'Super Rugby' 2021
-
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
And why would the franchises suffer a guy being managed by the All Blacks if they've chosen to pay him top dollar to be there.
Yeah this (plus a million other issues). Why would you pay a guy an AB salary if he's going to be off with the AB's and not worth as much to your SR team? We could potentially get the ridiculous situation of guys in NZ declaring themselves ineligible for AB selection (or playing for other countries to top up their salary).
-
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Can't see how it would work. The All Blacks could lose a player they want or even need if he's deemed surplus to requirements at franchise level.
And what if the SR franchise pays a guy an AB salary but he's not then selected by the ABs...? Also, the ABs earn the lion's share of the money so why should they leave it up to the franchises to decide how it is spent
-
@Machpants plus South African money comes from a subscriber base of 2.6 million, which is shrinking every year by around 100k. Which probably is accelerating due to Covid19. Even if they bringing in more money, that's not going to be the case in the future
-
-
-
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Anyone got an idea on the number of SA supersport subscribers?
I can't find a Supersport specific figure. But the subscriber base for what was M-Net is 8.2m subscribers in RSA per their last annual report with another 10.7 in the rest of Africa.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
NZR's main focus has always been the AB's. This must change otherwise the next level down will continue to die
So the financial structure must be such so that every team has a chance to succeed and win it.One way to do this (inNZ) is for every team must pick up all the cost paid to AB players. In this way it will stop one team stacking their side with high paid AB players as they will run out of money (or exceed a salary cap).
The ABs will always be the main focus as long as they are the main drivers of revenue, but I'd argue there was a better balance under the 12 team, 14 week original Super Rugby competition, home-and-away Tri Nations and EOYT alternating years.
It is possible for both the ABs and the next level down to register on the give-a-shit-metre of the public; but I don't think it's posisble with a 20 week franchise tournament and then 12-14 All Black tests half of which are uncompetitive.
You last paragraph pretty much summarizes what the Crusaders did with Ta$man in the late 00s where the likes of Brad Thorn, Ali Williams, Chris Jack and Ben Franks all going on their books.
-
The only way to even the depth among the 5 NZ franchises would be to use a NRL-like contract structure in the future where clubs (franchises) directly contract the players within a salary cap, and that makes up the majority of a player's income. I think the current salary cap for SR squads is ~$4.5M but that doesn't include the full salary that a player signs with NZR so it is largely artificial.
Like the NRL, players would get addition appearance fees for making the ABs. That is what happens at present. Under this system the salary cap would need to increase significantly but a franchise would only be able to afford so many $1M players, or the player might have to sign a reduced value contract to play for the team of their choice.
It wouldn't be perfect as the Roosters have shown in the NRL with their stacked team but it would be a fairer system than at present.
-
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Like the NRL, players would get addition appearance fees for making the ABs. That is what happens at present. Under this system the salary cap would need to increase significantly but a franchise would only be able to afford so many $1M players, or the player might have to sign a reduced value contract to play for the team of their choice.
... and that increases the differential between NZ pay and overseas pay, which will probably result in higher player drain.
-
There are pros and cons for both systems but at the moment the maximum salary for a SR player within the salary cap is $195K so for the likes of Barrett, BBBR, Whitelock, etc their total salary is mainly outside the cap. As I said, you would have to significantly increase the salary cap but not so much that you can have a team full of $1M players.
-
It's hard to force players to move between teams for balance, not least because of the risk of at least some of them deciding that if they have to move city anyway, they may as well explore overseas options. I think that's why NZR abandoned the old system originally.
League has less of an issue with that because the players don't have as many big money options outside the NRL.
The real reason NZ teams have dominated the competition is that we never added teams as the competition expanded, so never had to dilute our playing pool. Aussie and SA did, and got weaker teams over time as a result.
-
@Rebound said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark South Africa is a poor country with significantly less income per capita. Plus only 2.6million (a tally which is shrinking) subscribe to the pay TV bundle which offers rugby. So South Africa ain't Japan.
That's probably a pretty significant number compared to Sky TV subscribers in NZ. Foxtel subscribers in Australia would probably be higher, but stuff all of them would subscribe in order to access rugby union.
It doesn't matter which way you skin this cat, the African TV money is significant.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
-
@rotated said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
You last paragraph pretty much summarizes what the Crusaders did with Ta$man in the late 00s where the likes of Brad Thorn, Ali Williams, Chris Jack and Ben Franks all going on their books.
Yeah, the Hurricanes punish the Magpies by making us keep Ben May on our books ... and we also got Ben Franks forced on us one year too.
