Where to for Super Rugby?

[drewprint]

It's more the notion that NZ would even consider all that to accommodate us. I cannot see it happening.

Yep. We need to look to ourselves.

Things that are more likely to happen than NZ letting us into the NPC:
- Hell freezing over
- Steve Hansen declining a third helping at the hotel buffet.

 

[The torpedo]

Somewhat OT but does anyone have a comparison of Perth Glory and Western Force home game attendances and ratings since 2010?

 

[RedsHappy]

What rubbish. National bodies have gone bankrupt plenty of times before, all that would happen would be an independent body or world rugby would take over on an interim basis until a new body was formed. This isn't some department shop chain which bankrupts itself, but has competitors that can offer the community the same service. At worst the government would step in and run it, but most likely the real governing body (World rugby) would take over and run the game in Australia from the offices in the U.K. This would be done until they have set up an entity to run the game here in aus. Also the professional teams, minus the force are owned entirely by the state unions, tv rights on a short term basis would have to be negotiated individually.

100%.

 

[RedsHappy]

Perhaps, but you miss every shot you don't take.

M, I agree with much of what you said.

And a collapse of rugby in Australia, or its severe marginalisation, would be, strategically, very bad for NZ rugby long-term and they know it.

They can see the rapidly emerging institutional fragility and broadly deteriorating quality in RSA rugby. The game there is being poisoned by politics, whatever one's views of those politics.

So, Aus rugby collapses and RSA rugby quality falls badly. Is this great for the ABs' competitively and in long-term media and brand marketing $s income streams, that they have to effectively play most of their games, and all the tight ones, in the NH? What about the costs and home game implications of that scenario?

I am convinced that if and when the ARU collapses and WorldRugby steps in in some form, the NZRU will be willing to actively help with a major rebuild here. In fact, they will welcome it as it's an open secret in NZ circles that the NZRU thinks the current ARU and many of the State RUs are a joke and very poorly managed.

 

[Quick Hands]

The Daily Telegraph has now come around to supporting a break from super rugby and the establishment of a national league (assuming a trans-Tasman isn't possible)

Those who believe it could work say an NRU — modelled on something like the A-League and with marquee signings — would tick all sorts of boxes: tribalism, full competition control, consistent prime-time content and an overall boost in positivity. Australian teams would win every week, after all.​

If huge Super Rugby travel costs were eliminated, private ownership explored and Rugby Championship revenues were still available, the finances may work. Derbies have long been the games most watched and most attended.​

The Daily Telegraph has seen a blunt state-of-the-game document written by a respected former official that argues a national competition must be the future.​

RUPA boss Ross Xenos believes a trans-Tasman model is still the best option but a national solution is worth exploring.​

“We very much need to be working on alternative competition models which give us greater control of our business than we currently have,” Xenos said.​

“If this current saga has shown us anything it’s as long as we need to comply with the interests of our SANZAAR partners, we are forever undermining the key success factors for our market.​

“We’ve seen the success in other codes of creating genuine local derbies, where it is a cross-town clash, while also leveraging old, existing state rivalries.”​

The fact that Clyne thinks a NRU wouldn't work is probably the final tick
needed to ensure that it would be a success.

“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.​

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/6a040bf82fe9e62802a3610b3edd9cb0​

​

 

[Gnostic]

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.

In that case can we cut the ARU free let them have their Super Comp if they can must teams and continue to exist and dissociate Rugby from them? If this happens there is no way forward except complete bankruptcy with Cox the primary creditor.

 

[RedsHappy]

Sure, shoot for the moon all you want, just pack a big fucking parachute.

Cyclo, I think we all know you have a hidden agenda to ensure this thread under no circumstances reaches 300 pages. Surely the record for thread pages would have to be: 'Should QC (Quade Cooper) be Wallaby 10'?

 

[Quick Hands]

Cyclo, I think we all know you have a hidden agenda to ensure this thread under no circumstances reaches 300 pages. Surely the record for thread pages would have to be: 'Should QC (Quade Cooper) be Wallaby 10?

We'll be past 300 by sundown.

 

[RedsHappy]

We'll be past 300 by sundown.

Bring it on.

 

[wamberal]

Cyclo, I think we all know you have a hidden agenda to ensure this thread under no circumstances reaches 300 pages. Surely the record for thread pages would have to be: 'Should QC (Quade Cooper) be Wallaby 10'?

What was the answer? Remind me?

 

[Micheal]

A national comp isn't financially viable with the players we currently have, Clyne is 100% correct in that regard.

The player salaries would have to be drastically reduced from $300k + per year for our top players to about 50-100k, but I'm not so sure if that'll ruin the product.

Lower levels of rugby are really great products because, given what I've seen at schoolboy level, Shute Shield and NRC, not everyone is a fantastic defender nor a fantastic athlete and this gives the players more opportunities and time/space to execute skills with less pressure. These levels of rugby also have immense passion.

So yes, if we had a purely national competition most of our current Super players would head overseas, but I have belief that we'd be able to find enough players to fill the rosters at a competent standard.

We'd also have more Aussie teams in more locations, with an Aussie side winning each week.

More content and more success, and if the interest in the comp grows so too will the salaries etc. that will allow us to bring home our best players.

It could be a 2 steps back 5 steps forward type of thing.

 

[RedsHappy]

In that case can we cut the ARU free let them have their Super Comp if they can must teams and continue to exist and dissociate Rugby from them? If this happens there is no way forward except complete bankruptcy with Cox the primary creditor.

Cox of course will not want ARU bankruptcy.

My purely personal speculation of his actual objectives in this litigation:

(a) major management and board changes for the ARU, and

(b) materially increased and/or longer period funding for the Rebels by the ARU

 

[Gnostic]

So you don't think rugby grew in Australia in the late 90's-early 00's period? I think if the level of success we had in that period had been maintained until now then rugby would not be struggling like it is. But I think that level of success was never likely to be maintained and I think it's even less likely to be consistently achieved in the future given the factors I outlined.



My only other claim was that the professional level does have an impact on the grassroots. Even without success you can see that having the Force and Rebels around has led to growth at the grassroots in Perth and Melbourne. If either or both of those teams had been more successful I'd be pretty sure that participation growth would have been even greater. But presence or reach is probably the bigger issue and rugby has no, or very little professional presence in many large population areas that have NRL/AFL/A League teams.



Of course it works the other way too and probably in a bigger way, but I think it's a very circular thing - success at the grassroots leads to success at the top and success at the top helps the grassroots. My issue is more that the top level of rugby is too narrow and consistent success is very difficult to achieve. In the other codes that relationship between the grassroots and the top level is far broader, and success at the top level is almost guaranteed.

No I do not. The big end of town did, with more money going t5o more admin and another couple of teams. What happened below that and have the pathways been maintained and built upon. This thread is full of evidence to indicate that less schools are playing etc.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The Daily Telegraph has now come around to supporting a break from super rugby and the establishment of a national league (assuming a trans-Tasman isn't possible)

Those who believe it could work say an NRU — modelled on something like the A-League and with marquee signings — would tick all sorts of boxes: tribalism, full competition control, consistent prime-time content and an overall boost in positivity. Australian teams would win every week, after all.​

If huge Super Rugby travel costs were eliminated, private ownership explored and Rugby Championship revenues were still available, the finances may work. Derbies have long been the games most watched and most attended.​

The Daily Telegraph has seen a blunt state-of-the-game document written by a respected former official that argues a national competition must be the future.​

RUPA boss Ross Xenos believes a trans-Tasman model is still the best option but a national solution is worth exploring.​

“We very much need to be working on alternative competition models which give us greater control of our business than we currently have,” Xenos said.​

“If this current saga has shown us anything it’s as long as we need to comply with the interests of our SANZAAR partners, we are forever undermining the key success factors for our market.​

“We’ve seen the success in other codes of creating genuine local derbies, where it is a cross-town clash, while also leveraging old, existing state rivalries.”​

The fact that Clyne thinks a NRU wouldn't work is probably the final tick
needed to ensure that it would be a success.

“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.​

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/6a040bf82fe9e62802a3610b3edd9cb0​

​

Yes I read the telegraph article and the comment from clyne really showed to me how narrow the thinking is as may not work at this point but no reason could not build towards this as long term goal with baby steps toward this.

In fact more to the point Clynes comment highlights how devoid of long term thinking and strategy the aru is.

How can the aru remain when whatever support they had and social capital has been completely destroyed by the super rugby cut a team saga.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[stoff]

Cox of course will not want ARU bankruptcy.

My purely personal speculation of his actual objectives in this litigation:

(a) major management and board changes for the ARU, and

(b) materially increased and/or longer period funding for the Rebels by the ARU

And more freedom around who he can hire. I think this has always been a goal of his.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

What was the answer? Remind me?

Cyclo will have the count of GAGR thread pages records I feel sure.

 

[TOCC]

Whilst it's hard to see the light in this current debacle, I still think there's hope for rugby union in this country. I'd say around half of the people I work with have an interest in rugby, but none apart from myself actively follow Super Rugby or even the Wallabies these days. Many played it at school, and like the game, but dislike the professional component of the game, Super Rugby means nothing to them.

One of my colleagues, didn't grow up on Rugby but coaches his kids League teams intends to get his kids into rugby in the next couple of years because he feels it would be better mental development for them then rugby league, his philosophy(right or wrong) is that tactics and strategy are more relevant in Union and will help his kids development in that area.

My point is, that the potential rugby union consumer market is signficantly greater then what's currently reflected in ratings and crowds, the poor figures represent that of a poor product, one which is difficult to engage with and not readily available for fans to buy into. Super Rugby was at its peak in the early 2000's, it was at that point when the FTA option should have been engaged with, now it's seems a case of too far gone.

 

[KevinO]

A national comp isn't financially viable with the players we currently have, Clyne is 100% correct in that regard.

The player salaries would have to be drastically reduced from $300k + per year for our top players to about 50-100k, but I'm not so sure if that'll ruin the product.

Lower levels of rugby are really great products because, given what I've seen at schoolboy level, Shute Shield and NRC, not everyone is a fantastic defender nor a fantastic athlete and this gives the players more opportunities and time/space to execute skills with less pressure. These levels of rugby also have immense passion.

So yes, if we had a purely national competition most of our current Super players would head overseas, but I have belief that we'd be able to find enough players to fill the rosters at a competent standard.

We'd also have more Aussie teams in more locations, with an Aussie side winning each week.

More content and more success, and if the interest in the comp grows so too will the salaries etc. that will allow us to bring home our best players.

It could be a 2 steps back 5 steps forward type of thing.

How do you know what foxsports will offer? The AFL and NRL have the massive tv deals because its what people want to watch. Goto them and say we need this much to keep our current players and we won't ask for a major increase for so long. Jist fund our comp and we will both prosper.

They get control of game times, if they dont want 4pm sunday games than fine. If they say its you play everyone 3 times for content than we accept it and get on with making the game great in this country.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[James Pettifer]

And more freedom around who he can hire. I think this has always been a goal of his.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And probably proper equalisation of the salary cap so the Rebels aren't playing Australian teams with 50% higher spend on player salarie

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes I read the telegraph article and the comment from clyne really showed to me how narrow the thinking is as may not work at this point but no reason could not build towards this as long term goal with baby steps toward this.

In fact more to the point Clynes comment highlights how devoid of long term thinking and strategy the aru is.

How can the aru remain when whatever support they had and social capital has been completely destroyed by the super rugby cut a team saga.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

It made me laugh when he talked about a national compeition would be financially unviable. Is he unaware that all 5 super franchises are financial basket cases? None could survive without ARU funding. The additional funds from the S18 TV deal were eaten up by additional costs.

So lets accept for a moment that a national competition wouldn't run at a profit short term. But the logistical costs would be exponentially less. i.e. domestic economy travel as opposed to international business class travel - huge difference when flying teams and support staff. Far less need for overnight travel. NRL teams fly in for interstate fixtures the day before and fly straight out that evening for day matches and next morning for night matches.

So, the logistics has a roughly similar cost base to the NRC. The Sydney Rugby Union have shown a bit of lateral thinking to get SS on FTA television. One suspects that the idea of weekly matches on TV and teams being exposed regularly on FTA would make the competion more attractive to sponors and advertisers.

Absolutely there would be some short term pain - but long term it is the only way IMO.