Super Rugby - The Future
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I have to ask what "post-season playoff games of real consequence" actually means....the only thing they can do it make a new trophy (pacific club champ)...and is another new trophy really going to mean much to anyone...especially if one day they are combined into one comp
Probably a polite way of implying NZR Super teams halfarsed the cross border games with essentially development sides.
-
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I have to ask what "post-season playoff games of real consequence" actually means....the only thing they can do it make a new trophy (pacific club champ)...and is another new trophy really going to mean much to anyone...especially if one day they are combined into one comp
Probably a polite way of implying NZR Super teams halfarsed the cross boarder games with essentially development sides.
yeah they are preseason hit-outs with nothing on the line and merely used for experimenting
honestly they should make the current preseason window (end of Jan-mid Feb) a mini tournament with Japan sides that are capped games and give our Super teams more official home games to bring revenue.
-
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Somehow linking up with North American and Japanese competitions is the only way I can see Super Rugby surviving in the medium term. International interest in the competition since the South Africans left is virtually zero.
Was there much international interest in Super Rugby before South Africa left...?
Maybe due to a few games being played in the timezone as Europe, but that wouldn't be the case just because of NA/Japan joining the competition...
-
@Mr-Fish said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Somehow linking up with North American and Japanese competitions is the only way I can see Super Rugby surviving in the medium term. International interest in the competition since the South Africans left is virtually zero.
Was there much international interest in Super Rugby before South Africa left...?
Yeah, Sky Sports in the UK used to cover almost every game. It was a bit of a pub Saturday afternoon favourite in certain places.
-
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Mr-Fish said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Somehow linking up with North American and Japanese competitions is the only way I can see Super Rugby surviving in the medium term. International interest in the competition since the South Africans left is virtually zero.
Was there much international interest in Super Rugby before South Africa left...?
Yeah, Sky Sports in the UK used to cover almost every game. It was a bit of a pub Saturday afternoon favourite in certain places.
But isn't that just more of a timezone thing? I watch more SA games now (that don't involve NZ teams) than I used to after moving north, but that's just because there happens to be a game on at 3pm and I've got a bit of free time - I'm not actually any more interested in the games. Adding Japan and the US won't help with the inconvenient timezone.
-
-
"After almost a year of research, an independent review that set out to find solutions to New Zealand’s confused rugby talent development pathways and determine the best competition structure for the national game, has come back with a shock recommendation to merge the five founding Super Rugby clubs with the respective provincial unions in which they are based"
The 'unexpected' review pushing to merge New Zealand's rugby powerhouses
The mergers aim to reduce duplication and lower costs for the teams involved.
-
@mikedogz do they mean organisationally? ie Auckland Rugby fields teams in the NPC and Super with one large squad rather than two smaller ones (with a lot of overlap)? and admin goes from 2 to 1?
or do they mean merging the two comps somehow, a teams play super and the bottom one drops to the NPC
-
@mikedogz said in Super Rugby - The Future:
"After almost a year of research, an independent review that set out to find solutions to New Zealand’s confused rugby talent development pathways and determine the best competition structure for the national game, has come back with a shock recommendation to merge the five founding Super Rugby clubs with the respective provincial unions in which they are based"
The 'unexpected' review pushing to merge New Zealand's rugby powerhouses
The mergers aim to reduce duplication and lower costs for the teams involved.
Anyone have access to the full article?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mikedogz do they mean organisationally? ie Auckland Rugby fields teams in the NPC and Super with one large squad rather than two smaller ones (with a lot of overlap)? and admin goes from 2 to 1?
or do they mean merging the two comps somehow, a teams play super and the bottom one drops to the NPC
It is more from administrative, commercial and player development perspectives.
Consolidation of sponsors, acadameies, and personnel.
Two competitions remain. The primary player development academies are in Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Hamilton, Auckland City and may be Albany (for MP).
It wouldn't be Auckland/Canterbury it will be Blues/Hurricanes as lead entities.
The problem is, there are a huge number of kids coming in each year, and if the big brother/little brother idea is between the franchise and home provincial base. It may limit the flow down and opportunities for the younger guys.
We are seeing it work well now with the Highlanders. Where players are identified and signed by the Landers and then sign on to Southland for their provincial rugby, all while living and playing club footy in Dunedin. Which is best for the long-term player spread and success of the Highlanders. A good agreement by the provinces in the catchment should allow that agreement to continue.
Same with sponsorship. SBS bank signs on with Highlanders/Southland.
Lion/Speights/Emersons signs on with Highlanders/Otago. ODT does the same.
-
-
@Nepia in my heart i agree....but, i also look back at the crowds we use to get and wonder if thats just the sad reality of making things viable
edit: i would ditch the franchise branding though and go with the PU's or some up with something new though
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
It's behind a paywall so I assume you didn't read it
The franchises were surprised by the suggestion and disagree with some of the assumptions made (competing for sponsorship dollars etc)
The tone of the article is about confusion caused by conflicting reviews
What the clubs are really saying is that the report is advocating for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s the appearance of this almost random idea to merge Super Rugby clubs with provincial unions that has sparked concern about whether New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has an excessive culture of commissioning needless reports, the findings of which are rarely acted upon. -
The Idea that two professional teams in the same area are competing for the same sponsors does just feel like common sense, much like the idea that one team playing across two competitions (ie more tv over a longer period) might make it more attractive for bigger companies to sponsor
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
It's behind a paywall so I assume you didn't read it
The franchises were surprised by the suggestion and disagree with some of the assumptions made (competing for sponsorship dollars etc)
The tone of the article is about confusion caused by conflicting reviews
What the clubs are really saying is that the report is advocating for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s the appearance of this almost random idea to merge Super Rugby clubs with provincial unions that has sparked concern about whether New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has an excessive culture of commissioning needless reports, the findings of which are rarely acted upon.We're supposed to read before we comment now? What is the Fern coming too? I'm not Mauss.
Also, the inference I'm too poor to afford a Herald subscription is bit galling.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia in my heart i agree....but, i also look back at the crowds we use to get and wonder if thats just the sad reality of making things viable
edit: i would ditch the franchise branding though and go with the PU's or some up with something new though
With the crowds I don't think correlation equals causation.
In all honesty, as long as the franchise unions don't use the sharing to exert power over the playing stocks in NZ rugby (like they used to under the old system) then I don't really care.
It will annoy me if franchise cash is used to prop up a financially reckless provincial union though. Yeah, I'm looking at you Wellington.
