Where to for Super Rugby?

[Strewthcobber]

The finances is on the state unions/owners. ARU stops bail outs across all 5 teams, if a team folds its on themselves

And then what? Have to put 5 teams out each week


Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Beat]

Has the ARU along with the State Unions demonstrated an ability to maintain 5 competitive Super teams. A vehement no. In fact their own evidence is that three teams is the max.

Would an administration that was closer to excellence have been able? Same again going forward. I say yes, but I'd accept a maybe.

Cut any Australian team and this does not mantain the base and concentrate into more talent into fewer teams, as it would in NZ and SA. After a settling period you have then same quality of talent in fewer teams. And fewer players coming through a smaller grass roots to support it.

What you ask for inevitably leads to the death of at least professional rugby in Aus.

We need a different set p, now is the time to act.

Imo as far as Super goes, SH will be without Aus as things are proposed. Surprisingly enough, those diehards amonst us who see it want something else.

spot on

 

[kiap]

And then what? Have to put 5 teams out each week

Transition the Soup into a champions league: 6 weeks.*

National pro club comp bulk of the season: 6-8 teams.

*or drop it altogether when the current deal ends

 

[Leo86]

And then what? Have to put 5 teams out each week/quote]

Fair point.

Threw that in there coz apparently thats the ARUs sole reason to cull. Teams get their yearly income with what they have to budget. Stronger/fixed comp should see more dollars (fans returning + hopefully more new fans). Id like my scenario to be our 5 teams are sustainable within a revived comp. But as i said fair point. Hence why im not charge i spose

 

[RedsHappy]

Wayne Smith reports in The Australian - last Rebels home crowd under 6,000.

 

[RedsHappy]

IMO, a good, thoughtful article by Russ Tulloch in The Australian, May 9:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/5886dd69d60a69ff899fbced1a51a779

An extract:

When rugby became professional, the then CEO John O’Neill dismantled and abandoned all the existing grassroots programs. The ARU’s staff numbers multiplied. A High Performance Unit was created and the approach was to simply focus on the ‘‘star performers’’ via the talent identification programs in schools. ​

The problem was it disenfranchised many highly talented players, who for whatever reason, were missed by the opaque selection process. Gaining a contract became the goal as opposed to joining a club and playing for a team.​

It is interesting to note that most of the players in the winning 1999 RWC had come from the amateur programs and were coached by people from the Clark/Marks/O’Shea program that was swiftly dismantled by O’Neill. Both Michael Cheika and Eddie Jones were developed under this program.​

The ARU policy under O’Neill was ‘‘if the Wallabies are going well, everything else will follow’’. Yet there was only so long that they could live off the fruits of the clubs’ hard labour. As Alan Jones, former Wallabies coach commented: “It was like building a house starting with the roof.” Without strong foundations, things would inevitably come crashing down — and guess what? That’s happening now.​

So thanks to the top-down approach, we have lost our strong base of players and we’re faced with the dilemma of having to cut a Super rugby team.​

My second reason for believing rugby still has further to fall is due to the mismanagement of the ARU by the CEO and board. There seems to be a secret election process to the ARU board designed to keep the top-end of town in control. The current board, in fact the boards over the professional era, seem to have contained some prominent people but none have been able to get in and do the hard yards necessary to turn the future of the game around.​

 

[blues recovery]

Been thinking about this whole sorry mess, the causes of it and what the future will look like certainly in the short term. A lot of this has been said before but I need a cleanse of my opinions and state them as just that.
1.The whole we dont have enough depth for 5 teams theory is a complete fallacy. As is the whole we started to go down hill when we introduced 5 teams theory.Since the introduction of the Rebels , both the Reds and Tahs won the thing for the first time as well as the Brums making a final. The key point to our malaise on the field imo is the 60 odd Super quality Australian players plying their trade os including over 30 who have played for the Wobs. This situation was actually manufactured by the ARU loosening their position on keeping the best players in the country. I know from experience in the pre Pulver days this was a massive priority for the ARU.
2. So with the general weakening of our teams the quality of our Super rugby has totally regressed.Cant avoid also what appears to be a real failure of coaching .Remember we used to have Cheika, White , EMac and Macqueen as the standard of our coaching . Compare this to the current crop.
Couple this with the insane structure of the current Super Rugby comp and the average punter has just completely lost interest and this is clearly a nationwide malaise. SANZAAR of which we are one third have to accept responsibility for the shit fight the current structure delivers.
So reasons for decline: 1. Too many quality players let out of the system
2. Coaching quality
3.SANZAAR lunacy
So to the future.
Hurts me to say this but I cant see how Super Rugby in Melbourne recovers in the short to medium term after this nonsense. I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that through both internal and external factors ( ARU),the Rebels are probably too far gone. I pray Im wrong but I know how hard it is to make this business model work. If the rebs survive given the hand they have been dealt I cant see anything but continued at least mediocrity for the foreseeable future.
I dont know enough about the set up in Perth to really comment but from the outside it appears that there is a passionate but quite small supporter base that will continue to support a fairly average team at fairly barely acceptable levels
The Brums will continue to do what the Brums always do I think. Do ok in just about every metric but we have to be realistic . They have not been a powerhouse for some time nor have they been poor.
The fickle nature of the Reds and Tahs supporter bases will do their usual thing and jump on the back of a winning team and stay away if the current dross continues to get served up. I think this is primarily where the coaching quality comes into play as both these teams current squads should be performing considerably better than they are. However these two have the most to gain from a cut to 4 and will have no excuses for serving up what they are at the moment.
So IMO irrespective of the machinations behind the scenes I think the most logical cut is to cut the Rebs. But we would never have gotten to this place if the ARU and SANZAAR management had even remotely done the job their exorbitant salarys demand

 

[wamberal]

Mate, you totally lost me when you blame Australian rugby for losing players to countries whose salaries dwarf ours.


Is that not the biggest factor, that disparity? Wearing the Wallabies jersey has some value, but sorry to say, not much in dollar terms.


I know that if I were a kid with a professional future, I would be looking at the money first, and the glory second. That is the way the young think these days, as far as i can see.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If blues recovery is right on his numbers then it is clear that 30 former wallabies are OS and another 30 super cannon fodder are as well.
Its all very well to say that kids these days will go where the money is but I have more faith in them than that: these kids are not making "never have to work again" levels of $ in europe.
So we should reverse the Giteau rule immediately - it was the only hold we had over the developing and fringe players.
Can someone explain to me the UK position? I was led to believe that to play in the premiership you either had to have played 30 or so tests for another country or be "England eligible".

 

[oztimmay]

Been thinking about this whole sorry mess, the causes of it and what the future will look like certainly in the short term. A lot of this has been said before but I need a cleanse of my opinions and state them as just that.
1.The whole we dont have enough depth for 5 teams theory is a complete fallacy. As is the whole we started to go down hill when we introduced 5 teams theory.Since the introduction of the Rebels , both the Reds and Tahs won the thing for the first time as well as the Brums making a final. The key point to our malaise on the field imo is the 60 odd Super quality Australian players plying their trade os including over 30 who have played for the Wobs. This situation was actually manufactured by the ARU loosening their position on keeping the best players in the country. I know from experience in the pre Pulver days this was a massive priority for the ARU.
2. So with the general weakening of our teams the quality of our Super rugby has totally regressed.Cant avoid also what appears to be a real failure of coaching .Remember we used to have Cheika, White , EMac and Macqueen as the standard of our coaching . Compare this to the current crop.
Couple this with the insane structure of the current Super Rugby comp and the average punter has just completely lost interest and this is clearly a nationwide malaise. SANZAAR of which we are one third have to accept responsibility for the shit fight the current structure delivers.
So reasons for decline: 1. Too many quality players let out of the system
2. Coaching quality
3.SANZAAR lunacy
So to the future.
Hurts me to say this but I cant see how Super Rugby in Melbourne recovers in the short to medium term after this nonsense. I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that through both internal and external factors ( ARU),the Rebels are probably too far gone. I pray Im wrong but I know how hard it is to make this business model work. If the rebs survive given the hand they have been dealt I cant see anything but continued at least mediocrity for the foreseeable future.
I dont know enough about the set up in Perth to really comment but from the outside it appears that there is a passionate but quite small supporter base that will continue to support a fairly average team at fairly barely acceptable levels
The Brums will continue to do what the Brums always do I think. Do ok in just about every metric but we have to be realistic . They have not been a powerhouse for some time nor have they been poor.
The fickle nature of the Reds and Tahs supporter bases will do their usual thing and jump on the back of a winning team and stay away if the current dross continues to get served up. I think this is primarily where the coaching quality comes into play as both these teams current squads should be performing considerably better than they are. However these two have the most to gain from a cut to 4 and will have no excuses for serving up what they are at the moment.
So IMO irrespective of the machinations behind the scenes I think the most logical cut is to cut the Rebs. But we would never have gotten to this place if the ARU and SANZAAR management had even remotely done the job their exorbitant salarys demand

I know how hard it would have been for you to type that, BR.

With respect, I hope you don't mind me saying that I hope you're wrong, and the Rebels are playing in 2018 and beyond. No, I'm not an expert on running a sporting franchise, and probably never will. Yes, we've taken a massive hit, largely due to some breathtaking incompetence at the ARU level, and I not sure how ANY club can return from that.

If we somehow survive the cut, we need to make some very tough changes. Namely; new head coach, new S&C process (not necessarily change the person, yet), re-engage back into the club system, recruit for key positions (lock and flyhalf stand out as obvious ones), reinvigorate the membership. I could go on, but I'll probably wear out my keyboard.

And yes, I think we're all in concensus that a cleanout of ARU management, and a reinvigoration of grassroot programs (accross the country) is despratly needed.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

recruit for key positions (lock and flyhalf stand out as obvious ones), reinvigorate the membership. I could go on, but I'll probably wear out my keyboard.

Another stuff up of the ARU's making: you can't recruit at the moment!!
You have got a 10 in your U20s who is highly rated by some and Maddocks was a 10 for some of his school years (personally think he will be better than your recruited 10) so its not all doom and gloom - if you survive.
The impenetrability of the Melbourne sports market makes me think the Rebels should go, however, the time difference to Perth makes it difficult to stage watchable games - though they could clearly have played in these rugby dead zones at 7:30 AEST on Fridays or, perhaps even better late sunday arvo AEST.
Someone made a good point about Tew's indifference to our plight: with falling bids for sport and given the size differential in the market between Oz and NZ he needs us to be healthy more than he may presently think.

 

[Scrubber2050]

A thought worth considering, and some of you guys may know the answer.

WHEN one of our 5 franchises becomes 4 do the remaining franchises get a substantial increase in salary cap and/or extra players in their top squads ?

 

[Rebels3]

I don't personally think the guiteu rule has been a bad thing, in fact I believe it's (and I'm amazed to say this) been a blessing. It would of kept more than lost, if it wasn't the case. Those players moving overseas barring 2/3 players aren't qualified to play for Australia, so they would of moved guiteu rule or not. The only 3 players that have moved overseas that has the 60caps threshold (AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), genia and Beale) with one coming back. What we should be doing is pushing the French and English clubs to tighten their eligibility rules for amount of overseas players that can play for a club. It's the players moving pre guiteu rule qualified that are making the big difference. Imagine the reds backrow with higgers at 6, gill at 7 and smith at 8, that's as good as any in the comp, then add Greg Holmes and their scrum is more than solid. Add mike Harris at 10 and hugh Pyle and Luke jones at lock, PAE at prop for the rebels and suddenly they are a mid table team. To'omua at 12, mowen at 8, tomane at 11 and mogg at 15 for the brums and they convert 1/2 close losses to wins. Dave Dennis at 6 for the tahs, pushes Hanigan to their troublesome lock spot or sitaleki Timani back to add some grunt. JOC (James O'Connor) playing wing for the Force and suddenly they have 2 quality wingers (peni and JOC (James O'Connor)) capable of changing a game. It's the players not guiteu qualified that's killing us, the money is too great over there. There needs to stricter rules on the other end to deter this

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^
Probably not going to happen as it is not in England, France's favour.

Better solution is we have some leadership at the top, bring Rigby to the fore, thereby increasing revenue (and bring it on free to air) and pay our blokes what they deserve on the world market.

You'll never stop the player who wants a "lifestyle" change (on similar money) from playing in Europe but it will sure stop one of the bullshit reasons often trotted out - "I am doing it for my family" instead of the honest answer, "I'm doing it for the money." In reality both reasons may be one in the same.

 

[dru]

Transition the Soup into a champions league: 6 weeks.*

National pro club comp bulk of the season: 6-8 teams.

*or drop it altogether when the current deal ends

I'm in complete concurrence. I'd add that I dont to drop Soup as a dummy spit to NZ/SANZAAR. As proposed it simply does not work for Aus.

A National Pro club comp at the end of the season - I ackowledge that this wont suit NZ (though it could suit SA). I'm sorry about that. However, in the very near future, it is what we can offer.

 

[Omar Comin']

If someone offered you 2 times the money you're on now to do the same job in England or France would you say no?

Some might, what about 3 times the money, or 4? And yeah you'll play a few more games but you won't be on the road so much. After most games you'll be home for dinner.

Keeping players here is going to be increasingly difficult because the Top 14 and English Premiership continue to get stronger and Super Rugby is dead. The hardest to keep are those guys on the fringes of international selection who either don't get an ARU top up or get a smaller one. Even if Super Rugby were to recover you're talking about a 15 or 16 week competition competing against 26 and 22 week competitions (as well as at least 6 games in the European Cups).

 

[zer0]

Someone made a good point about Tew's indifference to our plight: with falling bids for sport and given the size differential in the market between Oz and NZ he needs us to be healthy more than he may presently think.

I doubt it's indifference. More just keeping quiet for now as it's not his role to publicise internal ARU or SARU affairs.

I also doubt that the NZRU fails to comprehend their own need for larger markets than NZ to sustain themselves. Quite the contrary I'd imagine. Hence why they prop up the Sunwolves and take All Black tests to the USA.

 

[RedsHappy]

I'm surprised that no one here has as yet picked up the clear inferences for Australian rugby of M Lynagh's very complimentary remarks above re the rapidly emerging quality of the England Premier Clubs' developmental, player support and skills improvement systems. He's highly qualified to make such assessments.

When combined with the obvious, ongoing degradation of the equivalent Australian rugby systems and the regularity of the humiliating w-l ratios of our professional teams here in front of shrinking crowds, the motivation for our best players to leave Australia will be decreasingly about just money, but increasingly about also joining English teams to make them better players (thus enhancing their longevity as players or earning power or both) and to get into a winning side (or a side more credible in winning regularly than ours).

The meaning of 'vicious circles'; negative trends become exponentially worse when the conditions driving them are exacerbated and/or new conditions arrive that even further aggravate them.

One of the many reasons the mooted 'coaches' crisis summit' is a bad joke.

We need fresh, innovative, radical, and genuinely strategic perspectives (like many of the examples given in this thread). And certainly some from the best game strategising sources outside Australia so's to counter our obviously worn-out biases that have in part got us into this 'crisis'.

Instead we believe that assembling our hapless group of failed or failing Super coaches and adding a bit of early 1990s-dated Aussie expertise will come up with good-enough answers that the ARU's HPU (forgive the acronymic oxymoron) says will 'fix our problems reasonably quickly'.

(My personal favourite in this context being when the new QRU CEO stated 'we don't want any hand grenade throwers though (in the summit)' when in truth that is exactly what we need.)

 

[Highlander35]

If blues recovery is right on his numbers then it is clear that 30 former wallabies are OS and another 30 super cannon fodder are as well.
Its all very well to say that kids these days will go where the money is but I have more faith in them than that: these kids are not making "never have to work again" levels of $ in europe.
So we should reverse the Giteau rule immediately - it was the only hold we had over the developing and fringe players.
Can someone explain to me the UK position? I was led to believe that to play in the premiership you either had to have played 30 or so tests for another country or be "England eligible".

To play in the Premiership without an EU or Kolpak Passport (probably soon to go to UK only) requires you to be English Eligible, a valuable contribution to a team (a minimum number of overall Test caps or involved in a certain % of Tests over the previous 18 months to 2 years) or to have already been residing in the UK with work permit in a non-Rugby role. That's the only way that the RFU will sponsor your visa.

No idea how the French or Italians do it, but the Pro12 Nations have a more loose and fast system, between lower salaries, willingness to take players with fewer caps on potential, and utilising the Residency Laws to boost smaller player pools.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

If someone offered you 2 times the money you're on now to do the same job in England or France would you say no?

Some might, what about 3 times the money, or 4? And yeah you'll play a few more games but you won't be on the road so much. After most games you'll be home for dinner.

Keeping players here is going to be increasingly difficult because the Top 14 and English Premiership continue to get stronger and Super Rugby is dead. The hardest to keep are those guys on the fringes of international selection who either don't get an ARU top up or get a smaller one. Even if Super Rugby were to recover you're talking about a 15 or 16 week competition competing against 26 and 22 week competitions (as well as at least 6 games in the European Cups).

All good reasons why we need to urgently cut back/out and re-assign (a) the obvious $ millions wasted in meaningless and impact-less ARU corporate overheads and (b) the obvious $ millions totally wasted via the large quantum of unnecessarily duplicated overheads of 5 Super rugby teams and 5 State RUs.

These funds in part must, in some carefully considered form, be allocated to higher effective salaries for our (say) c.200 best players. And such will be a genuinely productive use of resources instead of just pouring thousands of $100 bills down the drain as we presently do, gaining zero value from it.

To survive, Australian rugby needs radical, very radical, changes.