'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@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?
@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
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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?
@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.
-
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.
@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?
-
@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?
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
@Tim said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
I'm in favour of a TT comp, but saying the top viewing figures here are 'often for NZ derby games' is just untrue. They rate OK but in my memory I can never recall them topping the charts.
And when Australia had five teams at times some teams played poorly, but in that time the Waratahs and Reds also won the comp. And Brumbies made the final on a number of occasions.
This year all of our sides were competitive. The Rebels beat the Highlanders in NZ, while the Brumbies were genuine competition contenders.
I get the points that you are trying to make but I think the whole 'Australian rugby teams are terrible' narrative over-eggs things just a little.
-
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.
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
Then what was the point of him even posting that? Because every comp in every year will have its share of whipping boys. It's a non point.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
@Bones i took it to mean that in general all these only have a small percent that ever have a chance where i think a of of successful leagues rotate more regularly
maybe @derpus cold clarify
The EPL is different too because it has over 100 years of support, generations of familys following one club through thick and thin...we're talking about a new comp with manufactured teams...harder to get people invested
I assume your the same @derpus from TRF?
-
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
Then what was the point of him even posting that? Because every comp in every year will have its share of whipping boys. It's a non point.
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
Then what was the point of him even posting that? Because every comp in every year will have its share of whipping boys. It's a non point.
I think I'm the best person to ask that, good on you.
-
@Bones i took it to mean that in general all these only have a small percent that ever have a chance where i think a of of successful leagues rotate more regularly
maybe @derpus cold clarify
The EPL is different too because it has over 100 years of support, generations of familys following one club through thick and thin...we're talking about a new comp with manufactured teams...harder to get people invested
I assume your the same @derpus from TRF?
-
@Kiwiwomble imagine the moaning on forums 100 years ago about how shit Millwall were though.
@Bones football isn't good comparison anyway, with promotion and relegation teams have a lot more to play for, so even if your not wining you celebrate surviving the drop and even if you drop you'll probably have a season winning more in the league below
I support Wimbledon, i know about going through the leagues!
-
@Bones i took it to mean that in general all these only have a small percent that ever have a chance where i think a of of successful leagues rotate more regularly
maybe @derpus cold clarify
The EPL is different too because it has over 100 years of support, generations of familys following one club through thick and thin...we're talking about a new comp with manufactured teams...harder to get people invested
I assume your the same @derpus from TRF?
@Kiwiwomble Ya.
I guess my point is basically just that you don't need every team in the comp to be capable of winning it for it to be a succesful comp. We will usually have at least one team capable of competing for the title and that should be enough.
-
@Kiwiwomble Ya.
I guess my point is basically just that you don't need every team in the comp to be capable of winning it for it to be a succesful comp. We will usually have at least one team capable of competing for the title and that should be enough.
@Derpus that might be true with more established comps where you have rock solid support...rugby doesnt have that
@jabby here
-
@Derpus that might be true with more established comps where you have rock solid support...rugby doesnt have that
@jabby here
-
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
Then what was the point of him even posting that? Because every comp in every year will have its share of whipping boys. It's a non point.
I think I'm the best person to ask that, good on you.
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
i mean...thats not completely true, bth the NRL and AFL have had 7 different permiers in the last decade and the NFL have had nine....hardly a monopolies
I don't think he said monopolies did he? My reading of it makes perfect sense. There's always whipping boys, doesn't necessarily mean it's the same team every year.
Then what was the point of him even posting that? Because every comp in every year will have its share of whipping boys. It's a non point.
I think I'm the best person to ask that, good on you.
Well, you rode in with your shield up and lance out so you got the question directed at you.
-
@Kiwiwomble I don't know about the NZ teams but the Tahs and Reds at least are 100 years old? and you have to start building somewhere, dont you.
@Derpus i honestly think thats why people are suggesting 2-3 aussie teams...those have the best support
even with that history its still not the same as essentially the same comp for over 100 years, super rugby can only claim 25 years and thats subjective with the number of changes
