The future of NZ 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
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.
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.
-
@mofitzy_ said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@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.
Nah broadcasting isn;t shared equally. We have a 250 mill 5 yr deal with sky (something like that) ozzie are struggling to get 12 mill a year. NZR would be dumb to share that equally! SANZAAR had some sort of deal, wasn't equally shared, it was shared, but not equally. Ozzie obvs has done the best out of that for a fair few years
-
@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.
Well Impey said it is viable, so I guess there are plans within plans. NPC non pro (cos it is a massive loss maker), 8 teams on low SR level money, but to get the big moola you need ABs, as now - but maybe more pronounced? I dunno
-
@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.
Good call.
Penney warns NZ Rugby off going alone
NSW Waratahs coach Rob Penney has fired a warning shot at New Zealand Rugby (NZR) to weigh the...
New Zealand Rugby insists it has made no decision about its preference for a trans- Ta$man competition to replace Super Rugby next year and hasn't been pressured by Australian interests. NZR chief executive Mark Robinson hit out at Australian media reports that his board were split over two possible preferred models - an open-border split of five NZ and five Australian franchises; or an eight-team competition featuring five from NZ, two from Australia and one from the Pacific. Robinson said the board had yet to even see a copy of the independent Kiwi-driven "Aratipu Report" recommendations which will be unveiled publicly next week. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald said Rugby Australia was poised to reject any proposal featuring three or less Australian teams. Robinson said he had spoken to RA chief executive Rob Clarke earlier on Thursday and received no steer on his preference for 2021 and beyond. "There's nothing we're hearing about what they would and wouldn't be open to at this stage," Robinson said. "I'm not aware of what Australia are particularly focused on in that area." Robinson said suggestions his board were split was "absolute nonsense" along with suggestions the Sanzaar joint venture was on the verge of being dismantled. -
Some other quotes from Robinson.
"As recently as Tuesday, I was reconfirming NZRs commitment to the partnership moving forward," Robinson said on Thursday."Clearly things like international rugby have a key part to play and club or franchise rugby that's been worked through."The latter comment seemed to be implying that SANZAAR may have control over international rugby only.
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
We have a 250 mill 5 yr deal with sky
If you believe that number won't be adjusted then I've got a bridge for sale you might be interested in.
Having said that, you're right that broadcast deals (such as they are) don't always get split 50-50.
-
If NZ rugby isn't actively discussing a 13-15 team competition that involves NZ, Oz, and Japan, they've got rocks in their heads.
Allow Kiwis to play for any team in the competition to remain eligible for AB selection.
Alternatively, set up an NZ pro competition (lets say 8 teams) that runs at a different time to the Japan competition. Allow players to play in Japan to make money, and NZ to remain available for ABs (in this case, managing workloads would be much harder).
-
@gt12 said in The future of NZ Rugby:
If NZ rugby isn't actively discussing a 13-15 team competition that involves NZ, Oz, and Japan, they've got rocks in their heads.
Allow Kiwis to play for any team in the competition to remain eligible for AB selection.
Alternatively, set up an NZ pro competition (lets say 8 teams) that runs at a different time to the Japan competition. Allow players to play in Japan to make money, and NZ to remain available for ABs (in this case, managing workloads would be much harder).
What is the planned schedule for the Top League going forward? I'm confused with the multiple seasons and COVID?
-
what ever they put forward, NZ needs to accept not being as dominant as we were for most of Super Rugby or we'll just end up killing the interest in places like Aus or Japan where Rugby isn't the No 1 sport...for NZ rugby to survive we need other countries markets...and for these markets to exist theyre going to need to win some games
I think a lot of true rugby fans forget that most supporter watch it for there team to win...most people dont watch games just hoping for some good rugby regardless of whos winning
-
Call it New Super 12. Five franchises in NZ, four in Aus, two in Japan and one in Suva (but would play a couple of games a year in Hawaii or California) . Round robin followed by Semis and a Grand Final.
Kiwis can play in any of these teams and be available for the ABs as long as they follow NZR protocols on injury-prevention, rest and being available for ABs duty.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The future of NZ Rugby:
what ever they put forward, NZ needs to accept not being as dominant as we were for most of Super Rugby or we'll just end up killing the interest in places like Aus or Japan where Rugby isn't the No 1 sport...for NZ rugby to survive we need other countries markets...and for these markets to exist theyre going to need to win some games
I think a lot of true rugby fans forget that most supporter watch it for there team to win...most people dont watch games just hoping for some good rugby regardless of whos winning
Your two paragraphs don’t match up. You are suggesting diluting NZ teams to make them shitter to save NZ rugby.
But then saying people watch to see their teams be good and win.So lets turn away NZ fans in the hope that we make some Aussie bandwagon jumpers happy? Fuck that.
Japan rugby showed no interest in the sunwolves, where is the evidence to suggest they are suddenly going to want to put multiple teams in Super rugby?
Adding a team from the pacific is equally crazy. It will be a commercial basket case.
If a return to a Super 15 round robin like was meant to happen is a no go and a 9-10 team trans Ta$man comp isn’t considered viable and Rugby Aotearoa also isn’t considered viable then i would think the best option would be a revamped NPC.
No more super franchises. Just take the top 8-10 Provinces and create a first division round robin. And make a second division with the remaining npc teams plus dome heartland sides and one or two from the pacific.
Have automatic promotion/relegation.But quite frankly, if the three options above (super 15, trans Ta$man or RAot) aren’t viable we are in trouble.
Chucking pacific islands teams or japanese teams in and allowing our players to freely drain away is going to be a bigger disaster than the over expanded, conference based mess super rugby had become already. -
@pukunui said in The future of NZ Rugby:
Just take the top 8-10 Provinces and create a first division round robin.
Not as easy as just doing that. How did that go last time?
The obvious unions to drop will try to delay with legal action and then go cap in hand to the NZRU asking to pay their legal bill. I agree it's the right option but I would want to see there is either a resolve from the NZRU to see it through or a way to avoid a protracted legal process.
