Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
I think so, it would bring sponsors back in general. I am quite sure some NSW old boy will have significantly deep pockets to invest in his team if he felt he could get them winning again. There is still a lot of money around ...just not currently invested in the game.
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
i think so, the goldie/brisbane sydney or melbourne would be attractive to lots of guys when they currently living in Hamilton or dunedin
especially if they thought it didnt hinder their chances of making the All Blacks
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
i think so, the goldie/brisbane sydney or melbourne would be attractive to lots of guys when they currently living in Hamilton or dunedin
especially if they thought it didnt hinder their chances of making the All Blacks
It clearly wouldn't under the current regime.
-
if these guys are playing in the same comp so supposedly the same level, and all the NZ teams have still managed to field All Blacks when they've gone through their shit periods, so you can say playing for a lesser team stopped them
BB signed Auckland before their resurgence last year, he obviously thought he'd proved enough and went looking for a different lifestyle and or challenge
-
I remain astonished at any New Zealander who thinks offshoring the selection, development and welfare of All Blacks to our competitors is a good idea.
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I remain astonished at any New Zealander who thinks offshoring the selection, development and welfare of All Blacks to our competitors is a good idea.
are you suggesting the Aussie team would deliberately hobble wouldbe all blacks to help the wallabies?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I remain astonished at any New Zealander who thinks offshoring the selection, development and welfare of All Blacks to our competitors is a good idea.
are you suggesting the Aussie team would deliberately hobble wouldbe all blacks to help the wallabies?
I'm explicitly stating they wouldn't give a fuck about making their All Blacks play 80mins every week. That's before we dwell on what position they'd play and their "coaching".
-
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
evil aussie coach: hehehe that will teach the stupid kiwis, i got an extra 20 minutes out of him
media: he now has an injury and you have to play your second string next week against the crusaders
evil aussie coach: was worth it for the motherland!
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
-
@antipodean It's pretty academic but I suspect if we had pursued a domestic first model in place of the international provincial SR we may well be a lot better off.
Its kind of stupid that in a state twice the population size of NZ we only have one professional team. A team which was originally meant to be a representative side.
That ship sailed forever ago, though.
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
-
@antipodean That's pretty easily addressed with minute caps on international players. Which should already exist.
-
I still think that the initial idea of a Super 12 (5 NZ, 5 Aussie, Fiji Drua, Moana Pasifika) is the best, with one round robin. So one year franchises play 5 (or 6) home games and 6 (or 5) away games, the next year it's 6 home games and 5 away games. After that round robin, the teams ranked 3 to 6 play quarter finals for two spots in the semis against teams ranked 1 and 2. The winners of the semis play the Final. No conferences; no guaranteed quarter final spots for teams from a particular country (all based on one combined ranking).
The current way of central contracting and only selecting players from NZ has served the ABs well over the years; I don't see a good reason to change that, especially not with guys like Forrester having the coin to offer huge salaries to lure our best players away if we allow them to play outside NZ. I'm with @antipodean on this point.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
I'm not the one ignorant to established practise around the world where players ineligible for the country they play in are seen as disposable. I'm not the one who can't see in an era where even All Blacks have work-ons that the current coaching and administration of Australian sides is hardly likely to address.
I don't think you're actually an All Blacks supporter at all. You joined once McLennan was confirmed as chairman of Rugby Australia didn't you..?
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I still think that the initial idea of a Super 12 (5 NZ, 5 Aussie, Fiji Drua, Moana Pasifika) is the best, with one round robin. So one year franchises play 5 (or 6) home games and 6 (or 5) away games, the next year it's 6 home games and 5 away games. After that round robin, the teams ranked 3 to 6 play quarter finals for two spots in the semis against teams ranked 1 and 2. The winners of the semis play the Final. No conferences; no guaranteed quarter final spots for teams from a particular country (all based on one combined ranking).
The current way of central contracting and only selecting players from NZ has served the ABs well over the years; I don't see a good reason to change that, especially not with guys like Forrester having the coin to offer huge salaries to lure our best players away if we allow them to play outside NZ. I'm with @antipodean on this point.
thats fair enough but it skips past the initial point which was how to deal with the NZ teams being so much stronger than all those others and whether all those other teams losing on the regular actual does more damage to rugby in the region long term, plus the other thought that aussie rugby doesnt want that
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I still think that the initial idea of a Super 12 (5 NZ, 5 Aussie, Fiji Drua, Moana Pasifika) is the best, with one round robin. So one year franchises play 5 (or 6) home games and 6 (or 5) away games, the next year it's 6 home games and 5 away games. After that round robin, the teams ranked 3 to 6 play quarter finals for two spots in the semis against teams ranked 1 and 2. The winners of the semis play the Final. No conferences; no guaranteed quarter final spots for teams from a particular country (all based on one combined ranking).
The current way of central contracting and only selecting players from NZ has served the ABs well over the years; I don't see a good reason to change that, especially not with guys like Forrester having the coin to offer huge salaries to lure our best players away if we allow them to play outside NZ. I'm with @antipodean on this point.
Yes me to, for all the reason you have outlined above.
Losing the Central contract system means large problems IMO for the AB's in the long run.
Do we really want to see our best 20 players playing for Australian teams because there is Corperate money there for Rugby in Australia for this sort of thing.
Money will talk in that scenario then to keep up the NZ teams will have to be sold of to rich overseas interests to stay in the game.Those interests will not care about the long term NZ game or the AB's. -
As a kiwi fan, I like that model, but were I an Aussie fan, I don't think I would.
I also don't know whether broadcasters will be that keen on that competition - that would be the key factor because if they don't need the conference model to make money, your idea is the best way to do it.
However, if maintaining Oz viewers and/ore other international viewers requires a conference system (according to broadcaster deals), we can't have the system we want. It's that simple.
It's probably worth remembering that while we may be very good at rugby, we are a tiny little country that no-one really gives a fuck about, so we must have a competition that is valuable to broadcasters or we can wave good bye to our ABs.
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
I'm not the one ignorant to established practise around the world where players ineligible for the country they play in are seen as disposable. I'm not the one who can't see in an era where even All Blacks have work-ons that the current coaching and administration of Australian sides is hardly likely to address.
I don't think you're actually an All Blacks supporter at all. You joined once McLennan was confirmed as chairman of Rugby Australia didn't you..?
if you can come up with a plan that keeps the AB's as strong as they are and protects the players as you describe whilst also keeping all the other parties happy then great, but currently we're you just saying everyone's else ideas are shit and seem to ignore the hole we're in...which is, aussie doesn't want to play against nz teams that are so much stronger and we cant afford to go it alone...so we need to do something to bring aussie rugby up
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
It's probably worth remembering that while we may be very good at rugby, we are a tiny little country that no-one really gives a fuck about, so we must have a competition that is valuable to broadcasters or we can wave good bye to our ABs
this is the key point.
