Where to for Super Rugby?

[RedsHappy]

After strongly endorsing the S18 and a 5 team model for Aus rugby only a year or so ago, our Chairman C Clyne told news.com.au yesterday:

“If the goal was to secure Australian rugby financially, the worst thing you could do is run a national competition,” ARU chairman Cameron Clyne said.

“The interest in that is virtually zero. The reality is this is a professional game and it costs money, and you have to find ways to generate revenue. A national competition is not one of those ways.

“There was some (broadcast) interest in a trans-Tasman competition but our performance in a credible competition with the Kiwis would need to be at a much higher threshold.

“We’ve shown the stats: our performances deteriorated when we went from three to four, and deteriorated further when we went to five. That is why we are on the path we’re on and are determined to return to four teams.”

 

[lou75]

After strongly endorsing the S18 and a 5 team model for Aus rugby only a year or so ago, our Chairman C Clyne told news.com.au yesterday:

“If the goal was to secure Australian rugby financially, the worst thing you could do is run a national competition,” ARU chairman Cameron Clyne said.

“The interest in that is virtually zero. The reality is this is a professional game and it costs money, and you have to find ways to generate revenue. A national competition is not one of those ways.


“We’ve shown the stats: our performances deteriorated when we went from three to four, and deteriorated further when we went to five. That is why we are on the path we’re on and are determined to return to four teams.”

So why didn't he close the Rebels in 2013? Instead Pulver gave his old school buddy the CEO role - against the wishes of the VRU board who had a preferred candidate - and pumped some more money down the hole. Come on pansy Clyne, explain how this is part of a robust strategy. Surely this is an admission that Pulver got everything wrong

 

[RedsHappy]

Re the above new Clyne doctrine, what I find fascinating as he quotes those declining performance stats is the ARU never in the slightest pauses to consider that such a downwards trajectory may possibly, just possibly, have something to do with the manner by which the ARU (and their State RUs) has actually run the code here and more particularly the manner by which it's governed and oversighted the two expansion teams.

That thought just doesn't occur to them - for them it's 'just the number of teams' that explains more or less everything.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Starting to look like the ARU will have to return to SANZAAR cap in hand and say that they aren't able legally to cut a team for 2018. SANZAAR will then threaten, and maybe institute legal proceedings from which the ARU, not being able to stump up any significant moneys in the way of compensation, will be unceremoniously ejected from SANZAAR.

Whatever happens, it all looks like it is out of the ARU's control.

 

[RedsHappy]

@ br

'............out of the ARU's control'?

The ARU wrote the recent contracts with the Force and Cox.

The accurate statement surely is: 'sorry SANZAAR, after lots of consultations and meetings with you, until much later we just forgot to check our own binding contracts with our own Super teams. Sorry about that.'

 

[Highlander35]

Basically sums up the ARU in the pro era.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[James Pettifer]

“We’ve shown the stats: our performances deteriorated when we went from three to four, and deteriorated further when we went to five. That is why we are on the path we’re on and are determined to return to four teams.”

Someone should tell Clyne that he selected and presented the statistics that support the decision that already had been made.

Yeah, this year is a disaster but if just look at who won the competitions and made the semi's
- 3 Australian teams - 9 years - 2 wins (Brumbies twice), 11 appearances in Semi finals
- 4 Australian teams - 4 years - 0 wins, 2 appearances in Semi finals (Waratahs twice)
- 5 Australia teams - 6 years - 2 wins (Reds, Waratahs), 6 appearances in Semi finals)

So based on wins, we won 22% with 3 teams, 0% with 4 teams and 33% with 5 teams.
Based on semifinalists, we had 30.5% of the semi finalists with 3 teams, 12.5% with 4 teams and 30% with 5 teams.

So based on the statistics I have selected, we were least successful with 4 teams and probably more successful with 5 teams than 3 teams.

 

[James Pettifer]

@ br

'....out of the ARU's control'?

The ARU wrote the recent contracts with the Force and Cox.

The accurate statement surely is: 'sorry SANZAAR, after lots of consultations and meetings with you, until much later we just forgot to check our own binding contracts with our own Super teams. Sorry about that.'

But the process is going smoothly.

 

[Omar Comin']

Re the above new Clyne doctrine, what I find fascinating as he quotes those declining performance stats is the ARU never in the slightest pauses to consider that such a downwards trajectory may possibly, just possibly, have something to do with the manner by which the ARU (and their State RUs) has actually run the code here and more particularly the manner by which it's governed and oversighted the two expansion teams.

That thought just doesn't occur to them - for them it's 'just the number of teams' that explains more or less everything.

The biggest problem in my mind is that if you look with a long term view it's very difficult to see any significant improvement in our 'high performance outcomes' (or in other words, international success) which the current structure relies upon entirely.

Rugby has been trending downwards for most of the last 10 years in Australia, and in that time the Wallabies have consistently been in the top 3 teams in the world. The period when rugby was doing great in this country was when we were basically number 1 and winning major tournaments consistently. So that suggests even being 3rd in the world isn't good enough, winning 2 Super Rugby titles in the last 6 years isn't good enough, making the last world cup final isn't good enough. The Wallabies have to be number 1 or at least very competitive with number 1, and they have to be there consistently. And if they aren't then the sport doesn't compete with the other codes.

The question we have to ask is how likely is it that the Wallabies will ever be consistently at number 1 or genuinely close to number 1 in the future?

This is made extremely difficult in the short-medium term by the strength of the sport at all levels in New Zealand and England especially. And in the longer term it's made even more difficult by the fact rugby is growing very strongly worldwide at the exact same time it is struggling for participation and popularity here. International rugby is far more likely to be more competitive in 15 years than it is to be less competitive. There will almost certainly be more competitive nations than there is now, not less.

So is a strategy that only seems to work when we're the best team in the world going to help rugby prosper in this country over the longer term? Even with far better administrators? I doubt it.

 

[Gnostic]

Someone should tell Clyne that he selected and presented the statistics that support the decision that already had been made.



Yeah, this year is a disaster but if just look at who won the competitions and made the semi's

- 3 Australian teams - 9 years - 2 wins (Brumbies twice), 11 appearances in Semi finals

- 4 Australian teams - 4 years - 0 wins, 2 appearances in Semi finals (Waratahs twice)

- 5 Australia teams - 6 years - 2 wins (Reds, Waratahs), 6 appearances in Semi finals)



So based on wins, we won 22% with 3 teams, 0% with 4 teams and 33% with 5 teams.

Based on semifinalists, we had 30.5% of the semi finalists with 3 teams, 12.5% with 4 teams and 30% with 5 teams.



So based on the statistics I have selected, we were least successful with 4 teams and probably more successful with 5 teams than 3 teams.

The issue straight up with the stats you have presented is the massive error that is created with the design of the competition. We will get a semi finalist from Australia even if an Australian side doesn't win another game against a side outside our conference. It skews the results very badly.

It would be impossible to argue that results haven't declined, but my argument much like that of Dick Marks, is that the decline has been happening in terms of individual player performance since 2002-03 as the amateur era players retired and their influence on the next crop reduced. Results obtained in the intervening years came by the alignment of some very good squads, Tah '14 and Reds -'10-11 and a couple of good coaches. The fact there was no sustained success from either side shows how shallow those successes were and the fact there is no in depth development behind them. Its part of the reason I do not like win:loss ratios as a metric without significant discussions in analysis. The other reason is that best illustrated by the Tahs under Mackenzie, they played a horrible unwatchable game with some brilliantly talented players and won lots making the finals for 4 or 5 years running. Killed their fan base even with that "success."

 

[I like to watch]

^^^^far better administrators should be able to formulate far better strategies

 

[Gnostic]

The biggest problem in my mind is that if you look with a long term view it's very difficult to see any significant improvement in our 'high performance outcomes' (or in other words, international success) which the current structure relies upon entirely.



Rugby has been trending downwards for most of the last 10 years in Australia, and in that time the Wallabies have consistently been in the top 3 teams in the world. The period when rugby was doing great in this country was when we were basically number 1 and winning major tournaments consistently. So that suggests even being 3rd in the world isn't good enough, winning 2 Super Rugby titles in the last 6 years isn't good enough, making the last world cup final isn't good enough. The Wallabies have to be number 1 or at least very competitive with number 1, and they have to be there consistently. And if they aren't then the sport doesn't compete with the other codes.



The question we have to ask is how likely is it that the Wallabies will ever be consistently at number 1 or genuinely close to number 1 in the future?



This is made extremely difficult in the short-medium term by the strength of the sport at all levels in New Zealand and England especially. And in the longer term it's made even more difficult by the fact rugby is growing very strongly worldwide at the exact same time it is struggling for participation and popularity here. International rugby is far more likely to be more competitive in 15 years than it is to be less competitive. There will almost certainly be more competitive nations than there is now, not less.



So is a strategy that only seems to work when we're the best team in the world going to help rugby prosper in this country over the longer term? Even with far better administrators? I doubt it.

Show me a successful system anywhere in the world, which aims to grow a large base using a "trickle down" model where the top performance is actually dependant on the bottom base groups supporting the top.

 

[swingpass]

the most interesting thing i thought out of the Smith article today in the Australian, was the final quote from Cox. the Rebels intend to pursue the ARU for losses incurred now and into the future, more than the $12 million rumoured. if, for arguments sake, they win and win big and possibly bankrupt the ARU, could we see a takeover of ARU by Imperium in lieu of $ settlement. Now that would be a game changer.

 

[Omar Comin']

Show me a successful system anywhere in the world, which aims to grow a large base using a "trickle down" model where the top performance is actually dependant on the bottom base groups supporting the top.

Well it can work, but only when you're always winning.

Growth at the grassroots is certainly influenced by professional level success. It works both ways. The problem is that rugby only achieves professional level success when our teams do well in major international competitions. In the sports rugby competes with multiple Australian teams win every week and one of them wins the competition every year. International success might trump domestic success but it's many times harder to achieve.

 

[Gnostic]

the most interesting thing i thought out of the Smith article today in the Australian, was the final quote from Cox. the Rebels intend to pursue the ARU for losses incurred now and into the future, more than the $12 million rumoured. if, for arguments sake, they win and win big and possibly bankrupt the ARU, could we see a takeover of ARU by Imperium in lieu of $ settlement. Now that would be a game changer.

Given the structure of the ARU, in that it is a LTD body representing the affiliated RUs I doubt it and even though I want the ARU gone I wouldn't support the concept.

IMO the only way forward is an independent commission and withdrawal from Super Rugby completely, if not next year certainly in 2020.

 

[lou75]

the most interesting thing i thought out of the Smith article today in the Australian, was the final quote from Cox. the Rebels intend to pursue the ARU for losses incurred now and into the future, more than the $12 million rumoured. if, for arguments sake, they win and win big and possibly bankrupt the ARU, could we see a takeover of ARU by Imperium in lieu of $ settlement. Now that would be a game changer.

Well that would be the logical step

 

[Gnostic]

Well it can work, but only when you're always winning.



Growth at the grassroots is certainly influenced by professional level success. It works both ways. The problem is that rugby only achieves professional level success when our teams do well in major international competitions. In the sports rugby competes with multiple Australian teams win every week and one of them wins the competition every year. International success might trump domestic success but it's many times harder to achieve.

the only "winner" since we went Pro have been the "Elite" end of town. Lots of people got plenty of dosh and there are more administrators on the books. Has the game actually grown even during the "successful" times, discounting short term rises in numbers following Reds '11 and Tahs '14? Where is the organic growth in the base from that success?

 

[swingpass]

Given the structure of the ARU, in that it is a LTD body representing the affiliated RUs I doubt it and even though I want the ARU gone I wouldn't support the concept.

IMO the only way forward is an independent commission and withdrawal from Super Rugby completely, if not next year certainly in 2020.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know the actual structure, but there is presumably a company or corporate entity that in essence is the business arm of the ARU, surely they would be the target rather than the ARU board ( state RU's, Super teams, RUPA etc ). someone with a better knowledge of the structure might be able to enlighten us.

 

[James Pettifer]

The issue straight up with the stats you have presented is the massive error that is created with the design of the competition. We will get a semi finalist from Australia even if an Australian side doesn't win another game against a side outside our conference. It skews the results very badly.

It would skew the results very badly if it were at all correct but it is wrong. We didn't get a semi finalist in 2016 or in 2012.

By year and purely on points:
2016 - 0 semi finalists - Brumbies finished 8th on points.
2015 - 2 semi finalists - the Waratahs were third on the ladder (on pure points) and the Brumbies sixth.
2014 - 2 semi finalists - the Waratahs were first on the ladder and the Brumbies 4th
2013 - 1 semi finalist - the Brumbies were 4th on the ladder and the Reds fifth
2012 - 0 semi finalists - the Reds were 6th on the ladder
2011 - 1 semi finalist - the Reds topped the ladder

So for 5 of the 6 semi finalists, the Australian team was in the top 4 on points with only the Brumbies coming out of the top 4 and they were the second Australian team qualifying of the finals.

My point is that if you have a view that you wish to push, then it is easy to select the stats which support your argument.

Clearly the Australian teams have sucked in 2016 and 2017 but 2011-2015 wasn't too bad and we had 5 teams then.

We clearly have problems with our coaching and our game play strategy and this is clearly something where we could benefit from some overseas assistance on.

 

[RedsHappy]

the most interesting thing i thought out of the Smith article today in the Australian, was the final quote from Cox. the Rebels intend to pursue the ARU for losses incurred now and into the future, more than the $12 million rumoured. if, for arguments sake, they win and win big and possibly bankrupt the ARU, could we see a takeover of ARU by Imperium in lieu of $ settlement. Now that would be a game changer.

sp - correct.

This is perhaps the most significant development of all.

Cox is definitive - we're suing and suing big.

Prima facie, he's got a great case for significant damages. A party has publicly claimed it had an immediate right to unilaterally terminate a contract, a right that in truth it did not have, and clearly damaged the threatened party in so doing.

The out-of-Court resolution may end up being that the ARU agrees to pay far higher cash subsidies to the Rebels than would otherwise be the case.

This legal suit - if seriously pursued, which sounds likely - dramatically magnifies the size and extent of the ARU's unforgivable negligence and world-class incompetence over this entire matter.