The future of NZ Rugby
-
Just a few thoughts on the PI team.
If the PI team would be based in Suva (or Nukuʻalofa, or Apia), the independence from the PI unions and governments should first be guaranteed. There now is too much corruption and political influence in rugby overthere. You don't want the situation in which a president or minister can sack a coach or influence selections, or do a money grab and players not getting paid.
Also, wherever the PI franchise would be based, they'd also need some guarantees that the non-PI franchises don't lure the most talented players away from the PI franchise, if these non-PI franchises would be richer and could pay players more. At the same time, you'd want some guarantees that the PI franchise first and foremost selects players from the Islands, and doesn't drain the player pool in NZ (and Oz). Otherwise, you'd get the same effect as a 6th NZ franchise would have, without any benefit to the local, PI player development.
Maybe there'd need to be a foreign player cap, just like NZ now has (with having PI heritage not automatically making you a domestic player)? This needs some more thought, obviously.
-
I disagree on your caps and nationalities thing. One PI team based there is not going to make a big impact on players in NZ and Oz, or thethree international teams of the PI Nations. Super rugby doesn't need those sort of blocks, is not international rugby and you need freedom for players to choose where to play. It's also pro rugby, so you're right in that the governance just be informant off the corrupt PI RUs, otherwise we'll have murdering Bros on three board!
-
@Stargazer said in The future of NZ Rugby:
"As long as it keeps the qualities that are making this competition really successful," says Blues coach Leon MacDonald.
"Strong teams right across the board, strong games... there's a little bit of a recipe here that as long as they don't deviate too far away from would be well received.
This is key.
That's unlikely to occur if Aust has 5 teams unless NZ players are allowed to play for these teams. Even NZ needs to change to ensure we have 5 even teams. Rather than 1 strong team, one quite strong team and three just making up the numbers
-
-
i think im in the minority, i tend to enjoy the NPC a bit more because there is less forgone conclusion results
I get a bit bored with the same teams winning continuously, the novelty of watching a team demolish teams ever week, even if they are showing off the best rugby you can imagine...gets old to me
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah the idea of 8 NZ teams, + 1 PI + 5 Oz, would make it more even, but not quite so good
NZ don't have the players. Or money to afford 8 fully professional teams. I would prefer 5 + 3 +1 = 8 strong teams. But even here there must be a even spread of the top players. Due to a financial structure that makes it impossible for one team to have too many of the top players
8 teams where all team have a good chance of winning and do over say 15 years (rather than 1 team winning year after year and other just making up the numbers) would be a very successful competition
But Aust will never agree to only three teams so there needs to be a way to improve their sides. Otherwise it will fail in Aust. (Even this current NZ 5 team competition is a bit disappointing as the winner is almost known before it kicks off. Maybe the blues can cause an upset though)
-
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah I agree on the 5+3+1, but Oz will not agree too that, thus to even it out more NZ teams.
And this just came out. If this is true, and half of the NZ board think that NZ is so awesome that Oz will join with just two teams, then they need to resign and go on drug detox. There is really no point on planning things which will never happen. NZ have to plan on 4 or 5 Oz teams or none. Oz are big enough too have a domestic comp, and their money is so shit ATM that they may give up on anything other than a decent domestic comp and their wallabies players all in overseas leagues
Australia-only option on table as NZ play hard ball over Super Rugby
Australian officials were alarmed to learn of a preference within sections of New Zealand's top brass for a very small Australian presence in Super Rugby.
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah I agree on the 5+3+1, but Oz will not agree too that, thus to even it out more NZ teams.
And this just came out. If this is true, and half of the NZ board think that NZ is so awesome that Oz will join with just two teams, then they need to resign and go on drug detox. There is really no point on planning things which will never happen. NZ have to plan on 4 or 5 Oz teams or none. Oz are big enough too have a domestic comp, and their money is so shit ATM that they may give up on anything other than a decent domestic comp and their wallabies players all in overseas leagues
Australian officials were alarmed to learn of a preference within sections of New Zealand's top brass for a very small Australian presence in Super Rugby.
If true, there's the small problem of RA not having the depth to field that many. So the teams will get flogged and punters won't watch. We've been down this road before.
Then if NZR permit selection of players from off-shore, would you really countenance first XV All Blacks being coached here in noncompetitive teams?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by ABs selection? That's irrelevant to whether Oz will join a comp with us or not. Oz will NOT accept a 2 or 3 Oz team transtasman comp, so why bother planning on it? If the article is true, and it's come from Ozzie sources so may well be stirring bollox, half of the NZR Board needs to get their heads out of their arses, cos Oz would rather go it alone than take a 2/3 team comp with us. It would be somestic public suicide for them to ditch (say) the Rebels, and the resurrected Force - and possibly even the Brumbiess FFS, just to join with us. It is the height of arrogance by those Board members to think otherwise. It might be all made up, but it is a worrying thought that some on the Board are so far up in their Ivory Tower that they think this could ever happen.
-
First of all, I'm not sure I believe that Aussie article. They're shitstirring on a regular basis.
But because of Covid-19, it will be difficult to plan beyond 2021. Maybe they should just do the 5 NZ, 4 Aussie and 1 PI teams (or just 5 NZ and 5 Aussie teams) comp in 2021; let the NZ teams smash the hell out of the weaker Aussie teams (and possibly the PI team as well), giving NZR the ammunition to negotiate for a more permanent solution beyond 2021?
And then the new, more long-term structure could be two-tiered, maybe 6 teams each. The top 6 teams from 2021 in the top tier, and then the remaining four teams, joined by two more teams (PI, Jap?) in the second tier? With promotion/relegation between the tiers?
By the way, is it realistic to expect the establishment of a PI franchise - with all the political issues involved - for the 2021 season? Or will they just throw in the Fijian Drua with a few added Tongan and Samoan players?
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah I agree on the 5+3+1, but Oz will not agree too that, thus to even it out more NZ teams.
And this just came out. If this is true, and half of the NZ board think that NZ is so awesome that Oz will join with just two teams, then they need to resign and go on drug detox. There is really no point on planning things which will never happen. NZ have to plan on 4 or 5 Oz teams or none. Oz are big enough too have a domestic comp, and their money is so shit ATM that they may give up on anything other than a decent domestic comp and their wallabies players all in overseas leagues
Australian officials were alarmed to learn of a preference within sections of New Zealand's top brass for a very small Australian presence in Super Rugby.
at a high level you might be right...but the profile in aus is just so low at the moment, i think they need to re build
so, if the 5 NZ super teams then i think only 2-3 aussie teams makes sense, as long as AR focus on building depth with a domestic comp
IF they want to use this as their domestic comp and have 5 aus teams then i think that either aligns with our NPC or NZ having more super teams to even things up
OR, and im not in favour of this
they open AB selection to players playing in aus too so the odd person might get lured to melbourne or sydney to boost them
-
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
I'm not sure what you mean by ABs selection? That's irrelevant to whether Oz will join a comp with us or not.
It's in the article.
Oz will NOT accept a 2 or 3 Oz team transtasman comp, so why bother planning on it? If the article is true, and it's come from Ozzie sources so may well be stirring bollox, half of the NZR Board needs to get their heads out of their arses, cos Oz would rather go it alone than take a 2/3 team comp with us. It would be somestic public suicide for them to ditch (say) the Rebels, and the resurrected Force - and possibly even the Brumbiess FFS, just to join with us. It is the height of arrogance by those Board members to think otherwise. It might be all made up, but it is a worrying thought that some on the Board are so far up in their Ivory Tower that they think this could ever happen.
I don't believe RA can go it alone. I also recognise that in the current environment NZ's economy is too small to sustain that level of professionalism itself.
-
@Stargazer said in The future of NZ Rugby:
First of all, I'm not sure I believe that Aussie article. They're shitstirring on a regular basis.
Yeah, I don't see any direct quotes to back up these rumours by the Ferald. This seems to be negotiation via the media. Maybe the consensus will be that Aust ends up with 4 teams because they don't have the player depth to sustain 5 pro teams.
Impey has said that SRA isn't financially viable so NZ needs Aust (and vice versa). A PI team will bring little to the table in terms of revenue because a large proportion of the Samoan and Tongan population don't have TVs, much less the income to pay Sky/Foxtel for subscriptions. That would be an altruistic decision not a financial decision.
-
@mofitzy_ said in The future of NZ Rugby:
Overall any setup is contingent on the world club championship being set up. But noises are hopeful at least, a possible silver lining of this period.
How is the world club champ a good thing? A couple of really good clubs/franchises get heaps more money, and the rest get nothing. Oh and more travel for the ABs in those teams. World club champ is another hit against the supremacy of international rugby, peddled by rich euro club owners/League CEOs.
I don't care if the Crusaders are better than Exeter, I care that the ABs smash England. No thanks to that
"Impey has said that SRA isn't financially viable so NZ needs Aust (and vice versa)." No he said a five team domestic league is not viable, increasing it to 8NZ teams is. It wasn't around finance but number of games. Ozzie will bring in fuck all money
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@mofitzy_ said in The future of NZ Rugby:
"Impey has said that SRA isn't financially viable so NZ needs Aust (and vice versa)." No he said a five team domestic league is not viable, increasing it to 8NZ teams is. It wasn't around finance but number of games. Ozzie will bring in fuck all moneyNot sure how NZ are going to fund or have the population to support 8 professional teams.
-
@KiwiMurph said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@mofitzy_ said in The future of NZ Rugby:
"Impey has said that SRA isn't financially viable so NZ needs Aust (and vice versa)." No he said a five team domestic league is not viable, increasing it to 8NZ teams is. It wasn't around finance but number of games. Ozzie will bring in fuck all moneyNot sure how NZ are going to fund or have the population to support 8 professional teams.
Make the NPC amateur?
-
@Machpants
Presumably the broadcasting would be shared equally between the unions. It's about being financially competitive. If we start losing players overseas because we can't match their salaries, then the interest in the domestic game dramatically falls and we get a vicious cycle.Personally I think it's good for more fan engagement and varied competition for the players.
-
I understand the issue of 3/4/5 Aussie teams, but it's not as simple as just picking a number we think will be competitive.
Four is a natural starting place, using the Super teams that currently exist. For all the talk of depth, in the early weeks of 2020 things looked pretty even. Both nations had outstanding teams, middling teams and mediocre teams. Overall the Kiwi teams were better but it wasn't as wide a margin as we've seen in previous years.
But things get stickier when you think about the Force. IF Andrew Forrest comes to the table (a big if), he can bring a team that pays its own bills in a more friendly timezone to European markets. More TV content, more cash. Now they might struggle on the field, but both of these unions are broke as hell and the prospect of money for nothing might be too hard to pass up.
These are all hypotheticals based on hearsay, and the Force may want to stay on their own planet. But they might not.
