Where to for Super Rugby?

[sunnyboys]

Bullrush you are right. It is our standard relative to new zealand's that has got us here.

at this stage RA needs to be realistic about the chance of reversing that.

NZR are not at all interested in assisting australian rugby to improve (except for telling them to cut teams and the fan base). which is perfectly valid.

but Australian rugby should not and can not continue to be involved in a lopsided competition that kills of fans.

 

[Dan54]

Cool we are shit, your not, that's our fault not yours.. Cool story.. let's see how dominant and sustainable you are alone.

I don't think that is what Bullrush means. He just saying stop blaming NZR for RA's f*** ups. NZR makes mistakes , but they are not the reason that RA is broke, and that rugby has gone backwards in Aus. Basically ALL NZR's problems are caused by NZR, and RA's problems are caused by RA. Don't keep deflecting the blame. Fullstop!

Just out of interest, with your comment of how substainble etc, Aus rugby is basically getting 33 mill a year from TV rights with nothing in bank and only still afloat because of a handout from WR (World Rugby), NZR gets $80 mill a year, got $90 mill in the bank, and they know that won't last because they spend money on grassroots etc. So tell us again about substainable?
Both boards need other, but not sure who needs who more!

 

[Derpus]

It's your own rubbish results and lack of competitiveness that has killed Super Rugby.

That's a bit of a stretch. Super Rugby in it's previous form died because it was unwieldy. Too many time zones, too big, stupid conference system, Covid, etc. Sure our relative collapse in form post 2015 probably didn't help but to say its the sole reason Super Rugby failed is a bit disingenuous.

Super Rugby TT might be dead before it starts because of our lack of competitiveness. But it's kind of hard to say we killed it, given it has barely even started and it was clear before it began we would not be competitive.

I don't really understand why NZ are pushing so hard for an idea that is clearly doomed to fail. Just go back to the NPC.

 

[Zero_Cool]

I think how we got here isn't the issue, what matters is that frankly we can't compete with the Kiwi teams, quite clearly nether are unwilling or unable to do what whatever it would take to make the two groups of teams competitive with each other.
RA requires a competition where their teams are competitive. NZRU require the standard to be near test quality. So the only question that matters is how do RA rebuild Rugby in Australia. NZ likely isn't going to come to the table. So I'd imagine we have to minimize SRTT (likely top two from each comp, perhaps add in pair of Top League teams).

I really think we promote QU and USyd along with Fiji (perhaps a Sunwoles) gives us a very healthy comp.

 

[hoggy]

I think how we got here isn't the issue, what matters is that frankly we can't compete with the Kiwi teams, quite clearly nether are unwilling or unable to do what whatever it would take to make the two groups of teams competitive with each other.
RA requires a competition where their teams are competitive. NZRU require the standard to be near test quality. So the only question that matters is how do RA rebuild Rugby in Australia. NZ likely isn't going to come to the table. So I'd imagine we have to minimize SRTT (likely top two from each comp, perhaps add in pair of Top League teams).

I really think we promote QU and USyd along with Fiji (perhaps a Sunwoles) gives us a very healthy comp.

Could SydU attract a decent fan base, I agree they would be the best option regards competitive, but are they to0 similar to the Waratahs or does that matter.

 

[hifflepiff]

Could SydU attract a decent fan base, I agree they would be the best option regards competitive, but are they to0 similar to the Waratahs or does that matter.

I feel like a Sydney Uni team would have too much crossover with the Waraths. A Western Sydney team (with private backing) would be the best option as the Tahs brand basically doesn't exist west of Camperdown. Completely untapped market.

 

[hoggy]

I feel like a Sydney Uni team would have too much crossover with the Waraths. A Western Sydney team (with private backing) would be the best option as the Tahs brand basically doesn't exist west of Camperdown. Completely untapped market.

I know what your saying, but the counter argument is are West of Camperdown interested, huge potential market as the other codes show by pumping millions into the area, but would it be best to have 2 competitive NSW teams regardless of demographics.

 

[Adam84]

devils advocate here.

I think if rugby is looking to establish a new team in a new competition then they need to focus on market maturity before potential market growth. I get it western sydney is the growth market, but growth markets come at additional costs which any new team in a new competition may not have.

For delivering a new product/new competition they would be best sticking with a mature market, i.e. your rugby strongholds and building out from there.

 

[hifflepiff]

devils advocate here.
I think if rugby is looking to establish a new team in a new competition then they need to focus on market maturity before potential market growth. I get it western sydney is the growth market, but growth markets come at additional costs which any new team in a new competition may not have.

For delivering a new product/new competition they would be best sticking with a mature market, i.e. your rugby strongholds and building out from there.

You and Hoggy make fair points. I think we're 2-3 years off needing to expand anyway (particularly if we can get the Drua involved).

However I do think a Western Sydney should be one of the first areas looked at for a new team (North Queensland, the Gold Coast or even the Northern Beaches/Central Coast could be other options). IMO teams need a strong geographical basis to engage casual fans and promote tribalism/rivalries which sport thrives on. And there's no stronger rivalry than East v West Sydney

 

[Highlander35]

Something else to consider is that whatever is created only has to "survive" for 3 or 4 seasons.

2025 should be a BILs tour and 2027 should be a Home World Cup. Both of which should provide a boost, both to financials and domestic interest to reinvest in, and potentially expand whatever competition format is chosen. And from that perspective, being able to fall back on a 6 team Domestic Comp (presuming Canberra's investment in Fiji aligns their program with "ours") is a useful tool to have.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

devils advocate here.

I think if rugby is looking to establish a new team in a new competition then they need to focus on market maturity before potential market growth. I get it western sydney is the growth market, but growth markets come at additional costs which any new team in a new competition may not have.

For delivering a new product/new competition they would be best sticking with a mature market, i.e. your rugby strongholds and building out from there.

Yeah, if we were to add a 2nd team in Sydney I actually think North Sydney would be the likely candidate. Would hopefully then force the Tahs to start to look more towards the west.

 

[sunnyboys]

"Both boards need other, but not sure who needs who more!"

I think the boards only need each so far as organising tests is concerned, and perhaps a weekend or two of provincial winners playing off.

otherwise RA needs to walk away from NZR. the priorities of the two countries couldn't be further apart. there is nothing NZR can do to help RA that it couldn't have done already. NZR have no duty to help either.

RA needs to make its own plans to build its fanbase and revenue base. and NZR would be free to pursue its own requirements.

spending 4-5 months being the Washington Generals to NZ's Globetrotters isnt a wise business strategy. (unless the Globetrotters are paying you well enough )

 

[Dan54]

Yeah, if we were to add a 2nd team in Sydney I actually think North Sydney would be the likely candidate. Would hopefully then force the Tahs to start to look more towards the west.

Just out of interest, the rough figure to run a team is $10 mill a season, so where is extra money coming from for these teams?
As we know RA is basically broke. Do you cut wages of players? Do you have smaller squads? Perhaps charge the junior teams more to play game so money goes to RA? Or are Stan going to offer more money? Or are there some rich fellas out there just waiting to throw money at game?
It sounds easy to say lets make up a couple more teams, but you need money to pay them, and a reasonable standard of players to fill them.
I not saying that anything is impossible, but with the best will in the world it is probably implausable.
We can't keep pretending that RA is flush with money, and so any solution has to allow for the money side too.

 

[Micheal]

Just out of interest, the rough figure to run a team is $10 mill a season, so where is extra money coming from for these teams?
As we know RA is basically broke. Do you cut wages of players? Do you have smaller squads? Perhaps charge the junior teams more to play game so money goes to RA? Or are Stan going to offer more money? Or are there some rich fellas out there just waiting to throw money at game?
It sounds easy to say lets make up a couple more teams, but you need money to pay them, and a reasonable standard of players to fill them.
I not saying that anything is impossible, but with the best will in the world it is probably implausable.
We can't keep pretending that RA is flush with money, and so any solution has to allow for the money side too.

The rough figure to run a team is $10mil per season, if you are running a team to compete with the Kiwi Super Rugby sides, in their current state.

If we opt for Super Rugby AU into an international club tournament (Super Rugby TT or a competition inclusive of Japan), there is flexibility in how good new teams need to be.

Hypothetically, if the international component of Super Rugby was made up of:

• Top 2 Australian teams
• Top 2 NZ teams
• Top 2 Japanese teams
• Drua + Samoa

We only need two teams that are theoretically capable of competing with the Kiwi sides. This means expansion teams -- Western Sydney, North Sydney, QLD II -- can sit in the bottom half of the AU table whilst the team gains a foothold in the AU competition. Our Top 2 teams would likely get smashed by the Kiwi teams, but that's the case now, and we'd get an exciting spectacle at the end of the season where we all can hope that this year will be the year, without having to be disappointed week-in-week-out when it's inevitably not.

Do you think State of Origin would have gotten the same TV ratings -- week in and week out -- when NSW lost 8 in a row to QLD? Of course not, but hope each year caused people to tune in. Do you think NSW would have taken QLD seriously if they suggested that they play them every week, and that they should just "get better" (only possible by getting smashed by them every week)?

HOWEVER -- under such a model, Australian Rugby would have greater agency over it's own future, and I believe it will be able to offer a far more compelling product than Trans-Tasman Super Rugby. I watched every game of Super Rugby AU this year, and only 3 Trans-Tasman games before I got bored.

I know the nay-sayers will say that the inferior product of Super Rugby AU will cause Australian Rugby fans to watch Super Rugby NZ, but I don't think this is the case. Some of the best footy I watched last year was Schoolboy Rugby, Subbies and Super Rugby AU.

Why? It's about the narrative, the fan buy-in, not the players 100m sprint speeds.

Most importantly, New Zealand's current set up and model isn't feasible with the broadcast dollars they'd see from Super Rugby NZ. This means their teams will weaken as their players go overseas / to Australia, and we'd approach an equilibrium based upon the inherent economic power of each competition, based upon corporate interest and the home nations economy.

This means we'll see Australian teams doing better against NZ teams, improving the quality of the Trans-Tasman competition, and perhaps allowing for a reunited Super Rugby Trans-Tasman with expansion teams in the long-long-run.

 

[sunnyboys]

As a QLDer who lived in Nth Bondi for 5 years (so of course it makes me an expert!), I reckon its too much of an ask to expect a new Super Rugby team (however funded) to pick up the slack for NSWRU.

With it's latest moves SRU/Shute Shield has shown it wants to be a traditional club comp with a full compliment of teams across grades. For me, that takes the comp further away from ever being the third tier. The SRU was created when Sydney barely extended out to the now Western Subs and is run by people who still think Sydney doesn't extend to the Western Subs!

NSWRU sees it self as "city and country" - both cool places for rugger types. By contrast the Western Subs is a bit of no mans land for NSWRU and SRU - nether of them really don't know what to do.

I do think NSWRU needs to lead though. Because the SRU have pretty much signaled that they've given up on making it work.

But i'm not convinced a new SRAu team is the solution.

 

[hoggy]

I think one of the biggest mistakes Rugby here made was expansion without securing its own heartland. You look at the AFL with Victoria and the NRL with NSW, even rugby in NZ was secure in its dominance at home.

But rugby expanded (the old global domination theory, don't get me started on that) without ensuring it had taken the right steps to secure its own heartland, and NSW is the prime example of that, where as all the other codes have been able to take a varying level of support of rugby and also grown in there own right, that rugby now finds it is competing in a very crowded market place.

20 years ago Rugby was a big player in the NSW sporting market, right now it is struggling for relevance in that same market.

I understand that maybe another team right now could be stretching it, but if not then what is the plan to at least start to compete to get some of that market share back.

 

[Adam84]

Just out of interest, the rough figure to run a team is $10 mill a season, so where is extra money coming from for these teams?

This figure is by design of the tournament has existed previously though, what they're saying is it needs to change.

 

[hoggy]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...ibMx5FTD6B_SMpEPzmigxo8M60JSxcKoGyyr991w1SIbY

Lots of different inuendos, you actually start to wonder whether these guys are upto it.

 

[Dan54]

[quote="Micheal, post: 1210588, member: 5428"

Most importantly, New Zealand's current set up and model isn't feasible with the broadcast dollars they'd see from Super Rugby NZ. This means their teams will weaken as their players go overseas / to Australia, and we'd approach an equilibrium based upon the inherent economic power of each competition, based upon corporate interest and the home nations economy.

This means we'll see Australian teams doing better against NZ teams, improving the quality of the Trans-Tasman competition, and perhaps allowing for a reunited Super Rugby Trans-Tasman with expansion teams in the long-long-run.[/quote]

Whay is the NZR gets from broadcast for Super games, and why would they lose more than Australia? I quite interested to know how you work out the figure NZR gets from Super rugby, test Rugby and Bunnings cup games.
That is quite stretching some ideas you did there, Australia won't lose players from probably having to pay them less and NZR will?

 

[Dan54]

This figure is by design of the tournament has existed previously though, what they're saying is it needs to change.

Ok that was the figure Hamsh spoke of when talking how much the PI teams would need to compete, even if international travel added was 1 mill, which I would imagine would be tops .