Super Rugby - The Future
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
so making things "smaller" doesnt work as it doesnt provide the full rugby picture to develop players....this is why i would have loved too hear more about making the current structure or a version of it more popular so we have more income
killing off the NPC and all its history to replace it with academies just makes me a bit sad
Funnily enough, I think there is still a domestic TV market for NPC as an amateur competition. If the PUs could get enough money to fund their costs it would be great to see amateur players vying for the Ranfurly shield.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
I mean this isn't rocket science - the main thrust of the financial savings is basically not having the NPC.
It's saving their salaries and those of the support staff intertwined with them.
What are all those people going to do? Do it for free?
No they're going to leave.
How disastrious (or not) this is - I guess we'll find out.
Which is basically the Australian system with nothing in the middle between club and SR,That is not working out to well.
My feeling is that we should develop the super development teams as this level, so that the professional players are still within the same organizations.
So the Bravehearts, Hunters, etc could be the place for us to fill that middle layer and we would be replicating the Oz league model.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense fills that middle tier.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
so making things "smaller" doesnt work as it doesnt provide the full rugby picture to develop players....this is why i would have loved too hear more about making the current structure or a version of it more popular so we have more income
killing off the NPC and all its history to replace it with academies just makes me a bit sad
Funnily enough, I think there is still a domestic TV market for NPC as an amateur competition. If the PUs could get enough money to fund their costs it would be great to see amateur players vying for the Ranfurly shield.
i hope so, as someone overseas i would hope the PU's would just do somethign like build/buy an on line service to sell direct (as i do for my football team in the UK) id pay to stream Otago games, definitely if they included it in some sort of overseas membership, give me a cap or beanie like the AFL teams do
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
So the Bravehearts, Hunters, etc could be the place for us to fill that middle layer and we would be replicating the Oz league model
welcome, brother, to my church
Amen.
Cost efficiencies, next league to have players available for Super, develop it as a TV product (maybe make an age limit for a certain number of players so it is primarily young talent), try to start a relationship for crossovers with League 2/3 in Japan - lots of opportunities but still within the franchise system
Big fan of this. The only couple question is around the timing and limiting the impact on community rugby. What is the timings of the secondary competition/games and will it also allow for the Super U20s to be played as well. Would the second tier teams play at the same time as Super. Do we allow our Super players, who aren't All Blacks to go overseas for a three-month stint late in the year?
For me, it runs at the same time as an extended super rugby competition, likely with games filling in the spaces left by super (e.g., daytime rugby). We would have most of our best players in one structure across the professional year, with some players going up to the All Blacks.
Professionally, there would likely be three levels - Super, development, U20s, with all players in the same academy / franchise, so essentially copying the league model. I would make movements to allow Super franchises to compete with league for youngsters somehow.
I would consider having super rugby going on while All Blacks are absent, or having no rugby during international windows with three rep teams out (ABs, ABXV, NZ Maori with extended eligibility) to make sure there is still enough product.
Another option to have Super rugby and international rugby at the same time would be to have a year-end tournament so that super teams can keep playing while ABs are on duty. Japan has an interesting model here that could be copied - its a separate competition with the same sides.
During all of this, amateur players would play club and PU rugby in some format (essentially NPC becomes heartland rugby). Super rugby could still scout here for anything they've missed, but NPC/heartland would be participation-focused.
You have me sold on this model. From a community model (Otago perspective), it will probably mean fewer capable players in club footy and may mean an Otago/Southland/Central Otago club competition. The travel would be shitty, but would ensure the best games taking out Highlanders/Bravehearts and potentially U20 players.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
so making things "smaller" doesnt work as it doesnt provide the full rugby picture to develop players....this is why i would have loved too hear more about making the current structure or a version of it more popular so we have more income
killing off the NPC and all its history to replace it with academies just makes me a bit sad
Funnily enough, I think there is still a domestic TV market for NPC as an amateur competition. If the PUs could get enough money to fund their costs it would be great to see amateur players vying for the Ranfurly shield.
i hope so, as someone overseas i would hope the PU's would just do somethign like build/buy an on line service to sell direct (as i do for my football team in the UK) id pay to stream Otago games, definitely if they included it in some sort of overseas membership, give me a cap or beanie like the AFL teams do
Yep, dramatically cut costs, have one or two cameras streaming, and maybe have regional competitions followed by finals so travel costs are greatly reduced. You would still likely have Waikato or BOP come out of a regional tournament involving BOP, King Country, Swamp Foxes, Waikato but it would be a great way of getting locals to games if everyone was actually amateur.
So, regions such as:
Northern
Northland
North Harbour
Auckland
CountiesCentral North
BOP
King Country
Thames Valley
WaikatoCentral West
Taranaki
Wanganui
Horowhenua / Manawatu
WellingtonCentral East
Poverty Bay
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
WairarapaSouth Central
Ta$man (split?)
Buller
West Coast
CanterburySouthern
Mid-Canterbury
South CanterburyNorth Otago
Otago
Southland -
#bringbacknelsonbays
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
But take out all of the super rugby players and it would hardly be worth watching.
Au contraire. It could have a genuine relationship with its province again and hence a real demonstration of which province is best identifying and developing talent.
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
as it should. make it a rep comp for club players. it will have genuine meaning again
The only probelm with that is union would want to win it and spend all their $ on it (and not developing the grass roots) as they are now.
So it doesn't really achieve much.
I'd say making the NPC achieves precisely what we're asking of it; representing the province and not becoming a millstone around the professional game.
I've said this before but I think the best solution is NPC becomes an amateur tier, and SR in NZ expands to about 10 teams. That way you keep four Oz SR teams and the Drua to make a proper competition.
As for worrying about a competition being impeded by inbound tours, I think that's an opportunity for teams to carry some depth in their squads and NZR to ensure a couple of teams aren't stockpiling talent.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
I've said this before but I think the best solution is NPC becomes an amateur tier, and SR in NZ expands to about 10 teams. That way you keep four Oz SR teams and the Drua to make a proper competition.
my biggest question with this is how to break it into the 10 teams, we talking 5 new ones slotted in around the existing ones? 10 "new" teams (maybe ditch the slightly dated 90's monikers) distributed across the current rugby landscape?
-
Taniwha (Northland/North Harbour)
Blues (Auckland/Counties)
Chiefs (Waikato/Bay of Plenty)
Bulls (Taranaki)
Vikings (Hawke's Bay/Manawatu)
Hurricanes (Wellington)
Crusaders ( Ta$man/Canterbury)
Highlanders (Otago/Southland)Plus Moana Pasifika, Fijian Drua and the four remaining Australian sides.
-
There is no way we can justify 10 teams at the level of Super Rugby. Seven or eight would be an absolute maximum. Already we are seeing young guys in there who aren't up to it, yet or just not capable enough. Two extra teams for a premier competition will be manageable. Make it 10 and they would need at least 100 top level players. With probably 12 million in salaries, for just the players.
-
@Mr-Fish said in NZR review:
Taniwha (Northland/North Harbour)
Blues (Auckland/Counties)
Chiefs (Waikato/Bay of Plenty)
Bulls (Taranaki)
Vikings (Hawke's Bay/Manawatu)
Hurricanes (Wellington)
Crusaders ( Ta$man/Canterbury)
Highlanders (Otago/Southland)Plus Moana Pasifika, Fijian Drua and the four remaining Australian sides.
thats not a bad mix, i would say that MP would have to be based in the Islands though, or that franchise becomes one of the other new ones
whenever i see this lists though, and i know it seems less of a problem given how this year has gone, were going to dilute the catchment of pretty much everyone except the crusaders....
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
I'm a corporate person, but, having admittedly not delved into the detail, am bemused as to why the PU's three of nine proposal is such an issue.
The usual situation on boards is that majority rules, apart from any 'reserved matters' where a super majority, typically 75% is required. The PU proposal seems a reasonable balance in that regard.
A board entirely consisting of independents will often lose sight of the interests of constituents, in particular in the name of 'best practice', which typically nowadays has a heavy PC element.
The most important thing is how board members can be removed. If they are genuinely accountable and can be removed by a majority of the underlying voters (not sure who those are) then there is a limit to the damage which can be done.
Whatever the decision, the appointments ought to be for two years, meaning each and everyone has to stand for re-election based on their record in the two years.
Is anyone here able to confirm the proposed details in these areas?
-
I'd be surprised if the decision makers at NZR want to go beyond six teams. With a second one in Auckland to combat league, and may be offer some flexibility around something either for HB or BoP. Hawke's Bay is probably the biggest one, as well as Taeanaki that is fairly isolated from their base. Seven teams is probably my idea is the limits we have. The other issue is the stadiums in BoP, Naki and a lesser extent HB have their issues.
-
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
Could a two tier Super comp, with promotion/relegation have legs?
In order for a promotion relegation system to work, the teams in the tier below would still need to have acadamies, to have salaried players and to require sponsors. This would remove the depth from the top level, the commercial money coming in and spread the costs of acadamies and talent identificafion. It could also jepordise the premier co.petition by potentially diluting the number of teams each country has playing in it. If Australian broadcasters sign an agreement on the basis of four teams and suddenly one is relegated, it'll impact their agreement, or more likely future agreements. Quality players will also be less likely to sign for bottom four teams.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
I've said this before but I think the best solution is NPC becomes an amateur tier, and SR in NZ expands to about 10 teams. That way you keep four Oz SR teams and the Drua to make a proper competition.
my biggest question with this is how to break it into the 10 teams, we talking 5 new ones slotted in around the existing ones? 10 "new" teams (maybe ditch the slightly dated 90's monikers) distributed across the current rugby landscape?
Yeah, basically. Based around population centres from existing unions, with new franchises loosely based on geographical amalgamations of existing unions to drive some engagement.
-
@Mr-Fish said in NZR review:
Taniwha (Northland/North Harbour)
Blues (Auckland/Counties)
Chiefs (Waikato/Bay of Plenty)
Bulls (Taranaki)
Vikings (Shield Snorters/Manawatu)
Hurricanes (Wellington)
Crusaders ( Ta$man/Canterbury)
Highlanders (Otago/Southland)Where do the Heartland sides fall in all this? Not only above, but in the scheme of these proposals?
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
There is no way we can justify 10 teams at the level of Super Rugby. Seven or eight would be an absolute maximum. Already we are seeing young guys in there who aren't up to it, yet or just not capable enough. Two extra teams for a premier competition will be manageable. Make it 10 and they would need at least 100 top level players. With probably 12 million in salaries, for just the players.
The additional salary cost is met by selling an actual competitive season with lots of fixtures. As for "players good enough", sure it won't be the Super Six, but there's plenty of professional players around the world who are barely adequate. Even in the NRL which has to raid rugby for players.
I imagine a professional league of that size could become self sustaining and address future need whilst bolstering the incompetent Australians. RA get to have teams in it, but don't get to run it because they're fucking incompetent.
