'Super Rugby' 2021
-
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.
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@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.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@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.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
And the pandemic, border closures and recession won't be factors in that?
-
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@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.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
How many abs change franchises? Apart from Hammertime at the canes and Senio to the crusaders I can't think of that many. Presumably you're all on board for Barretts move to the blues?
The current system rewards the franchises that are the best at recruiting pre super rugby and the best at developing that talent. That works well for the abs and for the franchises.
Your suggestion would reward the teams that are the best at judging value and the most ruthless at cutting wasted cap space. The older squad guys (say Luke Romano) would be cut to save cap and replaced with someone younger and cheaper. It means more guys going overseas, less of a loyalty discount for nz and less focus on development.
It also leadsto stuff like the weaker teams paying too much for marginal talent (because they need to improve and some squad ab guy is available) while the stronger teams hold onto the real match winners and get guys to take a championship discount.
Salary cap leagues can only work when they're the top dog, and there's no other competition (eg nfl, nrl). But even then, they still don't make the competition more even.
-
@Gunner said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Latest talk is an 8 team professional comp, 7 from NZ with 1 based in the islands.
Or possibly extended to 12 teams, the extra 4 coming from the east coast of Australia if they can prove their worth....I hope not 7 NZ teams and I island team doesn't do much for a decent income revenue stream
I think we will see the 5 NZ SR sides plus 3 or 4 Aussie sides or an Island side instead of a 4th Australian side based in NZ or Aussie.With Japanese sides to be added when we get greater International travel.maybe in 2022
-
@Cyclops said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The current system rewards the franchises that are the best at recruiting pre super rugby and the best at developing that talent. That works well for the abs and for the franchises.
It works for team that have the most AB's. As they get the use of the ABs but don't pay for them. Teams need to pay the going rate for ABs. So if a player is worth $1 million a year then the super team should pick up a big chunk of this cost. Maybe 75%. This will ensure one team can't stack their team with ABs. The salary cap would be increased accordingly
Re Barrett. I want 5 strong teams. So if this helps the Blues so be it. What I don't want is the younger Barrett moving to the Crusaders. Or more up and coming talent moving there because its obvious that it helps playing with ABs to make the ABs. (As for example some of the ridiculous selections in last years RWC).
The key to making a competition work is 1) high quality and 2) an even competition. NZR rugby need a financial structure to ensure this occurs. The current one does the opposite. It wasn't helped by fools in Aust and SA adding too many teams. And Japan being added without competent administrators to run the team.
-
@Chris said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Gunner said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Latest talk is an 8 team professional comp, 7 from NZ with 1 based in the islands.
Or possibly extended to 12 teams, the extra 4 coming from the east coast of Australia if they can prove their worth....I hope not 7 NZ teams and I island team doesn't do much for a decent income revenue stream
I think we will see the 5 NZ SR sides plus 3 or 4 Aussie sides or an Island side instead of a 4th Australian side based in NZ or Aussie.With Japanese sides to be added when we get greater International travel.maybe in 2022
NZ can't afford 7 teams. Aust can't support 4 teams. So 5 from NZ and 3 from Aust and build from there. Maybe 1 PI team and 1 or 2 from Japan but teams must be competitive. OtherwISe I would sooner watch a 8 team competition with 2 rounds with any one of the teams able to win it.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
As they get the use of the ABs but don't pay for them.
they also get told when they can and cant play them.
-
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@rotated said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
You last paragraph pretty much summarizes what the Crusaders did with Ta$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.
Karma.
When Steve Tew tried to get rid of Northland and Ta$man, a small handful of teams couldn't wait to get their greedy, carcass-picking hands on our best players.
We kicked every one of those teams' arses last year and we're far from finished with that!
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@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.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
The decline has nothing to do with which NZ team or teams are strong. For fucks sake the only two poor years the Crusaders have had are 1996 and 2001. Going by your rationale they must be the peak years of SR. But no, the Crusaders have dominated and had a large quantity of All Blacks throughout the vast majority of SR. They've won the last three on the trot during a period of decline for SR, sure, but they also won three in a row 20 years ago when there was no talk of SR being in decline. So don't try and say one team with an inordinate amount of All Blacks is the or even a reason for a decline in SR. LUDICROUS.
The biggest reason IMHO for the drop off in interest is the general lack of depth in NZ squads across the board. And particularly the way 2020 started. Each comp post RWC there is big drop off in depth and it takes years to rebuild. Longer than four years. So every four years the general level of depth drops away again, and again. Witness the names of replacement players these days compared to even ten years ago. Half the guys that come in are virtual unknowns at provincial level let alone franchise level. Including the Crusaders. Who'd heard of George Bower last year?? Spreading All Blacks evenly doesn't do anything for competition depth.
-
