Where to for Super Rugby?

[KOB1987]

My understanding is that this format was the preferred one by the players and coaches, you know, the employees. I can understand the objection from the fans though. The thing that can fix things is money, if we can actually keep most of our rugby players playing rugby, in Australia, a bit of arse kicking is possible, even against Kiwis. Hence, I eagerly await this PE announcement we are all waiting for. And a viable 3rd tier is a must.

 

[Joe King]

With the 5 (+ poss. Fiji) teams you suggest, that idea is OK.

Would be 80% the same as the NRC - in which case, rather than yet another name, keep a modicum of continuity and call it the NRC.

To me, having an Super Rugby AU means franchises playing with their test players (otherwise don't call it 'super rugby').

Would much prefer a 5 week round-robin of Super Rugby AU in late Feb-March which then leads into Super Rugby Pacific (11 rounds+bye, semis and final only).

Ship has sailed tho (for now).

Or just call it the Australian Provincial Championship (APC) like it used to be called.

Australian Provincial Championship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kiap]

players and coaches, you know, the employees

As employees, the way they get paid is through the box office … which is ultimately, y'know, the fans.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Taking the piss? Or genuine?

I won't be watching the Kiwi games, other than when they are up against the Reds. I'll watch the Aus derbies for sure. I'll count Drua as an Aus team. And I'll have a passing interest in MP (Moana Pasifika) if they shape up. I don't expect to follow my sport through to the finals. Weird that I can say that months before the season starts.

The lack of a Aussie championship is simply stupid. Apparently "NZ" now means "Pacific". It's the only way I can understand this comp.

In the mean time Thorn, who always wanted this bag of shit, now needs to front up. No more excuses. The time for his bull shit is over.

And if he does, I may even reconsider my thoughts on NZ-Super, sorry Pacific Super.

Nah nzru are finally getting their big boy pants on and trialing open borders policy (with quotas) with MP (Moana Pasifika). They then prove it actually improves ABs and we move to franchise model in 2023.

...... was that a pig suddenly flying backwards across my screen.

 

[KOB1987]

As employees, the way they get paid is through the box office … which is ultimately, y'know, the fans.

Yeah I get that. Did you read the rest of the post or just the bit you quoted?

 

[kiap]

Yeah I get that. Did you read the rest of the post or just the bit you quoted?

It wasn't long, so yes.

tbh, I was only moved to reply due to the "…, you know, the employees…" bit which added a little zest.

 

[KOB1987]

Yeah fair enough. The employees are the most important parts in the system because they make it happen, but yes they need to be able to sell the product. My point was money can fix that. Fingers crossed.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

My understanding is that this format was the preferred one by the players and coaches, you know, the employees. I can understand the objection from the fans though. The thing that can fix things is money, if we can actually keep most of our rugby players playing rugby, in Australia, a bit of arse kicking is possible, even against Kiwis. Hence, I eagerly await this PE announcement we are all waiting for. And a viable 3rd tier is a must.

If we blow our money bringing back players from Europe as ST fix we are screwed....we can't have the 2003 lions windfall fiscso all over again. We need to invest in grass roots and a competition structure that appeals to oz fans....

 

[KOB1987]

If we blow our money bringing back players from Europe as ST fix we are screwed..we can't have the 2003 lions windfall fiscso all over again. We need to invest in grass roots and a competition structure that appeals to oz fans..

I think the current option will appeal to fans as long as we can be winning. I don’t think we need a lot of players to make that happen, but I agree the focus needs to be on retaining the future stars, not buying a lot of players back. The only foreign based players who should be bankrolled are those seen as genuine contenders for the 2025-2027 Wallabies. And we need a proper domestic third tier for the back half of the season.

 

[hoggy]

I think the current option will appeal to fans as long as we can be winning. I don’t think we need a lot of players to make that happen, but I agree the focus needs to be on retaining the future stars, not buying a lot of players back. The only foreign based players who should be bankrolled are those seen as genuine contenders for the 2025-2027 Wallabies. And we need a proper domestic third tier for the back half of the season.

The winning option to grow Austrlalain rugby has been tried for the last 20 years, it has not worked. Until the game here adopts a competition structure that appeals to a far greater fan base then you can talk all you want about future stars, PE, grassroot structures because not much will ever change.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think the current option will appeal to fans as long as we can be winning. I don’t think we need a lot of players to make that happen, but I agree the focus needs to be on retaining the future stars, not buying a lot of players back. The only foreign based players who should be bankrolled are those seen as genuine contenders for the 2025-2027 Wallabies. And we need a proper domestic third tier for the back half of the season.

to me the way the current structure can work is allowing for more free flow of players. The MP (Moana Pasifika) model of allowing 3 imports (all blacks) is the way to go. We just can’t compete having 5 oz sides pitted against 5 kiwi sides with closed borders policy as don’t have the depth to match kiwi teams. We have seen messaging nzru not closed to this (longer term) and MP (Moana Pasifika) experiment provides test case to apply to all TT teams (ie allow nz players to play for them and also still represent the all blacks).

 

[Dan54]

My understanding is that this format was the preferred one by the players and coaches, you know, the employees. I can understand the objection from the fans though. The thing that can fix things is money, if we can actually keep most of our rugby players playing rugby, in Australia, a bit of arse kicking is possible, even against Kiwis. Hence, I eagerly await this PE announcement we are all waiting for. And a viable 3rd tier is a must.

Most players and coaches worth their salt will not want to take the easy way out, that goes without saying!
I have heard players (well in NZ and Micheal Hooper) say they disappointed about no SA, they enjoyed the different style of play and the touring as a team.

 

[Dan54]

to me the way the current structure can work is allowing for more free flow of players. The MP (Moana Pasifika) model of allowing 3 imports (all blacks) is the way to go. We just can’t compete having 5 oz sides pitted against 5 kiwi sides with closed borders policy as don’t have the depth to match kiwi teams. We have seen messaging nzru not closed to this (longer term) and MP (Moana Pasifika) experiment provides test case to apply to all TT teams (ie allow nz players to play for them and also still represent the all blacks).

Tell me RN if this open border policy was in action, and knowing we all work off same salary cap, what are you going to think if bugger all ABs want to play in Aus, and a few Wallabies want to play in NZ teams to maybe have better coaching etc? You run a huge risk of weakening Aussie teams, if I was fighting for a place in ABs OR Wallabies I would be heading for a place in a team that will make me look better.
It doesn't add up to me, in anyway or form.

 

[Adam84]

It really is dire.. rugby in Australia is experiencing death by 1000 cuts. Only good thing going for it is the club rugby, and in some states that was canned for 2021.

 

[Adam84]

Tell me RN if this open border policy was in action, and knowing we all work off same salary cap, what are you going to think if bugger all ABs want to play in Aus, and a few Wallabies want to play in NZ teams to maybe have better coaching etc? You run a huge risk of weakening Aussie teams, if I was fighting for a place in ABs OR Wallabies I would be heading for a place in a team that will make me look better.
It doesn't add up to me, in anyway or form.

Ok if it doesn’t add up let’s just maintain status quo and put the nail in the coffin for rugby in Australian then..

Heaven forbid we actually look for ways to improve the game, or consider options outside the current norm. Why you continue to restrain your thinking to what exists now as to why it shouldn’t exist in the future highlights the problem with the whole code in the region.

 

[hifflepiff]

You run a huge risk of weakening Aussie teams, if I was fighting for a place in ABs OR Wallabies I would be heading for a place in a team that will make me look better.

An open borders policy wouldn't mean any Aus player could qualify for the ABs or NZlder for the Wobs. The grandfather/5 year residency rule would still be in place, players would just be available for selection for their nat team if they played in either country.

That said, whilst it would be an improvement on what we have currently, I'm still fairly suss on the prospects of open borders being the silver bullet we need. It would likely take at least 5-10 years before we saw any significant crossover of players. That's way too long to wait for Australian rugby to have a competitive domestic competition.

I also think you would see far more NZlders coming to Aus than vice versa as NZ teams have a level of talent production such that they wouldnt be interested in the vast majority of Aus players.

The only way rugby can be salvaged in this country is if we can put together our own pro domestic competition. No other half measure will work.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Tell me RN if this open border policy was in action, and knowing we all work off same salary cap, what are you going to think if bugger all ABs want to play in Aus, and a few Wallabies want to play in NZ teams to maybe have better coaching etc? You run a huge risk of weakening Aussie teams, if I was fighting for a place in ABs OR Wallabies I would be heading for a place in a team that will make me look better.
It doesn't add up to me, in anyway or form.

But with salary caps teams will lose players if more teams and more spots. That is what happens in nrl. Ie the depth has more options

 

[Rugbynutter39]

An open borders policy wouldn't mean any Aus player could qualify for the ABs or NZlder for the Wobs. The grandfather/5 year residency rule would still be in place, players would just be available for selection for their nat team if they played in either country.

That said, whilst it would be an improvement on what we have currently, I'm still fairly suss on the prospects of open borders being the silver bullet we need. It would likely take at least 5-10 years before we saw any significant crossover of players. That's way too long to wait for Australian rugby to have a competitive domestic competition.

I also think you would see far more NZlders coming to Aus than vice versa as NZ teams have a level of talent production such that they wouldnt be interested in the vast majority of Aus players.

The only way rugby can be salvaged in this country is if we can put together our own pro domestic competition. No other half measure will work.

Open borders is not the only reform but important reform. Of course we need to improve grassroots etc, and invest in nrc (this also is very important if not equally important). And you are right it is a medium to longer term reform in terms of impact. To me would mean more likely to get private investors in teams knowing they have wider pool of players to choose from.

 

[Adam84]

And when we talk 'salary cap' i think its a pretty liberal definition as they currently stand...Super Rugby doesn't really have a salary cap because neither country factor in the test team top-ups.

It's not a proper salary cap in terms of equal distribution of talent because concessions are offered against test players(kind of defeats the whole purpose), it's a salary cap purely for ensuring clubs live within their means.

 

[Micheal]

Seeing as there is no such thing as a bad idea in a brainstorm -- how's this for a crazy idea:

RA sells themselves to the NRL and the NRL becomes custodians of the game in Australia.

As the skillset required to play Rugby League and Rugby Union is very similar, the player base is now controlled by a single entity and it is up to them to assign their resources optimally in order to maximise revenue.

Players would therefore be able to move between the codes with ease, and could have their transition structured in such a way that aligns with World Cup cycles, without punishment from the NRL or the current team that they are signed to.

BUT WON'T THIS MEAN THE DEATH OF RUGBY IN AUSTRALIA?
SITUATION A: THE NRL KILLING THE GAME

Right now, it seems RAs revenue is boosted artificially as it struggles to avoid destruction. If you wipe off the inefficient revenue, e.g. assume 100M revenue at break-even, the NRL could at best improve it's position by 100M in Australia if there was 100% revenue transition.

This seems unlikely.

SITUATION B: THE NRL GROWING THE GAME

Working with pure logic and zero emotion, the NRL would have zero reason to kill the game in Australia.

For reference, the annual revenues and profits for the RA and the NRL are below. Please note I've taken 2019 figures as they are ex-COVID, which is reflective of BAU:

NRL: 550M // 29M (e.g. 5% profit)
RA: 110M // -9M (e.g. -8% profit)

Looking internationally, the NZRU and RFU have the following revenues and profits:

RFU: 400M // 4M (e.g. 1% profit)
NZRU: 190M // -7M

Given that we have approx. 0.4X the population of the UK and approx. 5X the population of NZ, there is no reason that - with a successful Wallabies and Super Rugby system - we can't increase revenues to 200M-400M p.a.

This means that rugby union would boost the NRL's annual revenue by 20% (the current situation) to almost 50% (the best case situation).

More than this, it would do so via traits that are unique to rugby union: a truly international sport and associated World Cup, British and Irish Lions tours, Olympic participation.

They would be able to add ex-pats from rugby playing nations to their customer base in Australia, a market that is likely currently not targetable for them.

Instead, they could treat Rugby Union and 7s Rugby as a separate sub-species of the same sport (e.g. like cricket does in 20/20, One Days and Test Cricket) and allocate its resources accordingly.

Given that fans have a high propensity to move between the codes (all of my diehard rugby union friends are no longer - they have left for the NRL), I can actually foresee a world in which:

1. The NRL brings Rugby Union into the tent
2. For the next World Cup cycle, they allow key players to move codes to boost their chances. The key players are enticed by the challenge, but not worried that it means the end of their careers in NRL.
3. The Wallabies win the World Cup, win the British & Irish Lions series, win the 2027 World Cup hosted in Australia, and revenues go through the fucking roof
4. The NRL is now only the NRL in name. They think to themselves "Jesus fucking Christ, this Union shit has the potential to be way bigger than League. Sod that off, we're Rugby Union purists now"
5. Rugby Union eats the NRL from the inside-out.