Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

I makes the competition that is on for the majority of the year open and fair (some Aussie players may go to NZ). If it's even and attracts better support in Australia then more kids will be wanting to play. For the past 20 years to see it you have needed pay TV now it's on free TV but the Aussie teams are shit so people turn off.

I don't see how it's that hard to understand the basic concept.

People are not interested in watching their team getting smashed every week for multiple seasons.

If people don't watch then where do the new players come from?

No mate, I understand what you saying,(don't agree)but I was asking about the Bledisloe part of the comment. Having NZ players (even if some great load of money to pay them suddenly appeared) is not going to help the Wallabies win the Bledisloe!

 

[Derpus]

No mate, I understand what you saying,(don't agree)but I was asking about the Bledisloe part of the comment. Having NZ players (even if some great load of money to pay them suddenly appeared) is not going to help the Wallabies win the Bledisloe!

Long term it may.

 

[Dan54]

And this is why Aussie rugby is fucked at the mo. They are trying to copy NZ instead of floating their own boat. As COVID has shown it's basically 6 different countries and 2 of them Rugby strongholds compared to the others.
The NZ Kremlin approach doesn't and won't work here. The Home Nations don't have a top down approach and a dollar for doughnuts if a Worldcup was held now France would probably win it. So the Top down approach is Myopic kiwi dribble, there are other workable alternatives.

Who do you think generates all the money for grassroots rugby in England, Wales, France etc? It is their national teams!! Don't get hooked up on club teams etc, grassroots is paid for all over the world by test teams!!
And unless NZ and Aus go to complete private ownership and find a shitload of TV money the Wallabies and ABs are going to a good pay part of Super teams.
Does anyone really believe Aus would have super teams without RA money, which is generated by Wallabies? Hell the Stan deal wouldn't be there without the Wallabies and a NZ part of deal. Much as don't like it , it's the facts. Geez fellas I would love the rugby landscape to be where every comp in Aus and NZ were all paid for by themselves, but it isn't and is not going to be in our lifetime.
Even Force with Twiggy's money still rely on money from RA generated by Super and more by Test rugby!

 

[Bullrush]

How is opening up selection etc going to help Bledisloe or Wallabies, unless you think that by doing it wekaens the ABs, which answers question anyway.
It's not actually private ownership of ABs, anymore than RA is opening up private ownership of Wallabies in seeking PE money.

It allows NZ players to look at opportunities in Australia without giving up the AB dream. It also allows Australian players the ability to look at playing in NZ without forgoing Wallaby honours as well.

In most cases, this isn't about the top 30-40 players looking to go play for the Force or the Reds but it's about the players who are playing NPC/ITM/Mitre 10 (whatever we call it now) who can't crack a Super Rugby contract or a starting spot.

I would stress that it's not just players - coaches can also look for opportunities here in Australia (Australian teams should be looking hard for them). Again, not just at the top level - Head Coaches etc. Assistant coaches, skill coaches etc.

We should help Australia build greater depth in rugby to improve their teams and put pressure on the top guys to stay in-form etc.

And should a player happen to stay in Australia 3-4 years and build a life here - he may end up playing for the Wallabies. WHo knows? But it's pretty undeniable that NZ has a greater resource of players and coaches that we currently can't keep in NZ. Why not make it more appealing to stay closer to home than going to strengthen the NH?

 

[Oldschool]

Long term it may.

Yep, and France is a classic example.

5 years ago they were talking about the death of French National team due to the amount of foreign players in their comps blocking the pathway of their up and comers. Right now France are looking world beaters.

 

[Oldschool]

Who do you think generates all the money for grassroots rugby in England, Wales, France etc? It is their national teams!! Don't get hooked up on club teams etc, grassroots is paid for all over the world by test teams!!
And unless NZ and Aus go to complete private ownership and find a shitload of TV money the Wallabies and ABs are going to a good pay part of Super teams.
Does anyone really believe Aus would have super teams without RA money, which is generated by Wallabies? Hell the Stan deal wouldn't be there without the Wallabies and a NZ part of deal. Much as don't like it , it's the facts. Geez fellas I would love the rugby landscape to be where every comp in Aus and NZ were all paid for by themselves, but it isn't and is not going to be in our lifetime.
Even Force with Twiggy's money still rely on money from RA generated by Super and more by Test rugby!

IMO this statement is right and wrong.

Yes the Unions look after grassroots through their National teams, But it the clubs that put the food on the table for the Pros. The Union compensate the clubs for the use of their players for the tests and pay the players for their involvement.

BTW two shipments of Ore from Twiggy covers the whole of Super rugby for a year.

 

[hoggy]

Who do you think generates all the money for grassroots rugby in England, Wales, France etc? It is their national teams!! Don't get hooked up on club teams etc, grassroots is paid for all over the world by test teams!!
And unless NZ and Aus go to complete private ownership and find a shitload of TV money the Wallabies and ABs are going to a good pay part of Super teams.
Does anyone really believe Aus would have super teams without RA money, which is generated by Wallabies? Hell the Stan deal wouldn't be there without the Wallabies and a NZ part of deal. Much as don't like it , it's the facts. Geez fellas I would love the rugby landscape to be where every comp in Aus and NZ were all paid for by themselves, but it isn't and is not going to be in our lifetime.
Even Force with Twiggy's money still rely on money from RA generated by Super and more by Test rugby!

Yes but in England and France the national team do not need to fund the level below Test rugby, they don't have to fund a bunch of Super Rugby teams.

And of courses the Wallabies supply the bulk of broadcast money, however the potential is there to increase that level of funding in Australia if a domestic component can be made to be more marketable.

The thing going for this is this structure clearly works in the Australian landscape, when you say it can't happen in our lifetime. quite clearly if the RA goes to a 6 team domestic comp next year, they are half way there, and the other thing the Wallabies will still be playing next year.

Nobody pays for the grassroots, it is paid for by the people that participate in the game, since when have the Wallabies thrown buckets of cash at the grassroots.

The job of the Wallabies and domestic/Super rugby is to foster a level of interest so that people particapate in the grassroots.

 

[Derpus]

Hey Dan, what do you think is our best model moving forward?

 

[Dan54]

[quote="Bullrush, post: 1209867, member: 3081" the

In most cases, this isn't about the top 30-40 players looking to go play for the Force or the Reds but it's about the players who are playing NPC/ITM/Mitre 10 (whatever we call it now) who can't crack a Super Rugby contract or a starting spot.

I would stress that it's not just players - coaches can also look for opportunities here in Australia (Australian teams should be looking hard for them). Again, not just at the top level - Head Coaches etc. Assistant coaches, skill coaches etc.

We should help Australia build greater depth in rugby to improve their teams and put pressure on the top guys to stay in-form etc.

And should a player happen to stay in Australia 3-4 years and build a life here - he may end up playing for the Wallabies. WHo knows? But it's pretty undeniable that NZ has a greater resource of players and coaches that we currently can't keep in NZ. Why not make it more appealing to stay closer to home than going to strengthen the NH?[/quote]
No problems with these parts and they already in place, the players you talk about here can go to Aus whenever they want (ie Jack Whettone, Daniel Braid did it, Adam Thomson etc etc . As can coaches, there has never been a problem with that. wasn't Rob Penney just coaching at the Tahs, Cron also at tahs. darryl Gibson etc. I agree coaches can help Australia to no end, I have never heard they couldn't, and the biggest thing against it seems to be from within Australia itself.
NZ actually does it all over the world.

 

[Dan54]

Hey Dan, what do you think is our best model moving forward?

Honest truth Derpus, I like the idea (although not popular with everyone) , a TT and played in conjunction with Super Au and AO.
Say play
Week 1&2 Au and Ao
week 3 Aus vs NZ crossover
4&5 Au and Ao
6 crossover etc etc
I think you can have both comps running concurrently, Either first round or 2nd going towrds TT points along with crossover matches.
I believe it keeps both side of tasman playing each other every few weeks, we saw the cock up when they don't this year where Aus teams like it or lump it ended up being I belive weakened by playing just each other and same style so when they met the gap was too big. Anyone who doesn't agree didn't notic how Aus teams improved towards end of TT.
The main thing is it keeps it more than a ridiculous 5-6 team comp that will pall in both countries pretty quickly, and I say the same to those here who say they reckon that super Ao is better without Aus teams.
I will admit for a good comp that would be a best is a 10- 12 team comp with one round and finals.
But I realaise Aus rugby is a basket case and needs help, so the option I give above is probably best we could hope for.

 

[Dan54]

Yes but in England and France the national team do not need to fund the level below Test rugby, they don't have to fund a bunch of Super Rugby teams.

And of courses the Wallabies supply the bulk of broadcast money, however the potential is there to increase that level of funding in Australia if a domestic component can be made to be more marketable.

The thing going for this is this structure clearly works in the Australian landscape, when you say it can't happen in our lifetime. quite clearly if the RA goes to a 6 team domestic comp next year, they are half way there, and the other thing the Wallabies will still be playing next year.

Nobody pays for the grassroots, it is paid for by the people that participate in the game, since when have the Wallabies thrown buckets of cash at the grassroots.

The job of the Wallabies and domestic/Super rugby is to foster a level of interest so that people particapate in the grassroots.

No but in England and France you are talking about established clubs basically owned by moneyed people, do you know how long these clubs have been in existence. Also without Wallaby generated money there are no super teams in Aus. Do you ralise how long it would take to get NZ and Aus teams to that extent? Remember when Rebels went into private ownership? Even in Aus you comparing population of 20 mill to populations of 65-7 million.
The job of Wallabies is to help RA to earn enough money to support grassroots etc. Without a reasonably successful Wallaby team, do you think Stan will pay as much for tv rights, or cadbury's pay as much as they do to sponsor them etc?

I will add I in no way arguing for anything but what I believe is best for rugby in Autralia(or NZ) , I spent a good 10-12 years involved in rugby in Aus in admin etc at club level and whole time I lived there, I never argued for anything I thought would take game backwards, and still wouldn't.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

No problems with these parts and they already in place, the players you talk about here can go to Aus whenever they want (ie Jack Whettone, Daniel Braid did it, Adam Thomson etc etc . As can coaches, there has never been a problem with that. wasn't Rob Penney just coaching at the Tahs, Cron also at tahs. darryl Gibson etc. I agree coaches can help Australia to no end, I have never heard they couldn't, and the biggest thing against it seems to be from within Australia itself.
NZ actually does it all over the world.

Missed the greatest one. Mike Harris did it.

 

[Dan54]

Missed the greatest one. Mike Harris did it.

Geez mate, I was trying to remember his name, and it wouldn't come to me!!

 

[Bullrush]

No problems with these parts and they already in place, the players you talk about here can go to Aus whenever they want (ie Jack Whettone, Daniel Braid did it, Adam Thomson etc etc . As can coaches, there has never been a problem with that. wasn't Rob Penney just coaching at the Tahs, Cron also at tahs. darryl Gibson etc. I agree coaches can help Australia to no end, I have never heard they couldn't, and the biggest thing against it seems to be from within Australia itself.
NZ actually does it all over the world.

Currently, players only came here if they have given up on playing for NZ.

It also allows for Australian players to play in NZ eg. Lealiifano to improve without having to return to Australia to play Wallabies

 

[Bandar]

Honest truth Derpus, I like the idea (although not popular with everyone) , a TT and played in conjunction with Super Au and AO.
Say play
Week 1&2 Au and Ao
week 3 Aus vs NZ crossover
4&5 Au and Ao
6 crossover etc etc
I think you can have both comps running concurrently, Either first round or 2nd going towrds TT points along with crossover matches.
I believe it keeps both side of tasman playing each other every few weeks, we saw the cock up when they don't this year where Aus teams like it or lump it ended up being I belive weakened by playing just each other and same style so when they met the gap was too big. Anyone who doesn't agree didn't notic how Aus teams improved towards end of TT.
The main thing is it keeps it more than a ridiculous 5-6 team comp that will pall in both countries pretty quickly, and I say the same to those here who say they reckon that super Ao is better without Aus teams.
I will admit for a good comp that would be a best is a 10- 12 team comp with one round and finals.
But I realaise Aus rugby is a basket case and needs help, so the option I give above is probably best we could hope for.

I think that is the most popular on here Dan and probably the best solution

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Geez mate, I was trying to remember his name, and it wouldn't come to me!!

It's ok. We all remember that great All Black Steve Devine.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Alternatively you could also say thet NZR have a model that works, from top down.
And anyone who says that Australia aren't working on a top down approach are idiots, why do you think they have employed a NZ coach for wallabies and not one whi has come up through Aus system? Perhaps because they need the Wallabies to be successful so the money the generate than goes down through the lower tiers. FFS!!!!!
We would all love if the lower tiers actually stood on their own feet, but I can absolutely bet that if Wallabies didn't play internationall rugby, there would be no Super or NRC etc!!

Sigh and there lies the problem and RAs Marinos has acknowledged the problem of over focus on top down and hence say duck you nzru but we think sorting out our bottom up is more important then it is for you. Mind you because they selfishly have as many teams they want for popn/size of market. The nrl and afl shows what can achieve with good pro comp and we compete with those markets and hence why top down is wrong for us to focus on vs nz who does not have the competition from competing footy codes we have. Make no mistake oz has taken wrong balance of focus of top down vs bottom up which acknowledged by twiggy and RA in recent times and why we are here.

Dan all you have given is another example of misaligned goals as top down is more important than bottom up balance for nzru and RA which is why all credible pundits have acknowledged TT won’t work and why as others suggested need domestic supplemented by champions league.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Honest truth Derpus, I like the idea (although not popular with everyone) , a TT and played in conjunction with Super Au and AO.
Say play
Week 1&2 Au and Ao
week 3 Aus vs NZ crossover
4&5 Au and Ao
6 crossover etc etc
I think you can have both comps running concurrently, Either first round or 2nd going towrds TT points along with crossover matches.
I believe it keeps both side of tasman playing each other every few weeks, we saw the cock up when they don't this year where Aus teams like it or lump it ended up being I belive weakened by playing just each other and same style so when they met the gap was too big. Anyone who doesn't agree didn't notic how Aus teams improved towards end of TT.
The main thing is it keeps it more than a ridiculous 5-6 team comp that will pall in both countries pretty quickly, and I say the same to those here who say they reckon that super Ao is better without Aus teams.
I will admit for a good comp that would be a best is a 10- 12 team comp with one round and finals.
But I realaise Aus rugby is a basket case and needs help, so the option I give above is probably best we could hope for.

Dan you use to be saying full TT and no domestic so your position has moved. That is ok as prefer flexible thinking. I am open to domestic and TT as despite my concerns about TT I think as no perfect proven solution better to have foot in both camps. I also think easier to probably stay in TT but make condition that continue to review with view to improving year on year jointly with nzru and RA (or independent body running it if that happens)

 

[Rugbynutter39]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...trans-tasman-competition-20210622-p583bp.html

Well its pretty bloody clear the RA now realize a domestic component is the only way forward.

Hard to argue against the logic of what Hamish is saying - thank God we have someone with his skills and balls to stand up to nzru. As for too long nzru have wanted to have the cake and eat it too. We have same costs to fund to be In TT so absolutely should get equal share if providing same numbers of teams. Does all the teams in nrl get different share of broadcast revenue - of course not.

 

[Adam84]

Yeah sick of trying to bend over just go give NZ what they want, what they want doesn’t suit Australia.