Where to for Super Rugby?

[Mr Doug]

In that situation, was there any way that any other franchise could have found out about Cronk once the Reds had rejected him?

Good question chibimatty. I would assume that the answer would be that it depended on how active (read 'switched on'), each Super Rugby franchise recruiting dept. was in 2001?! I will ask Richo if he spread the word among his fellow former-Wallabies, and get back to you!

 

[Brumby Runner]

Test matches, of course, provide the bigger revenue


Even with the cargo-cult Super Rugby on life support, these "Super" revenue streams won't be up to be much. The demand for Saffa content in Europe is overblown because they clash with the prime European rugby. They are filler and so are we.

You may well be right on all counts Kiap, but from what I've seen variously reported the real reason the Super Rugby matches are of value to NH audiences is the opportunity to watch the NZ sides on a consistent basis.

And, while test matches are the biggest revenue generator, isn't it more likely that with a lower standard national team, the Wallabies minus all the top players who are likely to go offshore, the test revenue to the ARU will diminish with only a domestic competition to back up the national team? And we might find it harder to arrange test matches against the crop of the international sides (read NZ and England) as our own national team deteriorates.

 

[The Honey Badger]

2. For a domestic comp of 8 teams,

Why 8 teams?

Let's keep it at the 5 we have. Make it provincial/state based comp. Most people can relate to that.

Let's try and make it rival State of Origin. Ok, granted, that's going to take a while but something to work towards.

What we do have is the opportunity for a National (state of origin) not just NSW and QLD.

Let's call this the National State of the Union for want of something better.

Now I think the broadcasters would show some interest in this concept.

Short sharp comp, maybe later in the season and follow on from the NRC.


Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The Rebels lost 4 Wallabies - Phipps, O'Connor, Beale and Vuna - and replaced them with no Wallabies. They would have signed Foley but he changed his mind and stayed with the Waratahs. I believe that the only ex or current Wallabies with the Rebels in 2014 were Luke Burgess and Scott Higginbotham.


I think the Rebels may have lost out significantly worse here than the Tahs did .

That's an entirely different thing though. The issue you posed before was how the Tahs could recruit those players.

It has definitely been an ongoing problem that the Rebels and Force have found it harder to attract players because it invariably involved them moving away from their home and also move to a team that was likely to struggle.

I agree the ARU should have made it possible for them to spend more on players to help make them more competitive.

I don't think the ARU will do anything to jeopardise the Wallabies though by trying to force players they desperately want to keep in the country to live somewhere they don't want to.

 

[Killer]

Morgan Turinu, with the equilivant of a 60cal machine gun, unloads on the ARU. No prisoners taken. Plenty of ice packs handed out at ARU and RUPA HQ.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/05/16/06/16/rebels-turinui-sanzaar

If I was a cynic I would think that this article is more aimed at Mr Cox, it could be perceived that Morgan and others are trying to hold Mr Cox to his word?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Why 8 teams?

Let's keep it at the 5 we have. Make it provincial/state based comp. Most people can relate to that.

Let's try and make it rival State of Origin. Ok, granted, that's going to take a while but something to work towards.

What we do have is the opportunity for a National (state of origin) not just NSW and QLD.

Let's call this the National State of the Union for want of something better.

Now I think the broadcasters would show some interest in this concept.

Short sharp comp, maybe later in the season and follow on from the NRC.


Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

Can you really pay a full time wage to guys playing 4 or 8 games a year? NRC would have to get a lot more popular to take up the slack

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

The top up contracts are designed to keep players in the country. If you wanted to live in Sydney or Brisbane because that is your home and your Australian contract option was to move to Canberra or Perth, the offer of a bigger contract in France, England or Japan might be more tempting.

Players do have to move interstate in the AFL due to the draft. They also don't have the option to take up a lucrative offer overseas.

A draft in Super Rugby could surely only work if the minimum wage was higher. It's fine for fully contracted players, but all teams have a bunch of players on levels below that and it is not nearly enough to demand that someone moves interstate if they want that option.

Even an EPS contract probably isn't enough to suggest to someone that if they want to play professional rugby, they have to be drafted to the team that picks them and go there for that money.

Any situation the ARU comes up with won't be designed in a way that will make it harder to keep the key Wallabies in Australia.

It's not a draft, it's a contract with the ARU (centralised - i.e. only one contracting body, the ARU). The ARU tell you where to play not the individual franchises. (This is the system that you have championed IIRC)

If you go overseas, you don't play for the Wallabies regardless of how many tests you have played. It's a rubbish rule which should never have been introduced - ever.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Why 8 teams?

Let's keep it at the 5 we have. Make it provincial/state based comp. Most people can relate to that.

Let's try and make it rival State of Origin. Ok, granted, that's going to take a while but something to work towards.

What we do have is the opportunity for a National (state of origin) not just NSW and QLD.

Let's call this the National State of the Union for want of something better.

Now I think the broadcasters would show some interest in this concept.

Short sharp comp, maybe later in the season and follow on from the NRC.


Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

Would need to be at least 6 teams playing each other 3 times (the A-League and NBL both do this) imo. Add in Fiji for 7 even.

 

[Quick Hands]

Perhaps this should have it's own thread, but let's just for a minute do the maths on the feasibility of a completely domestic comp. I'm flying blind here and others who know more can make corrections and fill in the blanks.

1. Based on the information from others, it costs $10-12m p.a. to run a super franchise. Lets work on $12m and say 60% of that goes to players. 5 franchises x $7.2m = $36m.
2. For a domestic comp of 8 teams, say it costs $10m per franchise with the same split. 8 franchises x $6m is $48m to pay the players.
3. The total revenue required to run the comp and break even is $80m. Based on the figures above we should be able to keep most of the high profile players. How much would a media company be prepared to pay for the rights to such a comp? The difference between $80m and that is what is needed to be generated from ticket sales (and a bit of merchandise).

Is it doable?

You haven't factored in the cost of multiple flights to South Africa, Japan, Argentian and NZ to the costs of super rugby. These costs would be far less in a domestic competition.

 

[blues recovery]

The franchises don't pay for their travel costs and it still costs around 12 mill minimum to run a club if you pay the players somewhere in the vicinity of 6 mill

 

[lou75]

If I was a cynic I would think that this article is more aimed at Mr Cox, it could be perceived that Morgan and others are trying to hold Mr Cox to his word?

good on you Morgan - hold Cox to his word or remember him as the guy who sold you all out for the money

 

[Braveheart81]

I know it's not a simple answer but the Kiwis seem to be able to run a system that ensures a fair level of player quality amongst their Super teams
Clearly the Reds and Tahs have the most to lose from a cap including top ups and a draft but it's time for all of us I believe including me who love this game start to think of the collective good of Australian Rugby .
If you start with the fundamental premise that having four highly competitive Super teams able to challenge for finals berths is good for the game then you work your way back from that position as to how best to make that happen
If that's not important to you and you don't see any merit in trying to do the best we can out of a competition we are contractually bound to compete in then let's just keep doing what we are doing because it's clearly working a treat

The New Zealand system is the same as ours. Last year the maximum Super Rugby payment was $195,000 and the rest came via NZRU for All Blacks duty. Some teams had 10-15 players on All Black contracts and others had less than 5.

The big difference for them is that the players don't predominantly come from two of the five catchment areas.

They do nothing to ensure equal distribution of All Blacks or compensate sides with a higher Super Rugby cap than those that have more All Blacks.

It's not a draft, it's a contract with the ARU (centralised - i.e. only one contracting body, the ARU). The ARU tell you where to play not the individual franchises. (This is the system that you have championed IIRC)

If you go overseas, you don't play for the Wallabies regardless of how many tests you have played. It's a rubbish rule which should never have been introduced - ever.

I don't think I have ever championed that system. I am all for more centralisation but I don't see how the ARU can tell people where they have to play.

The salaries at the bottom end aren't high enough that you could reasonably force a young guy to move interstate.

At the top end the ARU is struggling to offer enough money to keep players in the country as it is. Demanding they move to a city they don't want to isn't likely to help keep them here.

I am in favour of the Giteau rule because I think it does help free up money to keep players in Australia as the players it allows to go overseas and still be eligible for the Wallabies would be amongst the highest paid players in the country if the remained here. There are certainly negatives attached to it, but I think there is a net benefit.

 

[Killer]

good on you Morgan - hold Cox to his word or remember him as the guy who sold you all out for the money

fair enough too!

 

[blues recovery]

The New Zealand system is the same as ours. Last year the maximum Super Rugby payment was $195,000 and the rest came via NZRU for All Blacks duty. Some teams had 10-15 players on All Black contracts and others had less than 5.

The big difference for them is that the players don't predominantly come from two of the five catchment areas.

They do nothing to ensure equal distribution of All Blacks or compensate sides with a higher Super Rugby cap than those that have more All Blacks.



I don't think I have ever championed that system. I am all for more centralisation but I don't see how the ARU can tell people where they have to play.

The salaries at the bottom end aren't high enough that you could reasonably force a young guy to move interstate.

At the top end the ARU is struggling to offer enough money to keep players in the country as it is. Demanding they move to a city they don't want to isn't likely to help keep them here.

I am in favour of the Giteau rule because I think it does help free up money to keep players in Australia as the players it allows to go overseas and still be eligible for the Wallabies would be amongst the highest paid players in the country if the remained here. There are certainly negatives attached to it, but I think there is a net benefit.

Ok so as I read it you think that' it's ok wether we have 5 teams or 4 to have one team have players earning over 2 million in ARU payments and another 100k
If we just shrug our shoulders and say too hard then we get what we deserve
I go back to the premise that would it be to the betterment of Oz Rugby overall if we could make all our Super teams as competitive as possible .
I had the great pleasure once to work for a very smart , successful (and very rich)Australian business person who's starting premise when evaluating the how to in a good idea was to think about why not rather than yes but .
Time for a bit more why not imo

 

[BLR]

The big difference for them is that the players don't predominantly come from two of the five catchment areas.

They do nothing to ensure equal distribution of All Blacks or compensate sides with a higher Super Rugby cap than those that have more All Blacks.

The salary cap actually means movement however, look at the MacKenzie brothers. Both from Invercargill, now play for the Chiefs.

Look at the Highlanders championship squad, was players from all around the place playing for them as it seems that they were given the tip off it was the place to be (however that was done, monetary or verbally telling them to go) despite the fact it was a basketcase a few years before. Don't tell me the NZRU didn't have anything to do with it. Look at that initial squad and the NPC teams associated with them, not too many in the Otago & Southland catchment zones.

This is talent equalisation at its best and it won a championship. Lima Sopoaga moved from Wellington down to Southland to get a game, when in the past there would be very little luck getting a lad from the North to come down.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ok so as I read it you think that' it's ok wether we have 5 teams or 4 to have one team have players earning over 2 million in ARU payments and another 100k
If we just shrug our shoulders and say too hard then we get what we deserve
I go back to the premise that would it be to the betterment of Oz Rugby overall if we could make all our Super teams as competitive as possible .
I had the great pleasure once to work for a very smart , successful (and very rich)Australian business person who's starting premise when evaluating the how to in a good idea was to think about why not rather than yes but .
Time for a bit more why not imo

I don't know what would be for the betterment of Australian Rugby overall.

I agree completely it would level out the teams if you made sure the overall salary levels of players was more equal within the teams.

Would you lose some Wallabies overseas because they decided that whilst they'd take what the ARU could offer to live in their desired city, they would rather go overseas for more money than relocate within Australia? Quite possibly.

Would the ARU adopt a policy that could jeopardise their ability to retain key Wallabies for what is by far and away their key revenue generator and what effectively makes it possible to fund all the Super Rugby players? I doubt it.

It's a really complex issue and you can't solve one without causing issues to the other.

The salary cap actually means movement however, look at the MacKenzie brothers. Both from Invercargill, now play for the Chiefs.

Look at the Highlanders championship squad, was players from all around the place playing for them as it seems that they were given the tip off it was the place to be (however that was done, monetary or verbally telling them to go) despite the fact it was a basketcase a few years before. Don't tell me the NZRU didn't have anything to do with it. Look at that initial squad and the NPC teams associated with them, not too many in the Otago & Southland catchment zones.

This is talent equalisation at its best and it won a championship. Lima Sopoaga moved from Wellington down to Southland to get a game, when in the past there would be very little luck getting a lad from the North to come down.

They have the same salary cap system we do. I don't think the NZRU instructs players where to go. Some teams have been dramatically better with recruitment than others.

Where is the talent equalisation? The Highlanders did win the comp with what was essentially a no name squad. That year the Crusaders would have had an overall salary level that was massively higher than the Highlanders which is the exact situation everyone is complaining about in Australia.

Likewise the Chiefs who had a big group of All Blacks.

Also a note, Marty McKenzie plays for the Crusaders. He was at the Chiefs in 2015.

 

[Quick Hands]

.

I don't think I have ever championed that system.

I apologise if I have misrepresented you, but I understood that you had advocated centralised contracting for sometime.

I am all for more centralisation but I don't see how the ARU can tell people where they have to play.

Because the ARU pay their wages.

T

At the top end the ARU is struggling to offer enough money to keep players in the country as it is. Demanding they move to a city they don't want to isn't likely to help keep them here.

We all make choices. Do they want to play for the Wallabies or not? Their choice.

T

I am in favour of the Giteau rule because I think it does help free up money to keep players in Australia as the players it allows to go overseas and still be eligible for the Wallabies would be amongst the highest paid players in the country if the remained here. There are certainly negatives attached to it, but I think there is a net benefit.

Completely disagree. One of the worst decisions made by the ARU (there's so many bad decisions, it's impossible to determine the worst). As usual, it's a short term fix, which in the long run encourages more players to leave in the knowledge that as more players leave the ARU will lower the threshold of tests played.

 

[Leo86]

Nah, the least worst idea would be to merge the Force and the Rebels...

But if I were to suggest that then we're well and truly stuck in an endless loop and the thread should be closed.

The least worst idea, not a good idea.

If it meant saving the force and rebels to merge i wish i could afford the cost of airfares to watch all the home games. Perth/Melbourne. Unfortunately opposite sides of the country. I get what you are saying in it being the demise of 2 clubs eventually. But it is only being stated as the least worse. Being the difference in logistics. Force/Rebels V Brumbies/Rebels. Location, cost of travel, time to travel.

I wonder if the brumbies were in the mix would you still 100% hate the idea. Id hate it but a merger would be the least worse than complete annihilation.

Its not a simple merge 2 clubs and throw 2 darts at the map of Aus but what would be the least damaging and possibly viable.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

While the kiwi Super Rugby sides can pay players more than the max $195K that NZRU will contribute, there's still an overall salary cap that cannot be exceeded, the penalty being $3 for every $1 overspent. So while the Crusaders overall wage bill for 2015 may have been more than the Highlanders, both were working within the same cap & I think "massively higher" is an overstatement.

As for talent equalisation, a few years back the Crusaders had Dan Carter, Stephen Brett & Colin Slade on their books & were told they couldn't re-sign all three for the following year. Slade ended up in Dunners & Brett in Auckland (one left before the other who could've stayed but the point stands).

 

[Braveheart81]

I apologise if I have misrepresented you, but I understood that you had advocated centralised contracting for sometime.
Because the ARU pay their wages.



We all make choices. Do they want to play for the Wallabies or not? Their choice.



Completely disagree. One of the worst decisions made by the ARU (there's so many bad decisions, it's impossible to determine the worst). As usual, it's a short term fix, which in the long run encourages more players to leave in the knowledge that as more players leave the ARU will lower the threshold of tests played.

The lure of playing for the Wallabies seems to be struggling to win out against the overseas offers. Is making that offer less attractive by dictating where the player must live going to be beneficial for player retention?

I realise the ARU would have that power as the payer but they hardly operate in a captive market.

I agree it would be bad if they lowered the test match cap under the Giteau rule but I don't think you can fairly say that is a given. I don't think having this policy makes it any more or less likely of a different policy in the future. South Africa went from no foreign players to no minimum match requirement for foreign players in one step.

Like any option it has pros and cons. On one hand it does allow a good veteran player to leave and still play for the Wallabies, weakening Super Rugby but at the same time it frees up money to keep someone else here.

For instance Adam Ashley-Cooper would have still demanded a high ARU salary last year but instead that money can be spent on ensuring a younger player, more important for the future like Dane Haylett-Petty or Samu Kerevi remains here.

Invariably the players this effects are amongst our highest paid players who are also in the last third of their career.

The players we lose overseas who hurt us the most are the young ones who have played some tests, have a big future ahead of them but are just outside the Wallaby top up system and so have the most to gain financially by heading overseas.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk