Super Rugby - The Future
-
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$man/Canterbury)
Highlanders (Otago/Southland)Where do the Heartland sides fall in all this? Not only above, but in the scheme of these proposals?
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
There is no way we can justify 10 teams at the level of Super Rugby. Seven or eight would be an absolute maximum. Already we are seeing young guys in there who aren't up to it, yet or just not capable enough. Two extra teams for a premier competition will be manageable. Make it 10 and they would need at least 100 top level players. With probably 12 million in salaries, for just the players.
The additional salary cost is met by selling an actual competitive season with lots of fixtures. As for "players good enough", sure it won't be the Super Six, but there's plenty of professional players around the world who are barely adequate. Even in the NRL which has to raid rugby for players.
I imagine a professional league of that size could become self sustaining and address future need whilst bolstering the incompetent Australians. RA get to have teams in it, but don't get to run it because they're fucking incompetent.
-
@Mr-Fish said in NZR review:
Taniwha (Northland/North Harbour)
Blues (Auckland/Counties)
Chiefs (Waikato/Bay of Plenty)
Bulls (Taranaki)
Vikings (Hawke's Bay/Manawatu)
Hurricanes (Wellington)
Crusaders ( Ta$man/Canterbury)
Highlanders (Otago/Southland)Plus Moana Pasifika, Fijian Drua and the four remaining Australian sides.
Sure, but MP is removed. They're an orphan that's never getting adopted.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@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?
the idea id heartland like all the other PU just does their own thing, produce rep teams, challenge for the shield i guess...would be up to the PUs to organise/fund their own comp
-
D Duluth referenced this topic on
-
In an article today Cameron George is saying that an NRL team has about 60 players under contract to cover the top team and reserve grade. If we use that as a guide for any SR franchise (including a Development team) that plays weekly in an extended season that will require a substantial increase in funds just to cover player salaries.
-
There are contracts and then there are contracts
An NRL side has 30 players in it, and the total cap is about $11m
"reserve grade" is a Q-Cup or NSW-Cup team. They have salary caps of about $400k. NRL team "top 30" players will play for their Q-Cup side when not required for NRL duty (ie up here Jake Clifford is a Cowboys player playing every week for the Northern Pride) and will be outside that cap. A few clubs have more than one "reserve grade" side, like the Cowboys who have the Pride and Mackay, and those players aren't contracted to the NRL side.
The Warriors may be doing it as one "club" and that's what he is talking about, but those reserve grade sides are on dogshit money and will have to work as well.
-
@mariner4life The difference is that rugby players have more options to earn decent money overseas whereas RL players have the NRL or Super League.
We can argue the totals but the salary cap would still need to increase and the player salaries be competitive to keep the next tier in NZ/Aust to play in such a competition.
-
if they aren't good enough to make a Super Team, especially if we get a couple more, who is going to pay them?
The next question is, are the current salaries being paid in some countries sustainable?
-
i also hope we're looking at how were going too sell this, to grow the market for it, so make make the structure tighter....but also grow the income, not giving up and saying this is all the money/fans we're going to get
-
NRL and AFL seem to make plenty of money. Top 14 in France has a big TV deal, but is it profitable? English Premiership is completely fucked. How about the URC? Wales seems to be struggling, likewise some SA teams. Japan Leagues are dependent on corporate money.
