risk of diluting the product even further.

I’d also question whether there is sufficient corporate support to fund those teams considering they’ll be encroaching on existing teams and potentially eroding their revenue.

 

[hoggy]

Yeah expanding by such a significant amount runs the risk of diluting the product even further.

I’d also question whether there is sufficient corporate support to fund those teams considering they’ll be encroaching on existing teams and potentially eroding their revenue.

Catch 22 though, can they survive long term with only 5 teams how do you grow support, how much support has the Waratahs lost over the years having only 6/8 games a year in your home town, people just slowly drift of to other codes.

And will whatever corporate support is left just slowly drift away as well. Isn't the most important thing getting the structure right, maybe they could just start with 6 teams, aiming long term to end with 8/10

 

[RedsHappy]

Catch 22 though, can they survive long term with only 5 teams how do you grow support, how much support has the Waratahs lost over the years having only 6/8 games a year in your home town, people just slowly drift of to other codes.

And will whatever corporate support is left just slowly drift away as well. Isn't the most important thing getting the structure right, maybe they could just start with 6 teams, aiming long term to end with 8/10

IMO they lost support over (say) 2008 - 2013 and then 2015 - 2019 as they didn't perform to (reasonable) fan expectations consistently enough. (Btw, pretty much ditto for the Reds.) Yes, home games' nos are an issue but like it or not the core rugby public wants winning and then, next best, skilful close-ish losses with a great team attitude in getting them.

Yes, the structure has to be right but a huge part of that is to have only the no of teams that can deliver and sustain a reasonable level of performance - and a lot of this comes down to coaching calibre. This of course does not mean 'winning the comp all or a lot of the time' but rather delivering skilful, high intensity play with a great all-of-team attitude and application.

Summary: product quality is proven to matter more in Aust pro rugby than lots of quantity (JO'N's most fatal mistake was not to appreciate this truth as he embarked upon a reckless quantity expansion without the management and coaching and player depth plan to back it up).

 

[BDA]

I honestly think that dropping rugby from its lineup could ironically be the death knell for foxtel (at least in its current form). As both AFL and NRL have a weekly presence on Free to Air, you don't necessarily need foxtel to follow the comp. It's certainly not worht the cost of foxtel just for 1 or 2 extra games each week. Whats-more, NRL/AFL fans are by and large lower income demographic meaning that they are more likely to pay for kayo but not foxtel. Rugby fans are more likely to be willing to pay the monthly fees for foxtel and as a rugby fan you pretty much have to have foxtel if you want to watch it. Dropping rugby would potentially be a disaster.

I like watching the two NBA games a week they give me and maybe an NRL game on Saturday, but if they don't sign up local rugby comp i'll definitely pass on the $40 a week.