Super Rugby 2026
-
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
i find this kind of weird, dont think any of the teams are rolling in money and this has to be more expensive to run....surely leaning on the local NPC teams to develop players is the more sustainable model
Nah.
NPC unions are hard up financially as well.
Provincial contracts run from about July through to the end of September. There is limited ability to influence players from a high performance perspective when Super is being held.If the contracts are centrally held, it allows rugby in NZ to maintain a playing pool that previously went overseas and have less of a reliance on very young players should there be injuries in Super Rugby.
This makes complete sense.
of course it makes sense from an actual development angle....just not sure where the money is coming from....and the NPC teams / unions are still operating so thats not an additional cost like running a B comp will be
It is an additional cost if we want to keep the players in a high performance setting during the Super season.
thats not what i was suggesting
i was suggetsing a comprmise to use the existing system to delevop the next acps off the rank better in the super off season
not as good as having a whole second squad ready during....but also not as expenisve to run when teams generally arent making money and i doubt a B comp will generate more money than it spends
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
i find this kind of weird, dont think any of the teams are rolling in money and this has to be more expensive to run....surely leaning on the local NPC teams to develop players is the more sustainable model
Nah.
NPC unions are hard up financially as well.
Provincial contracts run from about July through to the end of September. There is limited ability to influence players from a high performance perspective when Super is being held.If the contracts are centrally held, it allows rugby in NZ to maintain a playing pool that previously went overseas and have less of a reliance on very young players should there be injuries in Super Rugby.
This makes complete sense.
of course it makes sense from an actual development angle....just not sure where the money is coming from....and the NPC teams / unions are still operating so thats not an additional cost like running a B comp will be
It is an additional cost if we want to keep the players in a high performance setting during the Super season.
thats not what i was suggesting
i was suggetsing a comprmise to use the existing system to delevop the next acps off the rank better in the super off season
not as good as having a whole second squad ready during....but also not as expenisve to run when teams generally arent making money and i doubt a B comp will generate more money than it spends
So your compromise is the status quo?
Where the problem is a lot of the guys miss out due to non All Black super players start each week and the layer under who are Super contracted don't get meaningful gametime? Often NPC doesn't develop next cab off the rank. There are a lot of guys who don't get opportunities due to log jams at their particular unions.
If NZR think this is affordable. It will be a very good step. Keeps players in NZ. Gives them meaningful games. Maintains them in a high performance setting.
-
@SouthernMann sorry, didnlt realise we were only allowed to praise stuff...fairly clearly said "do better" implying a more offical "NPC us a Super B comp" rather than the half breed we currently have, you say the NPC doesnt often develop the next cap?....true....so let do better rather than starting something new
this just feel like more complexity to our system school>Club>NPC>Super B>Super WTC>Super>international
but almost all of those overlap is multiple ways and ive long want to simplify things, but thats my say, as you were
-
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann said in Super Rugby 2026:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
i find this kind of weird, dont think any of the teams are rolling in money and this has to be more expensive to run....surely leaning on the local NPC teams to develop players is the more sustainable model
Nah.
NPC unions are hard up financially as well.
Provincial contracts run from about July through to the end of September. There is limited ability to influence players from a high performance perspective when Super is being held.If the contracts are centrally held, it allows rugby in NZ to maintain a playing pool that previously went overseas and have less of a reliance on very young players should there be injuries in Super Rugby.
This makes complete sense.
of course it makes sense from an actual development angle....just not sure where the money is coming from....and the NPC teams / unions are still operating so thats not an additional cost like running a B comp will be
It is an additional cost if we want to keep the players in a high performance setting during the Super season.
thats not what i was suggesting
i was suggetsing a comprmise to use the existing system to delevop the next acps off the rank better in the super off season
not as good as having a whole second squad ready during....but also not as expenisve to run when teams generally arent making money and i doubt a B comp will generate more money than it spends
So your compromise is the status quo?
Where the problem is a lot of the guys miss out due to non All Black super players start each week and the layer under who are Super contracted don't get meaningful gametime? Often NPC doesn't develop next cab off the rank. There are a lot of guys who don't get opportunities due to log jams at their particular unions.
If NZR think this is affordable. It will be a very good step. Keeps players in NZ. Gives them meaningful games. Maintains them in a high performance setting.
if it is affordable it has to be a good step to keeping players within the system and development of young players .
NPC doesn't always help the young players it helps some but you are right some are sitting behind SR players, this idea gives a wider pool of players a chance for better development. -
@frugby said in Super Rugby 2026:
Have heard some rumours that they are looking at introducing a more formal Super Rugby B competition from next season onwards.
I suspect in its infancy this will look like the five NZ sides playing each other home and away, largely in double ups with the Super teams - though this is just a guess.
This might explain why there is so many squad rumours flying about, as seems WTGs are making a formal return.
Expect to see them formally announced alongside the 38 man full squads
Considering the Aussies are using their SR teams to run another short competition after SR, it seems daft to me to do the same and not simply extend the SR season.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann sorry, didnlt realise we were only allowed to praise stuff...fairly clearly said "do better" implying a more offical "NPC us a Super B comp" rather than the half breed we currently have, you say the NPC doesnt often develop the next cap?....true....so let do better rather than starting something new
this just feel like more complexity to our system school>Club>NPC>Super B>Super WTC>Super>international
but almost all of those overlap is multiple ways and ive long want to simplify things, but thats my say, as you were
You've completely lose me.
In terms of system. Often for some players it ends up being NPC>overseas contract and back to NPC. This means we lose them. Expanding the squads keeps them in country.
When do you plan on running this NPC to ensure it has players ready and available for Super? During the club season? Who has oversight and input around player development? The NPC unions? Who funds the extended season? Is it an extended season?
All this does is add another dozen players to the playing group. Keep the next layer in the country and ensure there is depth.
What is being proposed does simplify things. Playing group of 50ish at each Super base. Play half a dozen games.
-
@SouthernMann it doesnt feel like you WANT to try and understand
not arguing at all that this should make for better depth...we can put that aside
its not just adding a dozen players though is it (although that seems like a lot for teams losing money)...its flying a whole second squad around to play games and all the support for those game
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2026:
@SouthernMann it doesnt feel like you WANT to try and understand
not arguing at all that this should make for better depth...we can put that aside
its not just adding a dozen players though is it (although that seems like a lot for teams losing money)...its flying a whole second squad around to play games and all the support for those game
Keeping it to five, is cheaper than maintaining 14 high performance peogrammes around NZ.
A lot more expensive to fly from Invercargill to Tauranga or Whakatane than from Christchurch to Wellington.
I don't see how you think adding more burden to NPC sides is better than adding slightly more to Super sides.
When would you want to play this NPC comp. With it traditionally not starting until after club comps?
-
@SouthernMann im not suggesting taking over the NPC funding or changing the timing, just stregthen the connections, work on more combo signings, get players down to play NPC in 2026 and then Landers in 2027, JJ comes in as consultant for southland and otago to work with specific players, NPC teams get some more offical help, players get more facetime with the next level
look im just making stuff up, i was just reacting im surprised at the move when money is tight, it they can afford it great, i think it will be another blow to the NPC as it effectively drops another rung but thats been happening for ages so whatever
-
From what I can workout, teams will have extra WTG players, no idea what the number is. But this is to allow the teams to keep those who have been going to MLR here on contracts of a similar standing (I am assuming they will have a similar value).
The U20 comp is being done away with (not sure if that is from next season), so effectively these teams will be made up of squad members 28-38 + say 7 WTG players + 4-5 NDC players + Best local U20s and club players. Effectively what the Hurricanes Hunters/Highlanders Bravehearts are now, but with more WTG players.
At current SR U20 is a little floored, in that some of those guys will never even reach NPC level, so probably not the right ones to invest in.
^ And I should add to the above, I don't know if this B Comp is to start in 2026, but given the amount of guys who have signed WTG contracts, I think we can expect to see more organised games for the B sides at the very least.
-
@frugby said in Super Rugby 2026:
From what I can workout, teams will have extra WTG players, no idea what the number is.
In an article about the Hurricanes in the newspaper today it mentions a squad of 38 fully contracted players plus 12 WTG players.
-
They will probably play these B games as curtain raisers but they should look into playing them in the regions. Play them on early Saturday nights and have the basic one or two camera set up and stream on You tube. Play in places like Whangarei, Albany, Pukekohe, Tauranga, Napier, etc. Locals can watch/play club rugby and then go see their mates who have made the next level.
-
From what I've heard from the likes of Lendrum and Lancaster recently, they aren't guna change anything much.
Especially on the competitions side.
They are way more concerned about costs
Any new competition that looks as if it might cost anything like serious money, aint guna happen.The one thing I can see is the merging of the admin ops of the Super PU's and the Super clubs.
Both of those guys have talked about that. -
They have been doing 38 for a while now. That is 32 full contracts plus 6 draft (season). Then add the WTG.
Last season all the Super club SRP squads used between 40 and 43 players. Tho not all actually played.
So the number 38 seems about "fit for purpose".If they are going to bring in a few more players, it'll be all down to the cost. Which will be what they are thinking about right now, i'd say.
Dont forget!
They have to give the girls something now as well!I know the Aussie SR teams play some B/A/Development type matches, the formula seems to change every season. But there is no formal comp. It'd be the expense.
-
@mohikamo said in Super Rugby 2026:
They have been doing 38 for a while now. That is 32 full contracts plus 6 draft (season). Then add the WTG.
It was the specified number for the WTG (for the Hurricanes at least) that was the reason I posted. All teams have been different in the size of their squads, dependent on their number of ABs, how many NDC players etc.
-
I believe it’s 12 WTG players
