Skip to content
  • Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

  • Tipping
  • Team Sheets
  • Highlights
  • Results
    • All Blacks

      Search every All Blacks Test. Filter results by year, opposition, location, venue, city and RWC stage

    • Super Rugby

      Search every Super Rugby since match 1996

    • NPC

      Search NPC results. Only first division matches from 1976-2005. All results from the 14 team competition (2006-present) are included

'Super Rugby' 2021

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
1.9k Posts 81 Posters 134.2k Views 5 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • KiwiwombleK Kiwiwomble

    @antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

    @NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

    Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.

    Good idea - dump the Brumbies.

    can we dumb a team that has won the comp previously? wold feel werid, Canberra doesn't have a AFL team so feels a better location to try and re grow rugby than melbourne

    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    wrote on last edited by antipodean
    #204

    @Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

    @antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

    @NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

    Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.

    Good idea - dump the Brumbies.

    can we dumb a team that has won the comp previously? wold feel werid, Canberra doesn't have a AFL team so feels a better location to try and re grow rugby than melbourne

    I couldn't care if they were as successful as the Crusaders. It's their public servant supporters I want to see punished. They irritate the piss out of me.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
    • antipodeanA antipodean

      Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?

      Why would NZ do that?

      BovidaeB Offline
      BovidaeB Offline
      Bovidae
      wrote on last edited by
      #205

      @antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

      Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?

      Why would NZ do that?

      There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).

      DuluthD antipodeanA 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • BovidaeB Bovidae

        @antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

        Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?

        Why would NZ do that?

        There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).

        DuluthD Offline
        DuluthD Offline
        Duluth
        wrote on last edited by
        #206

        @Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

        I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs

        Inoke Afeaki was interviewed about this on the Breakdown. He wanted it to be under NZR control

        The reasons for this was the expertise that NZR has of running successful teams. Also, the corruption in problems that the PI unions have had since going pro.

        He also said he wanted it to be based in Fiji. I think all the chat about it being in Auckland is just to make the articles more clickable in NZ

        M BovidaeB 2 Replies Last reply
        2
        • DuluthD Duluth

          @Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

          I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs

          Inoke Afeaki was interviewed about this on the Breakdown. He wanted it to be under NZR control

          The reasons for this was the expertise that NZR has of running successful teams. Also, the corruption in problems that the PI unions have had since going pro.

          He also said he wanted it to be based in Fiji. I think all the chat about it being in Auckland is just to make the articles more clickable in NZ

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Machpants
          wrote on last edited by
          #207

          @Duluth said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

          Inoke Afeaki

          He's not part of the consortium that runs it tho, as far as I can see, so that's just another opinion - of many!

          DuluthD 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • BovidaeB Bovidae

            @antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

            Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?

            Why would NZ do that?

            There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).

            antipodeanA Offline
            antipodeanA Offline
            antipodean
            wrote on last edited by
            #208

            @Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

            @antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

            Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?

            Why would NZ do that?

            There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).

            That would just be the worst possible case. So any governance issues, players opting to represent NZ, malfeasance etc. would have NZR lambasted by all and sundry for no benefit.

            1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • M Machpants

              @Duluth said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

              Inoke Afeaki

              He's not part of the consortium that runs it tho, as far as I can see, so that's just another opinion - of many!

              DuluthD Offline
              DuluthD Offline
              Duluth
              wrote on last edited by
              #209

              @Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

              He's not part of the consortium that runs it tho, as far as I can see, so that's just another opinion - of many!

              The Hawaii thing? They sound like they have a lot of work before being ready for the USA comp

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • DuluthD Duluth

                @Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs

                Inoke Afeaki was interviewed about this on the Breakdown. He wanted it to be under NZR control

                The reasons for this was the expertise that NZR has of running successful teams. Also, the corruption in problems that the PI unions have had since going pro.

                He also said he wanted it to be based in Fiji. I think all the chat about it being in Auckland is just to make the articles more clickable in NZ

                BovidaeB Offline
                BovidaeB Offline
                Bovidae
                wrote on last edited by
                #210

                @Duluth Afeaki's comments don't agree with what has been published in the media.

                Kanaloa Hawaii chief executive Tracy Atiga told Radio New Zealand on Tuesday they had already discussed their Super Rugby credentials with New Zealand Rugby with a team that could be based in south Auckland.
                
                "We would essentially set up our satellite programme which is here in south Auckland to accommodate a second team," she said.
                
                "So we are not talking about one team that plays in the MLR and then they come and play in Super Rugby. We are talking about two pro teams that would have equally competitive athletes at that level and we would own and operate them in co-ordination with each other."
                
                DuluthD 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • BovidaeB Bovidae

                  @Duluth Afeaki's comments don't agree with what has been published in the media.

                  Kanaloa Hawaii chief executive Tracy Atiga told Radio New Zealand on Tuesday they had already discussed their Super Rugby credentials with New Zealand Rugby with a team that could be based in south Auckland.
                  
                  "We would essentially set up our satellite programme which is here in south Auckland to accommodate a second team," she said.
                  
                  "So we are not talking about one team that plays in the MLR and then they come and play in Super Rugby. We are talking about two pro teams that would have equally competitive athletes at that level and we would own and operate them in co-ordination with each other."
                  
                  DuluthD Offline
                  DuluthD Offline
                  Duluth
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #211

                  @Bovidae

                  Sure he was talking in general about a PI SR team.. which has been a possibility for years.

                  I think the chat out of the Hawaii group is hopeful at best. Why would NZ rugby give so much to an unproven group who haven't done anything but gain a US license?

                  BovidaeB 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • TimT Tim

                    How would a sixth NZ Super Rugby team look? It'd be based in North Harbour and Northland, and the Blues would be based on Auckland and Counties Manukau. If the region got its NPC players, and a few players from each squad (esp. those with a connection to the region), it might look like this:

                    1. Karl Tu'inukuafe
                    2. James Parsons sharing starting duty with Ricky Riccitelli
                    3. Sione Mafileo
                    4. Josh Goodhue
                    5. Gerard Cowley-Tuioti
                    6. Tom Robinson
                    7. Dillon Hunt
                    8. Teariki Ben-Nicholas/Sione Havili
                    9. Bryn Hall
                    10. Josh Ioane
                    11. Braydon Ennor
                    12. Michael Little
                    13. Jack Goodhue
                    14. Mark Talea
                    15. Shaun Stevenson
                    16. Luteru Tolai
                    17. Reuben O'Neill
                    18. Siate Tokolahi
                    19. Jacob Pierce
                    20. Ethan Roots
                    21. Sam Nock
                    22. Bryn Gatland
                    23. Matt Duffie
                    TimT Offline
                    TimT Offline
                    Tim
                    wrote on last edited by Tim
                    #212

                    @Tim said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                    How would a sixth NZ Super Rugby team look? It'd be based in North Harbour and Northland, and the Blues would be based on Auckland and Counties Manukau. If the region got its NPC players, and a few players from each squad (esp. those with a connection to the region), it might look like this:

                    1. Karl Tu'inukuafe
                    2. James Parsons sharing starting duty with Ricky Riccitelli
                    3. Sione Mafileo
                    4. Josh Goodhue
                    5. Gerard Cowley-Tuioti
                    6. Tom Robinson
                    7. Dillon Hunt
                    8. Teariki Ben-Nicholas/Sione Havili
                    9. Bryn Hall
                    10. Josh Ioane
                    11. Braydon Ennor
                    12. Michael Little
                    13. Jack Goodhue
                    14. Mark Talea
                    15. Shaun Stevenson
                    16. Luteru Tolai
                    17. Reuben O'Neill
                    18. Siate Tokolahi
                    19. Jacob Pierce
                    20. Ethan Roots
                    21. Sam Nock
                    22. Bryn Gatland
                    23. Matt Duffie

                    How would this leave the Blues? Following similar criteria, perhaps they could produce the following squad and XXIII:

                    1. Alex Hodgman
                    2. Kurt Eklund (he's spent the off-season practising his throwing)
                    3. Ofa Tu'ungafasi
                    4. Patrick Tuipulotu
                    5. Scott Scrafton
                    6. Akira Ioane
                    7. Dalton Papalii
                    8. Hoskins Sotutu
                    9. Te Toiroa Tahuriorangi
                    10. Otere Black
                    11. Caleb Clarke
                    12. TJ Faiane
                    13. Rieko Ioane
                    14. Tanielu Tele’a
                    15. Stephen Perofeta
                    16. Andrew Makalio
                    17. Marcel Renata
                    18. Angus Ta'avao
                    19. Jack Whetton
                    20. Blake Gibson
                    21. Finlay Christie
                    22. Harry Plummer
                    23. Salesi Rayasi/Vince Aso

                    Props

                    Ezekiel Lindenmuth
                    Marco Fepuleai

                    Hookers

                    Ray Niuia

                    Locks

                    Aaron Carroll
                    Sam Caird

                    Loose Forwards

                    Waimana Riedlinger-Kapa
                    James Tucker
                    Tony Lamborn
                    Nico Jones/Adrian Choat
                    Cameron Suafoa

                    Halves

                    Jonathan Taumateine/Jonathan Ruru/Taufa Funaki
                    Zarn Sullivan

                    Midfield

                    Vince Aso
                    AJ Lam
                    Matt Vaega

                    Wing

                    Salesi Rayasi
                    Emoni Narawa

                    Fullback

                    Jordan Trainor
                    Jared Page

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • DuluthD Duluth

                      @Bovidae

                      Sure he was talking in general about a PI SR team.. which has been a possibility for years.

                      I think the chat out of the Hawaii group is hopeful at best. Why would NZ rugby give so much to an unproven group who haven't done anything but gain a US license?

                      BovidaeB Offline
                      BovidaeB Offline
                      Bovidae
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #213

                      @Duluth

                      Obviously there is a lot of work to be done if this eventuates, but all the risk is with the Kanaloa Hawaii ownership group if the team is 100% privately owned. Remember we are talking about an Oceania SR competition, not a NZR competition. I'm sure NZR (and RA) would want the MLR team operational first so they are confident the owners have the infrastructure and expertise in place.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • TimT Offline
                        TimT Offline
                        Tim
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #214

                        I don't watch almost any games that don't involve NZ teams in Super Rugby.

                        I watch pretty much all games played in NZ.

                        I watch most games played on the east coast of Australia with an NZ team.

                        I rarely watch games in Perth or South Africa with NZ teams, except the Blues. I might watch highlights.

                        I would watch a PI team that can beat Australian or South African teams.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        5
                        • TimT Offline
                          TimT Offline
                          Tim
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #215

                          Forgot to add that afternoon games in Japan or Perth would be OK.

                          Adding a Harbour/Northland team would result in the biggest increase in my viewing.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • NTAN NTA

                            @pukunui said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                            We don’t have the depth to dilute the current 5 teams and maintain the high performance he talks about in that article. Introducing more teams will be a disaster. Poorer quality in the name of expansion does not make for a more entertaining product. We saw that with the endless expansion of super rugby.

                            If the saffa’s are gone and a NZ only comp is not an option then an ANZ comp with the quality of teams kept as high as possible is the only option.

                            Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.

                            At the same time, the structures under the Aussie fully pro teams need to change in order to provide more players an opportunity to make a living out of rugby.

                            D Offline
                            D Offline
                            Derpus
                            wrote on last edited by Derpus
                            #216

                            @NTA This makes perfect sense from a Kiwi perspective but little to none from an Australian perspective.

                            Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority). So any proposed TT comp is already starting at a low base of support. We are then required to cut two teams (presumably excluding Twiggy's Force over cutting one of the more traditional franchises) to be allowed to participate in what will effectively be an exercise in All Black production. I'm failing to see the incentive.

                            Most people argue that one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline of SR in Aus is the lack of local derbies/home games and local content. A 5/3 split will represent a marginal improvement over the current format - but will cut 2/5ths of the Australian market from the comp. A poor trade off.

                            It's no sure thing that cutting two teams will magically make the other three stronger, either. Plenty of players will simply leave for Japan or Europe and the financial and marketing damage done in the process would, in my opinion, be a terminal move for the remaining Australian teams - before a ball is even kicked.

                            The inconsistency of suggesting that we must cut two teams but the comp must also include a PI team is also pretty frustrating. What are the odds of a PI team (after the majority of the funds get siphoned off by the likes of Killer Keane) actually being competitive?

                            Finally, Twiggy has regularly expressed an interest in pumping considerable investment into a competition with a single management body that is run in it's own interests (rather than being primarily run for the purposes of Wallaby and AB production). There have also been expressions of interest from PE firms in the US. McLellan has expressed an interest in releasing control of the second tier of Australian rugby to private equity. Given the rather enormous trade-offs involved in us participating in an 8 (or 9) team TT comp - why wouldn't we pursue this option?

                            Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?

                            M NepiaN NTAN 3 Replies Last reply
                            3
                            • D Derpus

                              @NTA This makes perfect sense from a Kiwi perspective but little to none from an Australian perspective.

                              Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority). So any proposed TT comp is already starting at a low base of support. We are then required to cut two teams (presumably excluding Twiggy's Force over cutting one of the more traditional franchises) to be allowed to participate in what will effectively be an exercise in All Black production. I'm failing to see the incentive.

                              Most people argue that one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline of SR in Aus is the lack of local derbies/home games and local content. A 5/3 split will represent a marginal improvement over the current format - but will cut 2/5ths of the Australian market from the comp. A poor trade off.

                              It's no sure thing that cutting two teams will magically make the other three stronger, either. Plenty of players will simply leave for Japan or Europe and the financial and marketing damage done in the process would, in my opinion, be a terminal move for the remaining Australian teams - before a ball is even kicked.

                              The inconsistency of suggesting that we must cut two teams but the comp must also include a PI team is also pretty frustrating. What are the odds of a PI team (after the majority of the funds get siphoned off by the likes of Killer Keane) actually being competitive?

                              Finally, Twiggy has regularly expressed an interest in pumping considerable investment into a competition with a single management body that is run in it's own interests (rather than being primarily run for the purposes of Wallaby and AB production). There have also been expressions of interest from PE firms in the US. McLellan has expressed an interest in releasing control of the second tier of Australian rugby to private equity. Given the rather enormous trade-offs involved in us participating in an 8 (or 9) team TT comp - why wouldn't we pursue this option?

                              Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?

                              M Offline
                              M Offline
                              Machpants
                              wrote on last edited by Machpants
                              #217

                              @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                              Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?

                              NZ comp is financial viable, but a 5 team comp is not. NZ has said an option is an 8 team (NZ only or mix), that's it, an option. In addition, the 'senior NZ figures' are mostly press and ex figures. Nothing had been decided, the NZR board hasn't even seen the report, and most of this is just press shit stirring and individual opinion. The only official people who had said anything are Impey (nothing is decided, we haven't seen the report, and the conjecture is bollocks) and Foster (a generic comment that teams that are not competitive is good for no one - which is just stating the bloody obvious, and why we dint have a super 18 anymore!)

                              So really, Ozzie is getting is knickers twisted over nothing, the initial reporting all shit stirring from Oz media, then NZ replies. I think we should take more from the amount of working SANZAAR are doing to keep the RC this year, than press bullshit

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              3
                              • D Offline
                                D Offline
                                Derpus
                                wrote on last edited by Derpus
                                #218

                                I forgot my final point, being that no succesful comp in the world is perfectly balanced. To the contrary - the most valuable and succesful leagues are all pretty one sided with only a small percentage of the competing teams a realistic chance of winning the title. EPl, NFL, NRL, AFl, Bundesliga, NBL - they all have plenty of whipping boys.

                                KiwiwombleK 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • TimT Offline
                                  TimT Offline
                                  Tim
                                  wrote on last edited by Tim
                                  #219

                                  There seems to be a weird field of unreality enveloping some Australian rugby fans at the moment. This idea that an Australian domestic competition would be profitable, let alone preferable to a trans-tasman one, is quite bizarre.

                                  The top viewing figures in Australia are often for NZ derby games. We saw what happened when Australia had five teams - the rugby was dire. Who would pay to watch eight or even ten Australian teams? How many watch the NRC? Even with four teams, Australia has only one good team (Brumbies), one team of strivers who seldom win (Reds), and two teams of low quality.

                                  This idea of "if NZ tries to keep us down with only three or four teams then we'll go our own way and lose even more money" is just nonsense.

                                  D barbarianB 2 Replies Last reply
                                  1
                                  • D Derpus

                                    @NTA This makes perfect sense from a Kiwi perspective but little to none from an Australian perspective.

                                    Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority). So any proposed TT comp is already starting at a low base of support. We are then required to cut two teams (presumably excluding Twiggy's Force over cutting one of the more traditional franchises) to be allowed to participate in what will effectively be an exercise in All Black production. I'm failing to see the incentive.

                                    Most people argue that one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline of SR in Aus is the lack of local derbies/home games and local content. A 5/3 split will represent a marginal improvement over the current format - but will cut 2/5ths of the Australian market from the comp. A poor trade off.

                                    It's no sure thing that cutting two teams will magically make the other three stronger, either. Plenty of players will simply leave for Japan or Europe and the financial and marketing damage done in the process would, in my opinion, be a terminal move for the remaining Australian teams - before a ball is even kicked.

                                    The inconsistency of suggesting that we must cut two teams but the comp must also include a PI team is also pretty frustrating. What are the odds of a PI team (after the majority of the funds get siphoned off by the likes of Killer Keane) actually being competitive?

                                    Finally, Twiggy has regularly expressed an interest in pumping considerable investment into a competition with a single management body that is run in it's own interests (rather than being primarily run for the purposes of Wallaby and AB production). There have also been expressions of interest from PE firms in the US. McLellan has expressed an interest in releasing control of the second tier of Australian rugby to private equity. Given the rather enormous trade-offs involved in us participating in an 8 (or 9) team TT comp - why wouldn't we pursue this option?

                                    Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?

                                    NepiaN Offline
                                    NepiaN Offline
                                    Nepia
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #220

                                    @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                    Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority)

                                    Where's this data coming from? Aussie rugby fans aren't limited to those making the most noise on rugby forums.

                                    @Tim said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                    There seems to be a weird field of unreality enveloping some Australian rugby fans at the moment. This idea that an Australian domestic competition would be profitable, let alone preferable to a trans-tasman one, is quite bizarre.

                                    Yeah, there's a lot of losing the plot going on before any decisions have been reached.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    1
                                    • TimT Tim

                                      There seems to be a weird field of unreality enveloping some Australian rugby fans at the moment. This idea that an Australian domestic competition would be profitable, let alone preferable to a trans-tasman one, is quite bizarre.

                                      The top viewing figures in Australia are often for NZ derby games. We saw what happened when Australia had five teams - the rugby was dire. Who would pay to watch eight or even ten Australian teams? How many watch the NRC? Even with four teams, Australia has only one good team (Brumbies), one team of strivers who seldom win (Reds), and two teams of low quality.

                                      This idea of "if NZ tries to keep us down with only three or four teams then we'll go our own way and lose even more money" is just nonsense.

                                      D Offline
                                      D Offline
                                      Derpus
                                      wrote on last edited by Derpus
                                      #221

                                      @Tim Viewing figures for NZ derbies in Aus, as far as i am aware, are never better than local games. They are still quite strong due to a high expat population though (i think on the weekend the Aus games, including kayo streams, got about 100k vs 50k each for the NZ derbies).

                                      And i never said an alternative was a sure thing. But why continue to limp along like a wounded dog when we have some other options that could be explored that, in the long term, could be far more beneficial for the health of the game here?

                                      TimT 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • D Derpus

                                        @Tim Viewing figures for NZ derbies in Aus, as far as i am aware, are never better than local games. They are still quite strong due to a high expat population though (i think on the weekend the Aus games, including kayo streams, got about 100k vs 50k each for the NZ derbies).

                                        And i never said an alternative was a sure thing. But why continue to limp along like a wounded dog when we have some other options that could be explored that, in the long term, could be far more beneficial for the health of the game here?

                                        TimT Offline
                                        TimT Offline
                                        Tim
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #222

                                        @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                        Viewing figures for NZ derbies in Aus, as far as i am aware, are never better than local games

                                        The viewing figures get posted on Green and Gold forum some times, and NZ derbies frequently out rate Australian games.

                                        we have some other options that could be explored that, in the long term, could be far more beneficial for the health of the game here?

                                        What are these options? The likely consequence of going it alone is that rugby becomes a semi-professional sport in Australia, like the NRC.

                                        D 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • TimT Tim

                                          @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                          Viewing figures for NZ derbies in Aus, as far as i am aware, are never better than local games

                                          The viewing figures get posted on Green and Gold forum some times, and NZ derbies frequently out rate Australian games.

                                          we have some other options that could be explored that, in the long term, could be far more beneficial for the health of the game here?

                                          What are these options? The likely consequence of going it alone is that rugby becomes a semi-professional sport in Australia, like the NRC.

                                          D Offline
                                          D Offline
                                          Derpus
                                          wrote on last edited by Derpus
                                          #223

                                          @Tim see my original post.

                                          Also - i don't think im losing the plot. Most of my points were calmly presented and rational.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Search
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Search