Super Rugby - The Future
-
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. -
@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, 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 completely understand what the priorities should be of the two organisations. Infact I'd say my position is better than the understanding of aome PU boards that fiddle heavily in the operational businesses.
The PU should be focused on community development. The Super focused on HP.
HP spend has nearly crippled a few PUs.
You have really held on to the fleet point. Saying often use two different. One of the reasons I used that is that I know both Otago/Highlanders have a long-standing agreement with DC Motors. It was a case study example.
It isn't about either org being a white knight to the other. It is about looking at what are ways to support eachother by looking at how better support the primary goals they have.
Also these are recommendations made in a report about future proofing NZ Rugby. The partnering of home PUs with Super bases. It isn't out the box thinking.
NZR and Canes well that is just dumb. Except for the fact the most used training base for NZ high performance is... the home of the Canes out at Trentham.
-
in my mind we're definitely at the point where we're going to have to accept some short term pain for long term gain...and that might come in a variety of forms
like @antipodean said we might have to dilute the NZ teams...short term will see super games closer to NPC quality....but long term we'll expose more players to a professional comp, more teams will also mean we'll see teams with new hubs so they might be able to reignite a connection with local fans...more bumbs on seats is more cash in the door and makes the product look more popular in screen which will be more attractive to sponsors
currently it feels like we've just resigned ourselves to the idea the sponsorship money we currently get is it and we need to cut our cloth....a successful long team plan would be looking to grow that, how do you sell a product to a new sponsor....make it look popular...
yes, season ticket holder might have to accept a couple of home games a year arent at home....but a bit of spectacle will also attract sponsors and new fans...and if we can make the season longer its probably a net gain anyway
my preference was always to drop super and promote the "top" 10 NPC teams, they would effectively morph into something different but i liked the idea if keeping some connection to the historical unions...but accept as other have pointed out that wont happy for a variety of reasons and so the Unions will just have to exist as pure rep teams, maybe playing exhibition games against each other...maybe purely the ranfuly shield, holder accepts 8-10 challenges a year depending on who can muster a squad together or something wild
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
NZR and Canes well that is just dumb. Except for the fact the moat used training base for NZ high performance is... the home of the Canes out at Trentham.
Haha
But you hit the nail right on the head there.
Does the Wellington PU HP program get the use of those facilities as well?
I am assuming that at the other SR clubs, the SR PUs HP programs share the same training facilities.
There are lots of other synergies that could be made.
Not impossible to have NZR/Canes/Wellington PU admin offices in the same building!Basically I'd see the SR element doin all the HP, and the PU element doin all the community.
It's not out of the box thinking, from comments I've seen from NZR honchos, they want to do it.
We are only talking about the SR PUs here.
The non-SR PUs will be as usual.The most complicating factor I see is the private equity element that I think all the SR franchises have.
Although they are all minority stakes, they do seem to have some day-to-day control.
Unsure exactly how the private equity relates to NZR.
Whether NZR can just do what they want, or do they have to talk those guys around.
Maybe why it has not been done already.
No private equity in the PUs! -
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
NZR and Canes well that is just dumb. Except for the fact the moat used training base for NZ high performance is... the home of the Canes out at Trentham.
Haha
But you hit the nail right on the head there.
Does the Wellington PU HP program get the use of those facilities as well?
I am assuming that at the other SR clubs, the SR PUs HP programs share the same training facilities.
There are lots of other synergies that could be made.
Not impossible to have NZR/Canes/Wellington PU admin offices in the same building!Basically I'd see the SR element doin all the HP, and the PU element doin all the community.
It's not out of the box thinking, from comments I've seen from NZR honchos, they want to do it.
We are only talking about the SR PUs here.
The non-SR PUs will be as usual.The most complicating factor I see is the private equity element that I think all the SR franchises have.
Although they are all minority stakes, they do seem to have some day-to-day control.
Unsure exactly how the private equity relates to NZR.
Whether NZR can just do what they want, or do they have to talk those guys around.
Maybe why it has not been done already.
No private equity in the PUs!Yep Wellington do train at Silverstream where ABs train, mind you they like Canes and ABs and Pheonix soccer, they all pay for it. It;s a private facility. Yep but theprivate equity is what I trying to say stuffs up sharing of offices etc, WRU doen't even have any shares in Hurricanes. Not sure about other super clubs, but think most PUs have share in other them.
-
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Super Rugby isn't driving enough revenue.
I think the long-term solution is going to be a joint Japanese, Australian and NZ franchise rugby competition to replace Super Rugby. Then some sort of play offs against the top European teams.
The status quo is slowly dying.
League is the smaller sport in Europe. Super League average attendances are about 10,000 compared to 15,000 in the Guinness Premiership or 12,000 in League One (third tier) football and the United Rugby Championship.
European club rugby will remain an attractive destination for players in the second half of their careers.
Top 14 is currently attracting a lot of people. La Rochelle celebrated last week their 113th consecutive soldout game at home. Their stadium contains 18,000 seats for two years now. Its former capacity was 16,000. Bordeaux attracts at least a 26,000 crowd each time they play at home (43,000 when they play at the Matmut stadium).
-
@mohikamo said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Yep, I want to keep the NPC. Why? Because it probably the best and enjoyable comp in the country. Does it cost NZR money, yep, but I only looking at it as what I want.
Haha
The older ferners can remember when NZ did have a world class domestic rugby comp.
Big crowds, great players, great games.
So sad for the younguns; at least the olduns have the memories.Mate I pretty keen on our domestic comp now. I prefer to to super.
Not as good as maybe could be, but I find it best we got.
Even that I would be very keen to having (as some have said) 9-10 team comp, or even the old 3 tier system. I also understand why it wouldn't work in this day or professionalism .
I also understand the idea of 9-10 teams in extended Super, but could only work with full rework of world rugby calendar (and perhaps a lot more money) . Perhaps not only moving RC to beginning of year, but also the inbound tours etc. Then go for a proper comp without stopping for tests?
Just a random thought. -
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mohikamo said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Yep, I want to keep the NPC. Why? Because it probably the best and enjoyable comp in the country. Does it cost NZR money, yep, but I only looking at it as what I want.
Haha
The older ferners can remember when NZ did have a world class domestic rugby comp.
Big crowds, great players, great games.
So sad for the younguns; at least the olduns have the memories.Mate I pretty keen on our domestic comp now. I prefer to to super.
Not as good as maybe could be, but I find it best we got.
Even that I would be very keen to having (as some have said) 9-10 team comp, or even the old 3 tier system. I also understand why it wouldn't work in this day or professionalism .
I also understand the idea of 9-10 teams in extended Super, but could only work with full rework of world rugby calendar (and perhaps a lot more money) . Perhaps not only moving RC to beginning of year, but also the inbound tours etc. Then go for a proper comp without stopping for tests?
Just a random thought.If I could go back to any sort of rugby period it would be the early 2000s Super Rugby era. Electric rugby, huge crowds and amazing players. Take me back.
The domestic NPC comp is nothing more than a development comp now unfortunately. The standard has dropped hugely over the last 10 years and with All Blacks barely playing in it, it’s just not a profitable model anymore with very moderate crowds. If nothing is done with Super Rugby it could end up with the same fate unfortunately.
-
@Canes4life No arguments NPC is a development comp, but a good competitive one for me. I not sure how it is in Wellington or cities, but would get a mile more interest and talk etc on streets and clubs in most areas where I talk to people from.
I still think in most weekends you would get as many to NPC games (combined) as you got at super.. But talking to people on street and say at golf club, barber(where I really noticed people say NPC is all that interests me now) ,I have found people more interested in NPC. What answer is ,I not sure, but I think we tending to get disconnected sport more and more. Even the last couple of years, the fellas that followed the Wahs in NRL at gold club say yeah naa. I still support them, but don't really watch like I used to. I get impression even the soccer fellas at club (and in family) and I know , are not as fired up over it these days, cricket is even more so.
Is part of it that there is such a wide range of sports we have access too (and our apparent lack of concentration) that people are just watching highlights etc now? -
@Canes4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
If I could go back to any sort of rugby period it would be the early 2000s Super Rugby era. Electric rugby, huge crowds and amazing players.
The NPC was still a huge spectacle back then too. Full houses for finals, ABs on the bench, etc.
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Canes4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
If I could go back to any sort of rugby period it would be the early 2000s Super Rugby era. Electric rugby, huge crowds and amazing players.
The NPC was still a huge spectacle back then too. Full houses for finals, ABs on the bench, etc.
Those were the days, wonderful memories going to the Tin and watching the likes of Lomu, Cullen, Umaga etc on display. The hay day for sure.
-
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I still think in most weekends you would get as many to NPC games (combined) as you got at super..
I can't find the hard numbers for Super attendance or a game by game breakdown for NPC. But even the soft ones, this claim is not true and I know it is one you constantly fall back on.
With NZRs publicity following the completion of the competition (NPC) it stated 240k fans attended games. That is across 77 games. Which means on average 3,117 people attended games. Meaning each week 21,818 people on average attended across the seven game weekend.
That 240k it includes:
18k Canterbury v Otago - final
Nearly 11 k Otago v BoP semi final
8 k Southland v OtagoThere is nearly 40k across three game.
22k would be two poorly attended NZ games in Super Rugby.
Not diminishing the crowds that turned out to some NPC games. It is just completely incrorect to compare overall attendance mumbers week in and out between the two comps.
-
What id be curious to pick the brain of NZR about is what value they place upon the various comps and structures and how much benefit they believe they derive from each one respectively.
Despite everything NZ still massively over achieves in rugby compared to similar sized countries. No Irish team has won the European cup since 2018 and Ireland still can't make a RWC semi final. NZ remain competitive v countries with much larger resources like France.
So, what do the NZR see as the biggest point of differentiation between NZ and other countries from a structural standpoint? Because there are clearly benefits being derived from the status quo.
One thing I noticed about T14 is they have the crowds and the cash but the rugby can be a bit unimaginative and the league is of course full of foreign players who are ineligible for France. I'm not sure the way T14 is structured really enables the French national team to maximize its playing resources and fulfill its potential. I wonder if they might have stood a better chance at beating SA if they had sent a full strength side to NZ - stuff like this seems to hinder their chances at test level.
