'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@gt12 we kind of have that now with playoffs etc
Is like to see something lie a daft, something in the lead up and potentially to help boost team on poor form
i kind of miss the old day when the free agents were announced, those not needed by their home franchises, we got a few good bloke through that
I'm not sure how it could be structured, but I also like the idea of a Super championship and Super plate (with different sponsors this wouldn't sound too strange)
So for example:
Championship: Top two ranked teams from each competition play quarter, semi, final
Plate: 3rd and 4th ranked teams from each competition play quarter, semi, final
That would mean that one team would miss out, but the local competitions could have some systems in place to make sure that these guys didn't perenially stay there?
-
I had better things to do but still looked and it appears that Australia has consistently had a good team in Super Rugby. Often with another midpack, but almost always with a couple of cellar dwellers. Sometimes 80% in the bottom half.
The bloat in Super Rugby is correlated with this. From a revenue perspective more teams meant more fixtures so the TV revenue was higher. I felt the quality took a dramatic fall after the 2011 RWC and again after 2015. To make new franchises competitive the depth and overall quality of existing teams fell.
Once people stop watching the product is worth less. For me the quality needs to be high to get people viewing again. That excludes the Force and Rebels, neither of which would beat even the Chiefs right now.
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I had better things to do but still looked and it appears that Australia has consistently had a good team in Super Rugby. Often with another midpack, but almost always with a couple of cellar dwellers. Sometimes 80% in the bottom half.
The bloat in Super Rugby is correlated with this. From a revenue perspective more teams meant more fixtures so the TV revenue was higher. I felt the quality took a dramatic fall after the 2011 RWC and again after 2015. To make new franchises competitive the depth and overall quality of existing teams fell.
Once people stop watching the product is worth less. For me the quality needs to be high to get people viewing again. That excludes the Force and Rebels, neither of which would beat even the Chiefs right now.
The Chiefs aren't actually a bad team though. The 5 New Zealand teams normally do well so we have to accept that.
A 5 team professional competition isn't sustainable and will get stale quick. Plus the players don't support having all of these derbies. There are really two options for NZ Rugby:
a) Don't go with Australia and create one or multiple Pacific/Japanese teams which will dilute quality.
b) Allow in four Australian teams (and perhaps one Pacific/Japanese team) which will dilute quality. -
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I had better things to do but still looked and it appears that Australia has consistently had a good team in Super Rugby. Often with another midpack, but almost always with a couple of cellar dwellers. Sometimes 80% in the bottom half.
The bloat in Super Rugby is correlated with this. From a revenue perspective more teams meant more fixtures so the TV revenue was higher. I felt the quality took a dramatic fall after the 2011 RWC and again after 2015. To make new franchises competitive the depth and overall quality of existing teams fell.
Once people stop watching the product is worth less. For me the quality needs to be high to get people viewing again. That excludes the Force and Rebels, neither of which would beat even the Chiefs right now.
The Chiefs aren't actually a bad team though. The 5 New Zealand teams normally do well so we have to accept that.
A 5 team professional competition isn't sustainable and will get stale quick. Plus the players don't support having all of these derbies. There are really two options for NZ Rugby:
a) Don't go with Australia and create one or multiple Pacific/Japanese teams which will dilute quality.
b) Allow in four Australian teams (and perhaps one Pacific/Japanese team) which will dilute quality. -
@hydro11 I don't see why you think Japan would want in. I'd be very surprised if one of the established corporate teams was interested, so you are basically looking at another Sunwolves like abomination.
I’m not sure where you get that from, the corporate teams will want in - it’s just working out the right model.
One option would be to let the top two teams join an international finals series, or divide out 5 of the best teams to a Super league conference and the remaining into one or two conferences of the J league.
-
I’m not sure where you get that from, the corporate teams will want in - it’s just working out the right model.
One option would be to let the top two teams join an international finals series, or divide out 5 of the best teams to a Super league conference and the remaining into one or two conferences of the J league.
-
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I had better things to do but still looked and it appears that Australia has consistently had a good team in Super Rugby. Often with another midpack, but almost always with a couple of cellar dwellers. Sometimes 80% in the bottom half.
The bloat in Super Rugby is correlated with this. From a revenue perspective more teams meant more fixtures so the TV revenue was higher. I felt the quality took a dramatic fall after the 2011 RWC and again after 2015. To make new franchises competitive the depth and overall quality of existing teams fell.
Once people stop watching the product is worth less. For me the quality needs to be high to get people viewing again. That excludes the Force and Rebels, neither of which would beat even the Chiefs right now.
The Chiefs aren't actually a bad team though. The 5 New Zealand teams normally do well so we have to accept that.
A 5 team professional competition isn't sustainable and will get stale quick. Plus the players don't support having all of these derbies. There are really two options for NZ Rugby:
a) Don't go with Australia and create one or multiple Pacific/Japanese teams which will dilute quality.
b) Allow in four Australian teams (and perhaps one Pacific/Japanese team) which will dilute quality. -
@gt12 What does the link show besides speculation Japanese teams would be invited to compete? Nothing from them.
'let two top league teams in' you say that as if they are chomping at the bit.
I'll believe it when i see it.
Do you know anything about rugby in Japan btw? Follow a team? Live there?
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200719/p2g/00m/0sp/020000c
-
Some form of non- Australasian integration is probably necessary for the money. As far as I know the world champions league idea is still on the table, alternatively a Pacific comp with Japan and/or US etc. could work. Have the regular season Trans- Ta$man and then have a champions league like playoffs.
-
The TSF demographics conversation is over here now:
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/4043/tsf-demographics -
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Both nations, incidentally, are supportive of a Pasifika side also competing, but Australia believes it will take at least 12 months to set up the team and has recommended pushing their entry out to 2022 and expanding the contest to 11 franchises. It will probably take Australia and NZ that long to agree on whether to base them in Auckland or western Sydney.
Where this “insolence” leaves negotiations no one is quite sure. A Kiwi request to send over the contract documents for Australia to peruse was rejected by Clarke, who flatly insisted they would not wash. What was most remarkable about that rejection was that he made that ruling before going into a RA board meeting, which suggests all directors fully support Australia standing up for itself.
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald, that Australian teams are “embarrassingly out of their depth against Kiwi teams right now”. This particularly holds true for the Brumbies, who beat the Chiefs 26-14 in Hamilton on February 22, and the Rebels, who beat the Highlanders 28-22 in Dunedin one week later, and the Reds, who outscored the Crusaders four tries to three but lost 24-20 in Christchurch a further week later when they couldn’t land a kick. Oh, and the Brumbies also were terribly out of their depth when thrashed 23-22 by the Highlanders after the bell in Canberra on February 15.
No doubt as the Herald intended to mention, but somehow forgot, these were all results recorded “right now”. Or as “right now” as a global pandemic would permit.
Australia’s preference is to engage in a trans- Ta$man competition with New Zealand. Yet all indications are it has no intention of allowing the NZR to determine which Australian teams will be play and which are surplus to Kiwi requirements.
It is unthinkable that, if the situation was reversed, Australia would be advocating the demise of, say, the Chiefs, who now find themselves at the bottom of the Super Rugby Aotearoa table. That is not something good neighbours demand of each other.
One lesson Australia learned from 2017, when it culled the Western Force from Super Rugby at the behest of SANZAAR, was never again to lose control of its autonomy. Besides, it is now building towards a 2027 World Cup and realises that the more professional teams it boasts, the more the commercial value.
If need be, RA will embark on a super-sized version of this year’s Super Rugby AU competition next year. McLennan has indicated he is prepared to welcome foreign players from around the world – three per franchise – along with a possible team from South Africa, which also was on the receiving end of some offhand treatment by NZ last week. Effectively, its presence in Super Rugby was terminated in a NZR press release.
-
Wayne Smith is right. The Aussies can support 3 decent teams. It's bullshit to pretend they don't
-
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Both nations, incidentally, are supportive of a Pasifika side also competing, but Australia believes it will take at least 12 months to set up the team and has recommended pushing their entry out to 2022 and expanding the contest to 11 franchises. It will probably take Australia and NZ that long to agree on whether to base them in Auckland or western Sydney.
Where this “insolence” leaves negotiations no one is quite sure. A Kiwi request to send over the contract documents for Australia to peruse was rejected by Clarke, who flatly insisted they would not wash. What was most remarkable about that rejection was that he made that ruling before going into a RA board meeting, which suggests all directors fully support Australia standing up for itself.
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald, that Australian teams are “embarrassingly out of their depth against Kiwi teams right now”. This particularly holds true for the Brumbies, who beat the Chiefs 26-14 in Hamilton on February 22, and the Rebels, who beat the Highlanders 28-22 in Dunedin one week later, and the Reds, who outscored the Crusaders four tries to three but lost 24-20 in Christchurch a further week later when they couldn’t land a kick. Oh, and the Brumbies also were terribly out of their depth when thrashed 23-22 by the Highlanders after the bell in Canberra on February 15.
No doubt as the Herald intended to mention, but somehow forgot, these were all results recorded “right now”. Or as “right now” as a global pandemic would permit.
Australia’s preference is to engage in a trans- Ta$man competition with New Zealand. Yet all indications are it has no intention of allowing the NZR to determine which Australian teams will be play and which are surplus to Kiwi requirements.
It is unthinkable that, if the situation was reversed, Australia would be advocating the demise of, say, the Chiefs, who now find themselves at the bottom of the Super Rugby Aotearoa table. That is not something good neighbours demand of each other.
One lesson Australia learned from 2017, when it culled the Western Force from Super Rugby at the behest of SANZAAR, was never again to lose control of its autonomy. Besides, it is now building towards a 2027 World Cup and realises that the more professional teams it boasts, the more the commercial value.
If need be, RA will embark on a super-sized version of this year’s Super Rugby AU competition next year. McLennan has indicated he is prepared to welcome foreign players from around the world – three per franchise – along with a possible team from South Africa, which also was on the receiving end of some offhand treatment by NZ last week. Effectively, its presence in Super Rugby was terminated in a NZR press release.
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
Is this the same level of probity the Australian brought to RA's governance and broadcast contract negotiations?
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
The same '“take it or leave it” eight-team competition' straw man the Australian media invented? The one reported before the Aratipu review had been provided?
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
RA would do well to address the reporting in Australian media, or get consigned to the scrap heap.
-
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Both nations, incidentally, are supportive of a Pasifika side also competing, but Australia believes it will take at least 12 months to set up the team and has recommended pushing their entry out to 2022 and expanding the contest to 11 franchises. It will probably take Australia and NZ that long to agree on whether to base them in Auckland or western Sydney.
Where this “insolence” leaves negotiations no one is quite sure. A Kiwi request to send over the contract documents for Australia to peruse was rejected by Clarke, who flatly insisted they would not wash. What was most remarkable about that rejection was that he made that ruling before going into a RA board meeting, which suggests all directors fully support Australia standing up for itself.
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald, that Australian teams are “embarrassingly out of their depth against Kiwi teams right now”. This particularly holds true for the Brumbies, who beat the Chiefs 26-14 in Hamilton on February 22, and the Rebels, who beat the Highlanders 28-22 in Dunedin one week later, and the Reds, who outscored the Crusaders four tries to three but lost 24-20 in Christchurch a further week later when they couldn’t land a kick. Oh, and the Brumbies also were terribly out of their depth when thrashed 23-22 by the Highlanders after the bell in Canberra on February 15.
No doubt as the Herald intended to mention, but somehow forgot, these were all results recorded “right now”. Or as “right now” as a global pandemic would permit.
Australia’s preference is to engage in a trans- Ta$man competition with New Zealand. Yet all indications are it has no intention of allowing the NZR to determine which Australian teams will be play and which are surplus to Kiwi requirements.
It is unthinkable that, if the situation was reversed, Australia would be advocating the demise of, say, the Chiefs, who now find themselves at the bottom of the Super Rugby Aotearoa table. That is not something good neighbours demand of each other.
One lesson Australia learned from 2017, when it culled the Western Force from Super Rugby at the behest of SANZAAR, was never again to lose control of its autonomy. Besides, it is now building towards a 2027 World Cup and realises that the more professional teams it boasts, the more the commercial value.
If need be, RA will embark on a super-sized version of this year’s Super Rugby AU competition next year. McLennan has indicated he is prepared to welcome foreign players from around the world – three per franchise – along with a possible team from South Africa, which also was on the receiving end of some offhand treatment by NZ last week. Effectively, its presence in Super Rugby was terminated in a NZR press release.
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Just noting that Australia utterly rejected the 8 team concept.
The real challenge is what do either side bring to the table. Because it better be good rugby, or good funding (eyeballs), or both. I strongly support a trans-tasman comp, but that doesn't necessarily mean a 5 team Aussie representation.
I tend to agree with RA about the Pacific side though - assuming it gets off the ground, when could it sensibly start playing? A better option would be genuine talent development in the islands... but I can't see that happening in the short term.
We really need Japan in the medium term. Should be talking to them about the timing and feasibility of it
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Just noting that Australia utterly rejected the 8 team concept.
The real challenge is what do either side bring to the table. Because it better be good rugby, or good funding (eyeballs), or both. I strongly support a trans-tasman comp, but that doesn't necessarily mean a 5 team Aussie representation.
I tend to agree with RA about the Pacific side though - assuming it gets off the ground, when could it sensibly start playing? A better option would be genuine talent development in the islands... but I can't see that happening in the short term.
We really need Japan in the medium term. Should be talking to them about the timing and feasibility of it
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I tend to agree with RA about the Pacific side though - assuming it gets off the ground, when could it sensibly start playing? A better option would be genuine talent development in the islands... but I can't see that happening in the short term.
I can't see why NZR is at all interested in this albatross. It's a stupid idea, any board member supporting it should be removed. RA needs to kill it and ensure that it doesn't come at the expense of the only consistently good team; the Brumbies.
-
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
-
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Both nations, incidentally, are supportive of a Pasifika side also competing, but Australia believes it will take at least 12 months to set up the team and has recommended pushing their entry out to 2022 and expanding the contest to 11 franchises. It will probably take Australia and NZ that long to agree on whether to base them in Auckland or western Sydney.
Where this “insolence” leaves negotiations no one is quite sure. A Kiwi request to send over the contract documents for Australia to peruse was rejected by Clarke, who flatly insisted they would not wash. What was most remarkable about that rejection was that he made that ruling before going into a RA board meeting, which suggests all directors fully support Australia standing up for itself.
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald, that Australian teams are “embarrassingly out of their depth against Kiwi teams right now”. This particularly holds true for the Brumbies, who beat the Chiefs 26-14 in Hamilton on February 22, and the Rebels, who beat the Highlanders 28-22 in Dunedin one week later, and the Reds, who outscored the Crusaders four tries to three but lost 24-20 in Christchurch a further week later when they couldn’t land a kick. Oh, and the Brumbies also were terribly out of their depth when thrashed 23-22 by the Highlanders after the bell in Canberra on February 15.
No doubt as the Herald intended to mention, but somehow forgot, these were all results recorded “right now”. Or as “right now” as a global pandemic would permit.
Australia’s preference is to engage in a trans- Ta$man competition with New Zealand. Yet all indications are it has no intention of allowing the NZR to determine which Australian teams will be play and which are surplus to Kiwi requirements.
It is unthinkable that, if the situation was reversed, Australia would be advocating the demise of, say, the Chiefs, who now find themselves at the bottom of the Super Rugby Aotearoa table. That is not something good neighbours demand of each other.
One lesson Australia learned from 2017, when it culled the Western Force from Super Rugby at the behest of SANZAAR, was never again to lose control of its autonomy. Besides, it is now building towards a 2027 World Cup and realises that the more professional teams it boasts, the more the commercial value.
If need be, RA will embark on a super-sized version of this year’s Super Rugby AU competition next year. McLennan has indicated he is prepared to welcome foreign players from around the world – three per franchise – along with a possible team from South Africa, which also was on the receiving end of some offhand treatment by NZ last week. Effectively, its presence in Super Rugby was terminated in a NZR press release.
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald
That's hilarious!
-
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
@KiwiMurph said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
i can get on board with that, better than latter things fall apart, id like to see some guidlines like perth games have to be early avo so it still watchable on east coast and NZ
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald
That's hilarious!
@Stargazer said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald
That's hilarious!
If they changed it to NZR's unofficial PR person, New Zealand Herald's Gregor Paul I reckon they would be on the money.
-
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
@KiwiMurph said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
because this at least allows for an answer for the inevitable accusations of once again ignoring Pacific rugby
-
@KiwiMurph said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
because this at least allows for an answer for the inevitable accusations of once again ignoring Pacific rugby
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@KiwiMurph said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I don't really see why NZ is outright rejecting 5 Aus teams (if they actually are) but are open to 4 Aus teams + Pacific.
Just have a 10 team trans Ta$man comp for 2021 and get on with it whilst figuring out the pacific side for 2022.
because this at least allows for an answer for the inevitable accusations of once again ignoring Pacific rugby
hard to know whats worse, rush it though and be accused of just paying lip service or take time and do it right but be accused of delaying again
