'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Whatever, let them have five but our red line is no guaranteed finals spots. Be careful what you wish for with no finals in Aussie at the pointy end of the comp.
Aust can't even support 4 sides (financially or player quality). If they want 5 they should do it alone (it would be better for them rather than their teams being thrashed ever other week by NZ sides). NZ would be best just to step away until they come to their senses (likely after about 1 or 2 years when they are close to bankrupt)
I would sooner watch 5 NZ sides as the main competition (but NZ need to set a financial structure up so its impossible for 1 team to win year after year) than playing 2nd rate Aussie sides. NZ should stick with the 5 sides plus a PI side. 6 sides but NZ must ensure the PI can compete
And maybe look at some sort of pool knockout competition as well. This may include SA, Aust NZ PI Japan and maybe some Celtic league sides as well
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Why not? They have had pretty solid support, albeit with poor results. Regularly have big crowds at Bledisloes, tests etc.
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Why not? They have had pretty solid support, albeit with poor results. Regularly have big crowds at Bledisloes, tests etc.
don't they average less than 10k through the gate?
Those tests are always packed with people from other states travelling because a weekend in Melbourne is awesome for the rugby. That and Melbournians will actually front for an international event.
FWIW i am happy to keep the 5 if you really want, but you cannot pretend the comp is going to be better for it.
You are effectively hanging your hat on one side a year being a shot. Australian supporters are not going to stand for that (they haven't in the past, why would they now?)
-
@KiwiMurph said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 10 still sounds a hell of a lot better than Super 18 was.
You don't have the issue of big travel - you'd have say 7-8 competitive teams every year competing for say 4 semi final spots.
You don't have the issue of conferences and lopsided schedules.
The Kiwis would watch the kiwi derbies - the Aussies would watch the aussie derbies. The good trans Ta$man games would get watched. Ok the bad games wouldn't get many viewers but how is that much different to Super 12 was?
Sounds good.
Yeah, maybe another key point is a max of 12 sides. So eventually the islands side and maybe one from Japan. But no more bloat.
-
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Whatever, let them have five but our red line is no guaranteed finals spots. Be careful what you wish for with no finals in Aussie at the pointy end of the comp.
Yep bang on. Enough with the cock measuring. Let's have on-field results determine who's right and who's wrong. But if there is ANY talk of conferences and automatic qualifiers, they can fuck off. Then come back a little bit, and fuck off a bit further.
-
@KiwiMurph said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 10 still sounds a hell of a lot better than Super 18 was.
For sure, but Australia provide the extra 2 competitive teams?
8 teams home and away with a finals series? Or we are back to a PI and Japan add on? I doubt that they would be competitive too.
-
my only concession to the having five aussie teams (other than it not looming like we have a choice) is looking at the crowds they can get to bottom of the ladder AFL and NRL teams...there is a decent percent of aussies that will support "their" team regardless...i can relate...so if theyre going to insist on five then they need to find a way to get the community involved i etc other than results, i real connection from local clubs to the teams
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Whatever, let them have five but our red line is no guaranteed finals spots. Be careful what you wish for with no finals in Aussie at the pointy end of the comp.
Yep bang on. Enough with the cock measuring. Let's have on-field results determine who's right and who's wrong.
What's this right and wrong? There is no debate here. Everyone acknowledges that the Aussie teams will likely be weaker.
RA want five teams because it is a better commercial proposition for them, and better for their fan bases across Australia.
FWIW I think four teams is the right number for us, but can understand that RA would rather burn NZRU than their own fans again.
-
@antipodean Six years ago. How long did that take to find?
Got 30k to Ireland a few years ago, I'd reckon that's decent enough. Boosted by expats, sure, but that's why the city has potential to sustain a team. The interest is there.
-
-
@KiwiMurph probably because there are more kiwis in Melbourne than aussie rugby fans.....
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Crucial said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Call their bluff I reckon.
They have neither the player quality or money to set up an attractive product themselves that would threaten what we want to set up.
Just to clarify this - in order to avoid having five second rate Australian teams, you will set up a comp with five third rate teams from Asia, the PIs and the Americas?
No. My thinking is that we stop looking at the past type of setup which has caused these problems and look at a totally new concept of a pro comp.
we can provide the facilities and the best broadcasters for rugby in the world. We can also provide 5 quality teams/franchises. We would want maybe 5 more to kick things off and need to widen interest beyond the old Oz teams. If they want to buy 2 or 3 franchise licences then good on them.
Our teams can still be backed by the NZRU but others can be private. It makes commercial sense for a PI “themed” franchise to start up. If the aussies don’t want their established teams in then they run the risk of players being offered contracts in NZ comp franchises.
Kind of a US sport approach.
I don’t think we are too small at all. We are arguably the best rugby country in the world and should have a quality comp to sell. Making travel domestic only removes massive costs. -
@barbarian I think I've slowly come around to your (and RA's) point of view. There's also a really important point in here about the 'now' versus the future. There is not chance to get better if you're not regularly playing the best, and the trans Ta$man comp provides that.
I want Rugby to be strong, both in NZ and Aus . Right now, NZ is better than Aus in player development, scouting, etc. That said, having more rugby pathways (BULLSHIT BINGO ALERT) for pro players in Aus is a good thing, and must help people develop.
The Force are the only ones I'm leery of, given their location. OTOH, if they have 'pay for play' and we get a rugby stronghold, it'd be worth the investment. And, sides only travel there every second year for regular season games.
NZRU have handled this terribly. I think they will be boxed into a corner by their own statements, and wind up eating a bunch of humble pie. Long term, Rugby is a wonderful sport and I'd love to see it being taken as seriously as AFL and NRL in Aussie. So, roll on Super 12 v2.0? Or even a Super 9, home and away?
-
-
@Tim said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Who would've thought that NZR would appoint a dumbo ex-All Black as CEO. Shocking. Right out of the Fonterra play-book.
is there a rugby Board in the world who do it differently though? It's a massive boys club of a sport
-
I don't mind watching a diluted 10 team league.
I do mind watching a diluted 10 team league when of 4 of the teams are from 1 country as they're spread too thin and Phil Kearns is commentating and 90% of the supporters from that 1 country appear to have just given up.
I dismiss any trans-continental or trans-hemispheric involvement in a regular season as fanciful.
I don't dismiss a PI franchsie as fanciful , but I dismiss it as probably likely to fail in it's natural state (in the islands) and therefore doomed to be a divisive leach in (probably) Auckland.
-
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I do mind watching a diluted 10 team league when of 4 of the teams are from 1 country as they're spread too thin and Phil Kearns is commentating and 90% of the supporters from that 1 country appear to have just given up.
4 of the teams are bringing in as much money as the other 6, and potential cash up the wazoo. I think trans Ta$man is important, not for the now (as frankly most of the Aus sides are pretty average), but for what they could be. If their quality improves, and it certainly can, then we'll be delighted to be in partnership with them and the rivers of gold.
-
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I don't mind watching a diluted 10 team league.
I do mind watching a diluted 10 team league when of 4 of the teams are from 1 country as they're spread too thin and Phil Kearns is commentating and 90% of the supporters from that 1 country appear to have just given up.
I dismiss any trans-continental or trans-hemispheric involvement in a regular season as fanciful.
I don't dismiss a PI franchsie as fanciful , but I dismiss it as probably likely to fail in it's natural state (in the islands) and therefore doomed to be a divisive leach in (probably) Auckland.
There are possible solutions to the unbalanced 10 team trans-tasman league, though.
Let AB selectors pick from Australian based teams.
Remove restrictions on contracting non-Australian (and Non-NZ available players).Yes, the Mike Harris and Toni Pulu level of players move with current rules and incentives.
With the 5 years residency rule, and if Australia remove their restrictions (so players aren't 'forced' to sit out any national representation for 5 years while qualifying for their new nation). Could we feel secure in letting an uncapped player like Will Jordan play for an e.g. Dave Rennie coached Qld Reds in future?
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@antipodean Six years ago. How long did that take to find?
What difference does that make?
Got 30k to Ireland a few years ago, I'd reckon that's decent enough. Boosted by expats, sure, but that's why the city has potential to sustain a team. The interest is there.
So a test a year that they can't sell out?
