Super Rugby - The Future
-
@mariner4life said in Exodus:
they already have the superior game to watch (but, importantly, not play) and a fuck ton of money. I reckon they are good.
Rugby can just become for the Europeans.
You Aussies can have your f***en league if you think it superior to watch.
Rugby can stay for NZ, South Africans and Europeans.
In case you didn't realise , I think League is a shit boring game, and genuinely can't turn brain off enough to sit through a game. And don't drink enough to numb the brain to enjoy it.
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
Having 20 semi professional/professional teams across two competitions is stupid.
We do not have 20 pro teams in NZ as far as the players are concerned.
We have 5 for half the season, then there is a reshuffle of those players, and 9 more teams worth of players are brought in for the second half; so 14.(And one teams worth of players [the best players] taken out in the second half of the season, the one team that makes the money to pay all the players).
So that is 5, + 9 more later in the season, as far as the players are concerned.
BS model, but with the current financials, a marginal improvement might be made somewhere, but nothing that will be of much dif to the players pockets.
Looks like NZR has accepted this situation.As for rugby league in NZ, well . . . the direction things are heading RN . . . i can see the Kiwis being a very very good team in 20 years time.
This isn't about the players per se, this is about driving further profit (which can be passed on to players) through reducing costs by reducing the number of pro / semi-pro organizations and creating a better product that broadcasters will pay for (as opposed to NPC).
That's totally apart from the fact that having only one pro team to play for will give more stability and opportunity for development.
I think there is general agreement on here from many that 8-10 teams (depending on how MP and the Drua are counted) would be the ideal number.
-
The first move should be to merge the admin ops of the SR clubs with Auck/Waik/Wel/Cant Otago PUs.
There must be duplication there, and this should have already been done.
Will be immediate savings.Threading about the players . . .
If you drop from 14 teams down to 8 or 10, that'll mean you've ditched 4 to 6 teams worth of players.
The remaining players could then get pay rises straight away, even if the overall financials have not altered.
But, what are all the excess to requirements then guna do.
They'll be exodusing, probably even sooner than they do now.
And maybe create extra oportunity for that 20 team west island comp.The 14 district team model does cover NZ demographics quite neatly; if all we are looking to do is create a pathway; which is pretty much all dom rugby is at present.
As for MP and Drua, I know they get some sort of contribution from NZR/SRP.
I'm hoping/assuming Fiji get some good revenue from the new Nations Champ; rather than being screwed over like they have been forever.
The Drua players might end up with some more love.
MP financials are particularly murky (even political).Often thought a league like the NBA could double the number of franchises; therefore doubling the number of players, and still pay them all outstanding money.
Supposing expansion has not happened because the current franchise owners are worried that the asset value of their franchises will fall, but that's a different issue. -
The first move should be to merge the admin ops of the SR clubs with Auck/Waik/Wel/Cant Otago PUs.
There must be duplication there, and this should have already been done.
Will be immediate savings.Threading about the players . . .
If you drop from 14 teams down to 8 or 10, that'll mean you've ditched 4 to 6 teams worth of players.
The remaining players could then get pay rises straight away, even if the overall financials have not altered.
But, what are all the excess to requirements then guna do.
They'll be exodusing, probably even sooner than they do now.
And maybe create extra oportunity for that 20 team west island comp.The 14 district team model does cover NZ demographics quite neatly; if all we are looking to do is create a pathway; which is pretty much all dom rugby is at present.
As for MP and Drua, I know they get some sort of contribution from NZR/SRP.
I'm hoping/assuming Fiji get some good revenue from the new Nations Champ; rather than being screwed over like they have been forever.
The Drua players might end up with some more love.
MP financials are particularly murky (even political).Often thought a league like the NBA could double the number of franchises; therefore doubling the number of players, and still pay them all outstanding money.
Supposing expansion has not happened because the current franchise owners are worried that the asset value of their franchises will fall, but that's a different issue.One thing I don't get about SR is why they don't have an expansionist mindset.
NRL plays in Vegas once a year, all major league US Sports play some type of overseas game or pre season game once a year. European football teams always tour every summer.
Why not play a SR game in the UK once a year? Or Japan?
It's like they have settled on it being a domestic comp with no international reach and no ambition to grow.
There seems to be no vision or marketing.
-
@nonpartizan crusaders did that a couple of times didn't they? I vaguely remember it not being appreciated by fans.
Also, it's already played in 5(?) countries?
-
@nonpartizan costs are prohibitive in that we dont see much sharing of games within the franchise regions, let alone much outside of that.
I assume the models are the same (and havent changed in the past few years) with each franchise, but the Blues charge NRU to host games, so there is that cost on top of all the other shit that goes with hosting a game.
-
I think one thing we forget when the idea of taking games to other places (even in region) is how it stuffs up your season members . ie me and Mrs (like quite a few) are members at Taranaki (I realise this is super but same thing) and we have brought and paid for prem tickets at Yarrows up in New Plymouth, even if they moved games down closer to where we live, we lose seating etc. Same would happen in super, making it less attractive to become members etc wouldn't it?
-
The first move should be to merge the admin ops of the SR clubs with Auck/Waik/Wel/Cant Otago PUs.
There must be duplication there, and this should have already been done.I not sure there would be a lot of duplication would there? I have been on a club board and at same time a provincial board, and there was no duplication there as such and don't see as how there would be much in this case.
-
The first move should be to merge the admin ops of the SR clubs with Auck/Waik/Wel/Cant Otago PUs.
There must be duplication there, and this should have already been done.I not sure there would be a lot of duplication would there? I have been on a club board and at same time a provincial board, and there was no duplication there as such and don't see as how there would be much in this case.
There are heaps of duplications that could be managed.
Academies
Promotions/marcoms
Ticketing
Leasing of office spaces
Vehicle fleet
Sponsors
Administration/payroll functions
Training aids and equipmentThe list can go on. The organisation would be split into two. Professional/high performance and community. With an agreement that a certain amount of funding needs to be provided to the community game.
The same argument around rugby is occuring with local government at the moment with amalgamation. Just like rugby unions. We have far too many Councils and a lot are trying to keep the status quo.
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
The first move should be to merge the admin ops of the SR clubs with Auck/Waik/Wel/Cant Otago PUs.
There must be duplication there, and this should have already been done.I not sure there would be a lot of duplication would there? I have been on a club board and at same time a provincial board, and there was no duplication there as such and don't see as how there would be much in this case.
There are heaps of duplications that could be managed.
Academies
Promotions/marcoms
Ticketing
Leasing of office spaces
Vehicle fleet
Sponsors
Administration/payroll functions
Training aids and equipmentThe list can go on. The organisation would be split into two. Professional/high performance and community. With an agreement that a certain amount of funding needs to be provided to the community game.
The same argument around rugby is occuring with local government at the moment with amalgamation. Just like rugby unions. We have far too many Councils and a lot are trying to keep the status quo.
I think maybe there is a bit of misunderstanding of how these boards operate. They quite seperate things with completely different jobs etc. And many things like ticketing are run by things like ticketek, sponsorship is same, why would a super club split sponsorship with one province in their area, even vehicle fleet, why double your number so both lots can use them, most provinces pay bugger all if anything for cars etc ,they come from sponsors etc with in region.. They really are seperate identities with such seperate needs.
-
Glad you are coming around, they are different with different needs and serve different purposes.
So let’s get them out of using too much cash trying to win a semi-pro competition so they have to spend more of their money on their core role - growing the game at the grass roots.
-
even vehicle fleet, why double your number so both lots can use them
Uh?
You are guna halve the number of vehicles (and people) needed, with a merger between a SR Club and SR PU.
That's the whole idea.
And i'd say it is guna happen, because NZR has already said that's what they want to do.
SR clubs and SR PUs share a lot of the same players, so they can share the administrators too, no prob.
I assume they already do share to some extent.
That's how they were set up originally.
You couldn't do it if both comps ran concurrently, but they dont.As for duplication between the Taranaki PU, a Taranaki club, and an SR club; you are right, there would be virtually none.
-
@taniwharugby said in Exodus:
Blues charge NRU to host games
Fuck, I didn't know that.
I think it is the other way round when a PU gets an AB game.
The reason why the Auckland and Canterbury PUs are so financial, because they get the most Test matches. -
@taniwharugby said in Exodus:
@nonpartizan costs are prohibitive in that we dont see much sharing of games within the franchise regions, let alone much outside of that.
I assume the models are the same (and havent changed in the past few years) with each franchise, but the Blues charge NRU to host games, so there is that cost on top of all the other shit that goes with hosting a game.
Fair enough, you and others know far more about the actual specifics. I'm in the outside looking in.
For me I see what these overseas games do to "enhance their footprint" to use the corporate terminology and then also look at what some of those netflix documentaries have done for Wrexham and F1 and I can't help feeling Super rugby is missing a trick.
I think with the right documentary maker last years Moana Pasifika season would have produced some truly incredible content.
-
Not everyone is keen on this sort of thing.
I noticed the Perth Italian Serie A soccer game got canned.
The Asian Soccer Federation came over the top and nixed it.
Still tryin to figure out why they would want to do that. -
even vehicle fleet, why double your number so both lots can use them
Uh?
You are guna halve the number of vehicles (and people) needed, with a merger between a SR Club and SR PU.
That's the whole idea.
And i'd say it is guna happen, because NZR has already said that's what they want to do.
SR clubs and SR PUs share a lot of the same players, so they can share the administrators too, no prob.
I assume they already do share to some extent.
That's how they were set up originally.
You couldn't do it if both comps ran concurrently, but they dont.As for duplication between the Taranaki PU, a Taranaki club, and an SR club; you are right, there would be virtually none.
How are you going to halve the number of people etc. Well over a half of PU people are employed as community officers etc, no super clubs have anything to do with grassroots rugby.
What I meant by some not understanding the jobs of both boards, completely different.
You do know that PUs share the same players as their clubs, but there is still no way they could share administration etc. It too hard to explain to anyone if you think PUs only job is to run NPC.
How rugby is generally run in NZ is clubs run their own club (players juniors through to seniors) with assistance where needed from PU. PUs run all rugby within their area, juniors, schoolboys, seniors and their rep teams of all grades from u14s,16s,18s21s (whichever ones they have), Super clubs run their academies and teams, nothing to do with local schools etc, and as there are 5 super teams in NZ and 26 PUs , some of who have shares in super, some who don't. I could understand the idea being looked at if we had only 5 PUs, but are say Taranaki a shareholder of Chiefs going to say hey, we will help pay for Waikato's administration costs, or Horowhenua-Kapiti to say the same about helping pay for Wellington. Evem player wages for super is paid by NZR and the PUs pay most of their own. Why there so much difference in players strength in NPC .
@gt12, I have always known they have different needs and purposes, same as super clubs and NZR.
I repeat they have different jobs and it just doesn't or couldn't work even if it was as staright forward as some think, of just sharing offices, staff etc. -
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
The first move should be to merge the admin ops of the SR clubs with Auck/Waik/Wel/Cant Otago PUs.
There must be duplication there, and this should have already been done.I not sure there would be a lot of duplication would there? I have been on a club board and at same time a provincial board, and there was no duplication there as such and don't see as how there would be much in this case.
There are heaps of duplications that could be managed.
Academies
Promotions/marcoms
Ticketing
Leasing of office spaces
Vehicle fleet
Sponsors
Administration/payroll functions
Training aids and equipmentThe list can go on. The organisation would be split into two. Professional/high performance and community. With an agreement that a certain amount of funding needs to be provided to the community game.
The same argument around rugby is occuring with local government at the moment with amalgamation. Just like rugby unions. We have far too many Councils and a lot are trying to keep the status quo.
I think maybe there is a bit of misunderstanding of how these boards operate. They quite seperate things with completely different jobs etc. And many things like ticketing are run by things like ticketek, sponsorship is same, why would a super club split sponsorship with one province in their area, even vehicle fleet, why double your number so both lots can use them, most provinces pay bugger all if anything for cars etc ,they come from sponsors etc with in region.. They really are seperate identities with such seperate needs.
Absolutely no misunderstanding. A rather arrogant comment of yours to say I don't understand. You keep banging on about being a former committee/board member which somehow gives a higher knowledge set. Which is not the case. Plenty of us on here have had decent level experience with operational or governance roles. We just don't jump up and down saying it.
In NZ in general, gocernance is primarily self-serving and appalingly managed. With rugby being a major example. Like I said, similar to how bad local democracy is.
There are different purposes to PUs and Super sides. You are right. PUs primary responaibility is having a viable community game. Kids and community. Not primarily high performance.
Super is high performance and fan engagement.
Community rugby feeds through into high performance. It is integral. Community fans, players and administrators are high performance fans and players.
I stand by the points I made about duplication.
With sponsors. Super and PUs are competing with eachother for the same $$$. Taking away the competition and having a potentially larger pool is beneficial for both parties.
With the fleet. Yes supplied by sponsors. Understand that. If the car dealership can sign one contract instead of two there can be benefits for all parties. It wouldn't be doubling the numbers. It'd likely be using fewer than the total combined for both.
With the ticketing. Again. I know it is managed by a third party. If you are getting a service provided offering more products to sell will get a better deal than 5/6 games each. Especially being able to utilise the expertise of the ticketing/fan experience/marketing the Super sides have on their books.
Same with player development. There is already relationships in place. Formalising it and having say PUs running it to U16 level and Super sides take over from U18s would reflect the expertise of the different organisations (community v HP).
It is a change I am very keen to see. I know a lot of others who are as well. It would require by in from a range or parties which make it difficult.
-
even vehicle fleet, why double your number so both lots can use them
Uh?
You are guna halve the number of vehicles (and people) needed, with a merger between a SR Club and SR PU.
That's the whole idea.
And i'd say it is guna happen, because NZR has already said that's what they want to do.
SR clubs and SR PUs share a lot of the same players, so they can share the administrators too, no prob.
I assume they already do share to some extent.
That's how they were set up originally.
You couldn't do it if both comps ran concurrently, but they dont.As for duplication between the Taranaki PU, a Taranaki club, and an SR club; you are right, there would be virtually none.
And vehicles how you going to halve that, I have no idea what vehicles super clubs have, but in any PU I have had anything to do with they have say 3-4 that is used by community officers who are out and about at clubs on weekends while super teams etc are playing, or perhaps the PU coach who is attending games also on days when usually super teams are playing.
-
@taniwharugby said in Exodus:
Blues charge NRU to host games
Fuck, I didn't know that.
I think it is the other way round when a PU gets an AB game.
The reason why the Auckland and Canterbury PUs are so financial, because they get the most Test matches.I wasn't aware that PUs paid for games to be taken to regions, and Blues could be different, I do know that when Canes play a game in Palmerston North, the City Council pays them a fee. Same as when Chiefs played a game in New Plymouth the city council paid them for it. I think if NRU did pay Blues , it would of been money they got ftom city council promotion fund.
Same happens with tests (same almost world over I think) the councils put money into bring events to city, not just sport. -
@SouthernMann , wasn't suggesting I knew more than you etc, I suggesting perhaps some just not thinking of the different requirements of each board. Highlanders aren't there just for to help Otago save money (and how many of Highlanders are Otago players), by sharing their costs, but to operate a completely different club. bit even on vehicles , as you say car dealerships could sign one deal instead of 2, but usually they use different dealerships anyway.
If it was that simple wouldn't NZR also share offices etc with the Canes as they based in Wellington?
I being a bit facetious on last comment, but ...
Wish it was that simple though.
