Where to for Super Rugby?

[Slim 293]

There are a whole bunch of metrics that the ARU could rank the teams on to decide who gets the cut. Has anyone tried that?shreds and lets come up with something that can stand up to challenge.

There's probably a whole bunch of other important factors you've left out there farva..........

TV viewing figures for example, coaching development, and I don't think we can ignore a team's ability to develop test players that have come from interstate......... I'm sure there's more.

Also, using 2017 as the sole year for data is not adequate, and it would be far more cruel on a certain couple of teams if we'd used the previous few years in the same manner............

The Force in particular had spent the prior few years at the bottom of the table, with much smaller crowds, little sponsorship and very few test players both locally and from interstate.

Last year the Force were in such a rabble that the idea of cutting them would've been more accepted.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Mate not just a QLD thing as usually trying to find rugby news in Sydney papers is knowing going to very back of sports section usually..discussion of rugby in papers dropped off in direct correlation to fans jumping off / turning away from rugby.

The negativity really impacting

Totally agree RN. So it is up to people like us, fans who really care to push a positive agenda. Let's try our best to keep the talk up beat. Lets not focus so much on the failings of the ARU or Bill or Cameron but lets look at the greater numbers at SS and PR. The number of local players playing for the force or what a wonderful development tool the NRC is and what players might be able to crack Super Rugby by having a great season.

 

[farva]

Totally agree on the weighting. I selected equal weighting as I didnt know what the weighting would be. Silence from the ARU is deafening on this.
State growth could be an option, so agree, Rebs ahead of Tahs there.
Agree on the players coming through the pathways. If they came to the Rebels and came through the club system then they should count. Ditto for the other states. Does this change the numbers? Maybe the Brumbies drop below the Rebels? And agree that the Force pathways have been around longer, but they do have runs on the board. I think the Rebels will be in the same spot in a few years, but it is hypothetical.
What do you mean the Force have lost their major sponsor? There were rumours but that was quashed. As far as I know Road Safety will be around next year.
On the recent success, I agree, one year doesnt work. But then current results should count for more than results 10 years ago. I was lazy and just did this year. Id also argue that the weighting for recent success in regards to whether we should cut a team should be low, what success generates that matter is financial viability, crowds, junior participation and fan engagement. They are measured elsewhere.

 

[Killer]

Totally agree on the weighting. I selected equal weighting as I didnt know what the weighting would be. Silence from the ARU is deafening on this.
State growth could be an option, so agree, Rebs ahead of Tahs there.
Agree on the players coming through the pathways. If they came to the Rebels and came through the club system then they should count. Ditto for the other states. Does this change the numbers? Maybe the Brumbies drop below the Rebels? And agree that the Force pathways have been around longer, but they do have runs on the board. I think the Rebels will be in the same spot in a few years, but it is hypothetical.
What do you mean the Force have lost their major sponsor? There were rumours but that was quashed. As far as I know Road Safety will be around next year.
On the recent success, I agree, one year doesnt work. But then current results should count for more than results 10 years ago. I was lazy and just did this year. Id also argue that the weighting for recent success in regards to whether we should cut a team should be low, what success generates that matter is financial viability, crowds, junior participation and fan engagement. They are measured elsewhere.

yeah I thought it was a 3yr deal for 1.5m pa, end of story.

Good post and very interesting points.
But from a macro guy all this detail fries my brain.
From a macro pov considering future growth and fin viability, if one team has to be chosen then the decision is simple, The Brumbies.
In saying that I think they are important and should be kept, the ARU are just lazy simpletons.

 

[TOCC]

Happy to use metrics as means to discuss this...

But i have to dispute the weightings of the financial viability metric.. to suggest the Brumbies and Force are more financially stable then the Tahs ignores financial performed of those teams over the past 4 years.

Major sponsorship is only one factor of financial viability, the current sponsorship of the Force followed a period where they were unable to secure a major sponsor, which like the Rebels, suggests demand is lacking. There are also rumours that the current sponsorship of the Force by the government agency won't continue after 2017, which would be a dissapointing outcome.

Won't go into exact figures, but collectively the Brumbies and Force have lost $millions in the past 4 years, conversely the Tahs have actually been posting profits.

 

[Killer]

btw do you include the said 2.5m pa extra in wallaby top ups?

If correct, over the 4 yrs you suggest that would be and extra 10m to the Tahs

 

[Rebels3]

There are a whole bunch of metrics that the ARU could rank the teams on to decide who gets the cut. Has anyone tried that?

Here is a real rough one that someone can take to pieces if they know better.

Recent Success
Ill take the 2017 standings:
Brumbies
Force
Reds
Tahs
Rebels

Financial Viability
Lets look at major sponsors - Force has the largest then Brumbies I think. Do the Rebels have one yet?
Force
Brumbies
Tahs
Reds
Rebels

Player Numbers in the district
Tahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels

Potential for Future Development - state population size
Tahs
Rebels
Reds
Force
Brumbies

Crowd size (2017)
Reds
Tahs
Force
Brumbies
Rebels

Current Wallabies from that district
So looking at players who grew up playing the game in that district as opposed to moved from outside. Today, not 2004.
Tahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels

So if we give 5 for the best, 1 for the worst, we have:

Tahs: 24
Reds: 21
Force: 20
Brumbies: 16
Rebels: 9

From these metrics, the Rebels are clearly the lowest scoring, and why the ARU selected the Force and the Rebels and not the Brumbies, Reds and Tahs to be in danger is bizarre.

As I said, please tear it to shreds and lets come up with something that can stand up to challenge.

1st class troll.

Recent success - well can't argue on a 1 year span, unless you classify recent over a 2/3 year span, then your team still is the worst in aus. 6 wins is nothing to crow home about, WE ALL SUCK ATM

Financial viability - what the hell is that, maybe i should put a financial potential headline or something. You quickly forget you are the most recent team to be bundled out by the ARU. THEY ARE ALL FINANCIALLY NOT VIABLE ATM

Player in district - for starters others than QLD and NSW we know very little about numbers in each area. Who says it isn't NSW, QLD, VIC, WA, ACT or any other combo. The Dewar shield is a pretty decent level competition, i am not sure if its better than the WA one but maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Potential for future development - well this one was put in there just so it doesn't look like you are completely against the rebels

Current wallabies from that district - ???? Congratulations you have a whole 2 (DHP and Hardwick). A Namibian and South African at that.

Crowd size - QLD shocking, NSW terrible, Force marginally better than Brumbies and Rebels.

The bickering between us had stopped for the best part of a week and congratulations you managed to be the tool to try and rear it up again.

 

[farva]

1st class troll.

Recent success - well can't argue on a 1 year span, unless you classify recent over a 2/3 year span, then your team still is the worst in aus. 6 wins is nothing to crow home about, WE ALL SUCK ATM

Good, that is a start. If you classify it on a 5 year span its different again.

Financial viability - what the hell is that, maybe i should put a financial potential headline or something. You quickly forget you are the most recent team to be bundled out by the ARU. THEY ARE ALL FINANCIALLY NOT VIABLE ATM

All teams have been bailed out, except for the Brumbies who sold down on assets. My comment was quite clear in that I was looking at sponsorship. Force and Brumbies right now have the biggest sponsorship deals. The ARU coming out and suggesting cuts has caused the teams to really look at their financial viability. I think that off the back of that scare a number of teams are now viable.

Player in district - for starters others than QLD and NSW we know very little about numbers in each area. Who says it isn't NSW, QLD, VIC, WA, ACT or any other combo. The Dewar shield is a pretty decent level competition, i am not sure if its better than the WA one but maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I was going by player numbers, the only measureable metric we have.

Potential for future development - well this one was put in there just so it doesn't look like you are completely against the rebels

Huh?

Current wallabies from that district - ???? Congratulations you have a whole 2 (DHP and Hardwick). A Namibian and South African at that.

Well, 4 WA players (Rona, DHP, Hardwick and Ainsley), one Canberra and one Melbourne player (Naivalu)

Crowd size - QLD shocking, NSW terrible, Force marginally better than Brumbies and Rebels.

Well yes, but it is a measure. Im more than happy to accept a change if you would like and can justify it.

The bickering between us had stopped for the best part of a week and congratulations you managed to be the tool to try and rear it up again.
No it hadnt, it was right there in the posts above mine.

All of the posts above mine were on Brumby crowd sizes, QLD not being a rugby state anymore, etc.
You haven't added anything constructive, rather just had a go at me, what exactly was the point of your post?

 

[TOCC]

Do you have the details for all the sponsorship and corporate support figures, the naming rights sponsor is the single largest sponsor, but it's far from the only corporate support. QRU reports $7.1million in sponsorship in corporate support, that kind of overall figure needs to be considered when talking about $1.5million naming rights sponsorship as a means of financial viability.

 

[Killer]

Do you have the details for all the sponsorship and corporate support figures, the naming rights sponsor is the single largest sponsor, but it's far from the only corporate support. QRU reports $7.1million in sponsorship in corporate support, that kind of overall figure needs to be considered when talking about $1.5million naming rights sponsorship as a means of financial viability.

No
I agree the detail required to get a true assessment is too difficult for me.

Did someone & if so who was it/& how much, bought out Genia's contract in Eur.
What about Future Force support.
What about debts, it was only 3mths ago Qld was supposed to have a 7ml debt?
Where did the 28m go?
What is the likely outcome of the ACCC case at the Brumbies?
What is the debt The Rebs/Cox are carrying?
Do Foxsport have preferred model that they are forcing on the ARU that we are unaware of?

 

[Rebels3]

All of the posts above mine were on Brumby crowd sizes, QLD not being a rugby state anymore, etc.
You haven't added anything constructive, rather just had a go at me, what exactly was the point of your post?

I had a go at you because you hadn't added anything constructive yourself, other than creating your own and choosing numerous subjective metrics that make a specific side of the argument look favorable.

Anyway not worth the argument, your username is very appropriate.

 

[Joe King]

So if we had a trans-tasman comp, plus maybe a team from Fiji and Japan, and a limited number of NZ players were allowed to play for non-NZ teams to make them more competitive, but not enough to weaken the pool of potential Wallaby players, then both NZ and Oz would benefit, wouldn't they?

Super Rugby would be better: time-zone friendly, better structure, all teams more equally competitive, more viewers, more revenue. NZRU would effectively start to benefit from the potential of the Australian market.

Might even be the best chance to get it on FTA in time, which would capture the Australian market even more so, and again benefit both countries.

On top of this, the Bledisloe Cup might even start to rival SoO again.

Under this scenario, we'd probably want to keep all 5 Australian teams alive until the end of the broadcast deal, wouldn't we?

While Steve Hansen is talking about something completely different, the implications of what he's suggesting may mean he would be open to this idea?:

http://www.radiosport.co.nz/on-air/...ers-in-aus-should-be-eligible-for-all-blacks/

 

[Leo86]

So many variables, it lessens the opportunities for Aussies, strengthens the ABs even more, I see high sums of the salary cap being offered to players that coaches/franchises think will make a difference, Kiwis coming to start their careers and then going back home (fair enough) which will continue the NZ teams flogging the Aus sides.

If it were happened it would have to be extremely limited and enforced. but really i dont think it will be good overall.

Maybe keeping in line with the current marquee international players and allowing them, but im still not convinced

 

[farva]

I had a go at you because you hadn't added anything constructive yourself, other than creating your own and choosing numerous subjective metrics that make a specific side of the argument look favorable.

Anyway not worth the argument, your username is very appropriate.

Personal attacks now. That is not nice.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

So if we had a trans-tasman comp, plus maybe a team from Fiji and Japan, and a limited number of NZ players were allowed to play for non-NZ teams to make them more competitive, but not enough to weaken the pool of potential Wallaby players, then both NZ and Oz would benefit, wouldn't they?



Super Rugby would be better: time-zone friendly, better structure, all teams more equally competitive, more viewers, more revenue. NZRU would effectively start to benefit from the potential of the Australian market.



Might even be the best chance to get it on FTA in time, which would capture the Australian market even more so, and again benefit both countries.



On top of this, the Bledisloe Cup might even start to rival SoO again.



Under this scenario, we'd probably want to keep all 5 Australian teams alive until the end of the broadcast deal, wouldn't we?



While Steve Hansen is talking about something completely different, the implications of what he's suggesting may mean he would be open to this idea?:



http://www.radiosport.co.nz/on-air/veitch-on-sport/steve-hansen-nz-players-in-aus-should-be-eligible-for-all-blacks/

If you think about it a small compromise (kiwi players in oz eligible for AB selection) that could actually only make all blacks better...why you say...well lets not kid ourselves that top line kiwi's would not be clambering to play for oz as opposed to kiwi sides...but yes with some cheque books and able to land some NZ players for Oz sides (better ones), NZ could win on 3 fronts 1) more player depth to choose from with bigger professional pool of players to choose from 2) access to kiwi players for camps etc as flights from say Sydney to Auckland - not much difference time wise from flight between Sydney and Perth...3) Kiwi players have better competition to play against to help test them when playing oz sides....who despite NZ fondness for SA, geographically Oz is only sizeable rugby market and economic market close enough to ensure would always be interested in and viable to compete in a competition with NZ sides.

 

[Joe King]

If you think about it a small compromise (kiwi players in oz eligible for AB selection) that could actually only make all blacks better.why you say.well lets not kid ourselves that top line kiwi's would not be clambering to play for oz as opposed to kiwi sides.but yes with some cheque books and able to land some NZ players for Oz sides (better ones), NZ could win on 3 fronts 1) more player depth to choose from with bigger professional pool of players to choose from 2) access to kiwi players for camps etc as flights from say Sydney to Auckland - not much difference time wise from flight between Sydney and Perth.3) Kiwi players have better competition to play against to help test them when playing oz sides..who despite NZ fondness for SA, geographically Oz is only sizeable rugby market and economic market close enough to ensure would always be interested in and viable to compete in a competition with NZ sides.

I guess my thinking is, we need something to penetrate the Australian landscape without a mass exodus of players heading overseas. We are on our knees a bit. And beggars can't be choosers and all that. And while this may not be ideal for the Wallabies, it's perhaps not the worst scenario. Similar concept to the Kiwi league team in the NRL, but a bit better than that.

You are right that it would benefit NZ a lot, and I guess the deal 'does' need to be pretty sweet for them to change their winning formula.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There are some clues as to what criteria was used by the ARU

(The Brumbies) met all the criteria: financial, governance, high performance outcomes, future sponsorships, a range of issues that indicated they would be a sustainable presence and therefore would not need to be considered for elimination at this point,” Clyne said.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Highlander35]

There are some clues as to what criteria was used by the ARU





Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Killer]

And another one bites the dust (thanks to sandgroperrugby TWF)

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-chief-financial-officer-20170725-gxi6yo.html

 

[Omar Comin']

So many variables, it lessens the opportunities for Aussies, strengthens the ABs even more, I see high sums of the salary cap being offered to players that coaches/franchises think will make a difference, Kiwis coming to start their careers and then going back home (fair enough) which will continue the NZ teams flogging the Aus sides.

If it were happened it would have to be extremely limited and enforced. but really i dont think it will be good overall.

Maybe keeping in line with the current marquee international players and allowing them, but im still not convinced

It'd only lessen opportunities for Aussies who aren't good enough to be high level Super Rugby players. Guys who are currently being signed because teams can't sign better talent from NZ or elsewhere.

You're saying the negative of this could be that NZ teams will keep flogging Australian sides. But expecting things to change by following the status quo seems less likely to me. I always thought a better option for strengthening our super rugby teams was to allow more imports, rather than cut a team and abandon an entire region of the country.

Any increase in talent across Australian super rugby will improve competitiveness of our teams - which helps improve popularity, which inspires kids to play the game and over the long term leads to a turnaround in fortunes throughout all levels. And even in the short term having stronger squads would only improve the level of the Australian players that are in our teams.