'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Godder said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Godder said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
For 2021, I think start with an ANZ tournament. Less likely to be disrupted by travel and pandemic issues, so there's more certainty that the competition will be completed.
Either 5 NZ & 3 Oz teams, or perhaps 6 & 4. Too many Oz teams just means they get stomped, which I enjoy but probably isn't conducive to garnering a following in Oz given their love of winners.
Double round robin, home and away, semis and a final. If the playoffs need to be bigger in a 10 team competition, go top 5, with the old league system.
Where does the money come from to pay the players with this model? Without the African TV money, we need something to fill the breach.
TV rights and probably a pared back cost structure for everyone.
Without SA, or Japan, the TV rights money is peanuts.
Can we have some proof of that? I cannot find the amount of the SA deal, NZR newest from sky has been guessed at. But nothing from SA. I'm not sure that they still bring in the biggest amount. The SA economy is fucked, maybe they used too, but it's it still the case?
SA has a population of 59m. Straight away that's an imposing number vs our 5m and Australia's 25m; give or take, it's double the combined tally.
Even if you impose some racial stereotyping and consider the 'keen on rugby' population is the white portion, that's still 5.9m or there-abouts (9-10% of the population, depending on the source). But then add in a quantity of the coloured and black populations and you might get to a third of the population. That's a large potential TV viewership compared to rugby-mad NZ and the AFL/NRL/A League but far from rugby union mad Australian populace.
Don't try and tell me in any seriousness whatsover that losing SA doesn't create a massive money vacuum in SH TV rights. And don't try to bring the value of the rand into it because there's no way the deal would be done in the rand
-
From a quick look, this is about the best I can find (and it is 3 years old). With them winning the WC, it could be growing again:
-
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Anyone got an idea on the number of SA supersport subscribers?
I can't find a Supersport specific figure. But the subscriber base for what was M-Net is 8.2m subscribers in RSA per their last annual report with another 10.7 in the rest of Africa.
-
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Anyone got an idea on the number of SA supersport subscribers?
I can't find a Supersport specific figure. But the subscriber base for what was M-Net is 8.2m subscribers in RSA per their last annual report with another 10.7 in the rest of Africa.
-
The key for me is to make it an even competition. Not one team winning year after year. It gets boring.
NZR's main focus has always been the AB's. This must change otherwise the next level down will continue to die
So the financial structure must be such so that every team has a chance to succeed and win it.One way to do this (inNZ) is for every team must pick up all the cost paid to AB players. In this way it will stop one team stacking their side with high paid AB players as they will run out of money (or exceed a salary cap).
For Aust they will need to drop down to 3 teams
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
NZR's main focus has always been the AB's. This must change otherwise the next level down will continue to die
So the financial structure must be such so that every team has a chance to succeed and win it.One way to do this (inNZ) is for every team must pick up all the cost paid to AB players. In this way it will stop one team stacking their side with high paid AB players as they will run out of money (or exceed a salary cap).
The ABs will always be the main focus as long as they are the main drivers of revenue, but I'd argue there was a better balance under the 12 team, 14 week original Super Rugby competition, home-and-away Tri Nations and EOYT alternating years.
It is possible for both the ABs and the next level down to register on the give-a-shit-metre of the public; but I don't think it's posisble with a 20 week franchise tournament and then 12-14 All Black tests half of which are uncompetitive.
You last paragraph pretty much summarizes what the Crusaders did with Ta$man in the late 00s where the likes of Brad Thorn, Ali Williams, Chris Jack and Ben Franks all going on their books.
-
The only way to even the depth among the 5 NZ franchises would be to use a NRL-like contract structure in the future where clubs (franchises) directly contract the players within a salary cap, and that makes up the majority of a player's income. I think the current salary cap for SR squads is ~$4.5M but that doesn't include the full salary that a player signs with NZR so it is largely artificial.
Like the NRL, players would get addition appearance fees for making the ABs. That is what happens at present. Under this system the salary cap would need to increase significantly but a franchise would only be able to afford so many $1M players, or the player might have to sign a reduced value contract to play for the team of their choice.
It wouldn't be perfect as the Roosters have shown in the NRL with their stacked team but it would be a fairer system than at present.
-
The only way to even the depth among the 5 NZ franchises would be to use a NRL-like contract structure in the future where clubs (franchises) directly contract the players within a salary cap, and that makes up the majority of a player's income. I think the current salary cap for SR squads is ~$4.5M but that doesn't include the full salary that a player signs with NZR so it is largely artificial.
Like the NRL, players would get addition appearance fees for making the ABs. That is what happens at present. Under this system the salary cap would need to increase significantly but a franchise would only be able to afford so many $1M players, or the player might have to sign a reduced value contract to play for the team of their choice.
It wouldn't be perfect as the Roosters have shown in the NRL with their stacked team but it would be a fairer system than at present.
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Like the NRL, players would get addition appearance fees for making the ABs. That is what happens at present. Under this system the salary cap would need to increase significantly but a franchise would only be able to afford so many $1M players, or the player might have to sign a reduced value contract to play for the team of their choice.
... and that increases the differential between NZ pay and overseas pay, which will probably result in higher player drain.
-
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Like the NRL, players would get addition appearance fees for making the ABs. That is what happens at present. Under this system the salary cap would need to increase significantly but a franchise would only be able to afford so many $1M players, or the player might have to sign a reduced value contract to play for the team of their choice.
... and that increases the differential between NZ pay and overseas pay, which will probably result in higher player drain.
There are pros and cons for both systems but at the moment the maximum salary for a SR player within the salary cap is $195K so for the likes of Barrett, BBBR, Whitelock, etc their total salary is mainly outside the cap. As I said, you would have to significantly increase the salary cap but not so much that you can have a team full of $1M players.
-
It's hard to force players to move between teams for balance, not least because of the risk of at least some of them deciding that if they have to move city anyway, they may as well explore overseas options. I think that's why NZR abandoned the old system originally.
League has less of an issue with that because the players don't have as many big money options outside the NRL.
The real reason NZ teams have dominated the competition is that we never added teams as the competition expanded, so never had to dilute our playing pool. Aussie and SA did, and got weaker teams over time as a result.
-
@shark South Africa is a poor country with significantly less income per capita. Plus only 2.6million (a tally which is shrinking) subscribe to the pay TV bundle which offers rugby. So South Africa ain't Japan.
@Rebound said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark South Africa is a poor country with significantly less income per capita. Plus only 2.6million (a tally which is shrinking) subscribe to the pay TV bundle which offers rugby. So South Africa ain't Japan.
That's probably a pretty significant number compared to Sky TV subscribers in NZ. Foxtel subscribers in Australia would probably be higher, but stuff all of them would subscribe in order to access rugby union.
It doesn't matter which way you skin this cat, the African TV money is significant.
-
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
NZR's main focus has always been the AB's. This must change otherwise the next level down will continue to die
So the financial structure must be such so that every team has a chance to succeed and win it.One way to do this (inNZ) is for every team must pick up all the cost paid to AB players. In this way it will stop one team stacking their side with high paid AB players as they will run out of money (or exceed a salary cap).
The ABs will always be the main focus as long as they are the main drivers of revenue, but I'd argue there was a better balance under the 12 team, 14 week original Super Rugby competition, home-and-away Tri Nations and EOYT alternating years.
It is possible for both the ABs and the next level down to register on the give-a-shit-metre of the public; but I don't think it's posisble with a 20 week franchise tournament and then 12-14 All Black tests half of which are uncompetitive.
You last paragraph pretty much summarizes what the Crusaders did with Ta$man in the late 00s where the likes of Brad Thorn, Ali Williams, Chris Jack and Ben Franks all going on their books.
@rotated said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
You last paragraph pretty much summarizes what the Crusaders did with Ta$man in the late 00s where the likes of Brad Thorn, Ali Williams, Chris Jack and Ben Franks all going on their books.
Yeah, the Hurricanes punish the Magpies by making us keep Ben May on our books ... and we also got Ben Franks forced on us one year too.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
And the pandemic, border closures and recession won't be factors in that?
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
How many abs change franchises? Apart from Hammertime at the canes and Senio to the crusaders I can't think of that many. Presumably you're all on board for Barretts move to the blues?
The current system rewards the franchises that are the best at recruiting pre super rugby and the best at developing that talent. That works well for the abs and for the franchises.
Your suggestion would reward the teams that are the best at judging value and the most ruthless at cutting wasted cap space. The older squad guys (say Luke Romano) would be cut to save cap and replaced with someone younger and cheaper. It means more guys going overseas, less of a loyalty discount for nz and less focus on development.
It also leadsto stuff like the weaker teams paying too much for marginal talent (because they need to improve and some squad ab guy is available) while the stronger teams hold onto the real match winners and get guys to take a championship discount.
Salary cap leagues can only work when they're the top dog, and there's no other competition (eg nfl, nrl). But even then, they still don't make the competition more even.
-
Latest talk is an 8 team professional comp, 7 from NZ with 1 based in the islands.
Or possibly extended to 12 teams, the extra 4 coming from the east coast of Australia if they can prove their worth....@Gunner said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Latest talk is an 8 team professional comp, 7 from NZ with 1 based in the islands.
Or possibly extended to 12 teams, the extra 4 coming from the east coast of Australia if they can prove their worth....I hope not 7 NZ teams and I island team doesn't do much for a decent income revenue stream
I think we will see the 5 NZ SR sides plus 3 or 4 Aussie sides or an Island side instead of a 4th Australian side based in NZ or Aussie.With Japanese sides to be added when we get greater International travel.maybe in 2022
-
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Anyone got an idea on the number of SA supersport subscribers?
I can't find a Supersport specific figure. But the subscriber base for what was M-Net is 8.2m subscribers in RSA per their last annual report with another 10.7 in the rest of Africa.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would need some thought. But at present its creating the opposite effect. Where its encouraging the best players to move to the best team. And that teams stays as the best team.
NZR need to come up with a (financial?) system to ensure the best players are evenly distributed between the 5 teams
You can't 'ensure' distribution. Market forces can dictate it, but the moment NZR tries to 'ensure' it, guys will get fucked off, and fuck off.
A true salary cap based on NZR money given to the franchise plus the amount the weakest franchise is able to secure themselves as a total, would be the best way, but that's full of holes as pointed out in several posts.
The current system is idiotic. If NZR keep it super rugby will continue its decline. Regardless of what else is done.
How many abs change franchises? Apart from Hammertime at the canes and Senio to the crusaders I can't think of that many. Presumably you're all on board for Barretts move to the blues?
The current system rewards the franchises that are the best at recruiting pre super rugby and the best at developing that talent. That works well for the abs and for the franchises.
Your suggestion would reward the teams that are the best at judging value and the most ruthless at cutting wasted cap space. The older squad guys (say Luke Romano) would be cut to save cap and replaced with someone younger and cheaper. It means more guys going overseas, less of a loyalty discount for nz and less focus on development.
It also leadsto stuff like the weaker teams paying too much for marginal talent (because they need to improve and some squad ab guy is available) while the stronger teams hold onto the real match winners and get guys to take a championship discount.
Salary cap leagues can only work when they're the top dog, and there's no other competition (eg nfl, nrl). But even then, they still don't make the competition more even.
@Cyclops said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The current system rewards the franchises that are the best at recruiting pre super rugby and the best at developing that talent. That works well for the abs and for the franchises.
It works for team that have the most AB's. As they get the use of the ABs but don't pay for them. Teams need to pay the going rate for ABs. So if a player is worth $1 million a year then the super team should pick up a big chunk of this cost. Maybe 75%. This will ensure one team can't stack their team with ABs. The salary cap would be increased accordingly
Re Barrett. I want 5 strong teams. So if this helps the Blues so be it. What I don't want is the younger Barrett moving to the Crusaders. Or more up and coming talent moving there because its obvious that it helps playing with ABs to make the ABs. (As for example some of the ridiculous selections in last years RWC).
The key to making a competition work is 1) high quality and 2) an even competition. NZR rugby need a financial structure to ensure this occurs. The current one does the opposite. It wasn't helped by fools in Aust and SA adding too many teams. And Japan being added without competent administrators to run the team.
