'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town
Not even League, really. The Adelaide Rams were better supported.
Than the storm? Really? If so maybe we should take that as a sign, one of the most successful teams in recent memory can’t even get good support
-
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
I agree with this. The Rebels came to the party far too late. the AFL is a juggernaut and captures so much of the public's attention in Melbourne that even a super successful franchise like the Storm - which I understand loses money year after year and always has done - barely gets a mention or crowd. Truth is, most rugby people in Melbourne are going to support a Kiwi franchise over the Rebels anyway and the others all supported the Brumbies for the 15+ years of SR before the Rebels came along. Seriously, no one in Melbourne will notice or care if the Rebels are disbanded.
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@sparky yep terrible on the pitch, but they're in a truly significant market and my understanding is they're well backed by corporates. Additionally, Victoria has turned out some decent players. So there's potential there.
I always liked the concept of the Rebels. Love Melbourne, great name, good stadium. I'd have gone along and adopted them had I still been living there when they entered the comp.
Yes, everything is there in theory to have a decent franchise with a small, but strong following together with some outside interest as a boutique novelty sport for those who traditionally support AFL. However, it just doesn't work that way in Melbourne and it wouldn't make a difference if the team was really successful - the Storm are evidence of this. (And with the Storm, you've got to remember that much of their fanbase is actually built on Union supporters, with the NRL being the closest thing in town to proper rugby for a very long time.)
You have to put it into the too hard basket now, I think. There's too many vested interest in the overall sporting landscape in Melbourne to allow a rugby union franchise to flourish.
-
I think if the Rebels were to enjoy any significant success at all, they would capture Melbourne's interest. Why, given the wildly successful Storm never has, you ask? Because the Rebels play (played?) in an internationally recognised competition. Melbournites would get that, and get behind them. They know rugby union is a global sport. I don't think they've got behind the Storm because the Storm have simply won titles in a domestic comp in a global minority sport, and one they all regard as significantly inferior to the AFL in stature. Further, league isn't viewed any differently there to how it is in NZ; a sport for boofheads, thugs and lunatics. Rugby on the other hand can be easily supported by corporates and families.
-
This is where RA seem to be at:
Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
The Rugby Australia board will meet on Monday and New Zealand's Super Rugby invitation is high on the agenda.
Fair dinkum crossroads: Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
Rugby Australia is hardening its resolve around a five-team Super Rugby future despite New Zealand's unilateral invitation to contribute as few as two to next year's competition.
An RA board meeting will on Monday discuss New Zealand Rugby's Aratipu review, which was released on Friday with a pitch for an eight- or 10-team competition, including its own five sides and a Pasifika team.
Later this week RA boss Rob Clarke will take an operational call from his Kiwi counterparts to discuss in more detail the review and what NZR has in mind for the future of the trans- Ta$man partnership.
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
"We're looking at two plans, one with the Kiwis and one without. The call as I understand it, between [NZR boss] Mark Robinson and Rob [Clarke] was quite perfunctory," McLennan said.
"It's pretty obvious to me that we have the chance to build the best professional competition in the world together, with a bit of a twist, so I hope they can seize the opportunity. As countries we are best alone, better together."
-
There's a lot of negotiation by media at the moment. It's like a league player when their contract is almost up, and all of a sudden journalists are reporting that they are fielding offers from union, AFL and the Dallas Cowboys.
Not quite sure what to believe.
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
That has to be a bluff, would SA want to fly all that way just to play aussie teams?
-
-
I also don't get the ARU position.
They have 4 teams, currently, not 5.
Surely, from the 2 CEOs perspective - it's a case of comparing the 2 TV deals. Working out how many teams each can support with that money to create competive squads against each other, and competitive salaries against prospective NH deals.
I'm not thrilled that this is where it is at (still only 5 NZ teams and having to join with Australia). But diluting it with 2 weak Australian teams in expansion cities will be awful.
Honestly. Who can possibly go for war for a team call "Western" with nickname called "Force" who wear the same kit as 2 of the other 9 definites. Get the fuck out you bland fluffybunnies.
-
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I also don't get the ARU position.
They have 4 teams, currently, not 5.
Surely, from the 2 CEOs perspective - it's a case of comparing the 2 TV deals. Working out how many teams each can support with that money to create competive squads against each other, and competitive salaries against prospective NH deals.
I'm not thrilled that this is where it is at (still only 5 NZ teams and having to join with Australia). But diluting it with 2 weak Australian teams in expansion cities will be awful.
Honestly. Who can possibly go for war for a team call "Western" with nickname called "Force" who wear the same kit as 2 of the other 9 definites. Get the fuck out you bland fluffybunnies.
I can see why the Aussies want 5 sides.
Their broadcast deal is so low that they want 5 teams to at least keep up a national presence and so they can have content to sell to the broadcaster.
Otherwise they might as well go it alone with their own domestic comp.
Arguably the Force have the best fanbase of all the Aussie teams.
-
if RA are so adamant they have five good team then lets run two separate comps and the top 2 teams from each can meet in a playoff series, see how the results and their finances go
-
This from Wayne Smith this morning in the Australian:
The Pumas appear to be deserting in droves to French clubs but reports that SA rugby could relocate its interests to the northern hemisphere appear to be wildly incorrect. SA rugby could take the form of a beefed-up Currie Cup but it is understood that private equity fund CVC could be pursuing the Springboks as it has done the Six Nations and the Premiership in England.
Private equity is set to also play a huge role in Australian rugby in the future, with Silver Lake and US fund Providence both circling the game, but there is little doubt that the most highly valued competition would involve five teams each from Australia and NZ. In that way, administrators from both nations would be able to alleviate their funding issues without needing to sell the farm.
There are a lot of “ifs’ in RA plans but officials also believe massive opportunities are starting to open up. If they are able to secure the Super Rugby competition format they are hoping for, plus a private equity deal and a reasonable deal with broadcasters – who also have stipulated they see a trans- Ta$man series as the only viable option – then it could be that rugby gets back in the game.
Understandably, RA does not want to go through the same turmoil it experienced in 2017 when it culled the Force from Super Rugby. The Rebels were the other team facing the axe then but, with McLennan now committed to Forrest and the Perth club, Melbourne would be prime targets if RA decided to revisit dumping a team.
But that won’t happen, for a variety of reasons. Not least is the massive support the Victorian government gives to rugby and the important role it would play in a 2027 World Cup in Australia.
Given that NSW and Queensland are “untouchable”, that only leaves the Brumbies which are understood to be at the top of the list of Australian teams wanted by New Zealand.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
if RA are so adamant they have five good team then lets run two separate comps and the top 2 teams from each can meet in a playoff series, see how the results and their finances go
That works for me. I won't bother with much of the Aussie comp though.
Probably the three good teams.
-
@Snowy said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
if RA are so adamant they have five good team then lets run two separate comps and the top 2 teams from each can meet in a playoff series, see how the results and their finances go
That works for me. I won't bother with much of the Aussie comp though.
Probably the three good teams.
only real down side for me personally would be how unlikely it would be for the highlanders and rebels to meeting in melbourne...
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Understandably, RA does not want to go through the same turmoil it experienced in 2017 when it culled the Force from Super Rugby.
Then they should stop trying to add shit teams. FFS.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
if RA are so adamant they have five good team then lets run two separate comps and the top 2 teams from each can meet in a playoff series, see how the results and their finances go
That would be awesome.
Best rugby-wise for me.
Would be an 8 team NZ comp, 8 team Aus comp, 8 team Saf comp, 8 team South American comp (SLAR)
7 home an away games, plus local playoffs.
Top 2, or Top 1, from each meet in Super Rugby Champions League (in one location, say Perth, or rotating each year). SLAR teams would get smashed, I don't care as long as the comp is mathematically balanced and genuine. They would last 1 match and be knocked out.
In real world. Where money counts.
NZRU angling for 8 team Trans- Ta$man comp, hoping to join with Japan for a Pacific Champions League. -
@Snowy said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Understandably, RA does not want to go through the same turmoil it experienced in 2017 when it culled the Force from Super Rugby.
Then they should stop trying to add shit teams. FFS.
its also why i wouldnt be adverse to rebranding all the teams, this would be a new comp, lets remove the appearance of connections to the old one
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Snowy said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Understandably, RA does not want to go through the same turmoil it experienced in 2017 when it culled the Force from Super Rugby.
Then they should stop trying to add shit teams. FFS.
its also why i wouldnt be adverse to rebranding all the teams, this would be a new comp, lets remove the appearance of connections to the old one
Nah, not for me. I like the old "rivalries". It keeps the banter going.
