'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@akan004 said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
https://twitter.com/paulcullystuff/status/1292694846491115520?s=20
Is this where we start melting down as fans saying how dare the Aussie propose something where we’re only allowed 2 teams and then say we’re going to create our own league with teams from Hong Kong, Burma, and the Naki funded by that Russian oil billionaire?
-
Maybe to help bolster the standard we could introduce a rule that All Blacks can be selected from this comp. That way players could be based in NZ, Australia or eventually Japan.
Would be a way to develop youth players for NZ and plug the depth gap in Aussie. Also a way for players to make money in Japan and not be lost of the All Blacks.
Would have to stop poaching of young talent, but might be a solution?
Tear it apart below
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Maybe to help bolster the standard we could introduce a rule that All Blacks can be selected from this comp. That way players could be based in NZ, Australia or eventually Japan.
Would be a way to develop youth players for NZ and plug the depth gap in Aussie. Also a way for players to make money in Japan and not be lost of the All Blacks.
Would have to stop poaching of young talent, but might be a solution?
Tear it apart below
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Maybe to help bolster the standard we could introduce a rule that All Blacks can be selected from this comp. That way players could be based in NZ, Australia or eventually Japan.
Would be a way to develop youth players for NZ and plug the depth gap in Aussie. Also a way for players to make money in Japan and not be lost of the All Blacks.
Would have to stop poaching of young talent, but might be a solution?
Tear it apart below
You're over-stating our depth, which is fucking appalling compared to a few years ago. The only scenario in which I would tolerate Kiwis playing for Australian sides is if they're able to throw the cash at them that NZR aren't and we're able to select them for the All Blacks.
-
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Crucial said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
What rivers of gold that would be more than if we “owned” the comp?
Broadcasting rights, by way of comparison, where they have 5 times our population and 20% higher GDP per person.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=AU-NZThere is just no way to compete financially. Rugby is 3rd (well, probably 4th overall if you consdier cricket), so why aren't we helping them grow their game and the market?
ARU TV Rights have gone from
-
worth around A$25m per year (2011 to 2015)
-
A$57m per year (2015-2019)
-
A$35m per year was offered in 2019 for renewal (rejected)
-
A$20m is what deal is now, after letting negotiations run , falling out with Fox, and covid happened.
NZRU signed in 2019 a NZ$500m (NZ$100m per year deal) in 2019.
Let me put this in table format:
So, next year. In theory.
NZRU will be getting a $20m per year USD pay rise.
ARU will be getting a $28m per year USD pay cut.We should add 5 more teams , from an ARU pot of 14.4m USD?
or add 3 more NZ teams (or 4 or 5 more) from an increased NZRU pot of $20m USD (total 66m USD) ? In an era of deflating rugby wages?I'm not trying to rub it in. I want ARU to do well, and perfect storm has hit them at same as their own incompetence. If run well and free of competing agendas, they are obviously worth more than that. But adding 5 Australian teams is not adding 5 well funded teams.
For a dose of realism - the NZRU and Sky's deal may get re-negotiated down if a new reality of decreased advertising revenue etc.
I have my biases. I want an NZ professional domestic comp.
I want to tap into the Australian and Japanese market by having an Asian-Pacific Champions League playoffs. As there is $ potential in those markets.
What we do know, is there is apparently no current desire by Australians to see 80% of their teams beaten each week they come up against an out-of-country opponent. Let them have a domestic comp. Wish it well, as we need to tap into their market for the champions league. Asia-Pacific Super Rugby.
Good post. After reading 2 days of this thread I was going to make the same point. NZR already have a 5-yr deal with their broadcast partner while RA doesn't have a deal post-Super AU. From RA's perspective more teams (hopefully) equals more money but it won't be as simple as that. The leverage will be with the broadcaster, and I assume Foxtel is still the only option.
-
-
Good post. After reading 2 days of this thread I was going to make the same point. NZR already have a 5-yr deal with their broadcast partner while RA doesn't have a deal post-Super AU. From RA's perspective more teams (hopefully) equals more money but it won't be as simple as that. The leverage will be with the broadcaster, and I assume Foxtel is still the only option.
-
Expanding on Australia's idea of a southern hemisphere champion of champions competition here are some ideas.
- Countries/regions put forward one or two teams
- Two Tiers
- Intermingle with regular season comp rather than at end
- Qualify by position in previous year
-
If NZ go without OZ we need more teams. A stronger NPC based competition is never going to happen so:
- Split Blues in Half - North Auckland team and a Auckland City team
- The proposed Pacific themed team based in Manukau, Mt Smart, or Pukekohe
- Chiefs
- Tauranga based team, maybe the China Lions team is expanded
- A Lower North Island Team, pretty much Central Vikings with Taranaki too
- Hurricanes
- Highlanders
- Crusaders
- Possibly a Ta$man based team too.
We need to expand the NZ comp slightly to make it less intense and an opportunity for more kiwi players
-
If NZ go without OZ we need more teams. A stronger NPC based competition is never going to happen so:
- Split Blues in Half - North Auckland team and a Auckland City team
- The proposed Pacific themed team based in Manukau, Mt Smart, or Pukekohe
- Chiefs
- Tauranga based team, maybe the China Lions team is expanded
- A Lower North Island Team, pretty much Central Vikings with Taranaki too
- Hurricanes
- Highlanders
- Crusaders
- Possibly a Ta$man based team too.
We need to expand the NZ comp slightly to make it less intense and an opportunity for more kiwi players
@mikedogz said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
If NZ go without OZ we need more teams. A stronger NPC based competition is never going to happen so:
- Split Blues in Half - North Auckland team and a Auckland City team
- The proposed Pacific themed team based in Manukau, Mt Smart, or Pukekohe
- Chiefs
- Tauranga based team, maybe the China Lions team is expanded
- A Lower North Island Team, pretty much Central Vikings with Taranaki too
- Hurricanes
- Highlanders
- Crusaders
- Possibly a Ta$man based team too.
We need to expand the NZ comp slightly to make it less intense and an opportunity for more kiwi players
Chiefs=Waikato and canes=Wellington?
-
Aussie can barely field 3 competitive teams, let alone 5
@canefan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Aussie can barely field 3 competitive teams, let alone 5
It's a bit presumptuous to go to a broadcaster saying you've got a competition without asking the participants...
-
@mikedogz said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
If NZ go without OZ we need more teams. A stronger NPC based competition is never going to happen so:
- Split Blues in Half - North Auckland team and a Auckland City team
- The proposed Pacific themed team based in Manukau, Mt Smart, or Pukekohe
- Chiefs
- Tauranga based team, maybe the China Lions team is expanded
- A Lower North Island Team, pretty much Central Vikings with Taranaki too
- Hurricanes
- Highlanders
- Crusaders
- Possibly a Ta$man based team too.
We need to expand the NZ comp slightly to make it less intense and an opportunity for more kiwi players
Chiefs=Waikato and canes=Wellington?
-
@Bovidae But isn't the NZ deal based on Super Rugby going ahead as planned?
Surely that figure will be renegotiated down based on what NZRU can deliver?
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Bovidae But isn't the NZ deal based on Super Rugby going ahead as planned?
Surely that figure will be renegotiated down based on what NZRU can deliver?
Yes, this is a fair point.
At this point 2021 wont be delivered as promised.
Although, the biased nz comp fan in me hopes it may be more valuable. If things turn out more local. (But not a bigger deal, they were stretched hard).
-
@Bovidae But isn't the NZ deal based on Super Rugby going ahead as planned?
Surely that figure will be renegotiated down based on what NZRU can deliver?
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Bovidae But isn't the NZ deal based on Super Rugby going ahead as planned?
The new deal starts next year and there will likely be more discussions, particularly if Covid-19 continues to impact international rugby.
But better to already have a deal and renegotiate than not have a broadcasting deal at all.
New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has agreed a ‘revolutionary’ five-year rights deal with domestic pay-TV broadcaster Sky through 2025, worth a reported NZ$400 million (US$251.9 million). The record investment sees the union, including the All Blacks men’s rugby union team, take a five per cent stake in the network, which deepens its existing investment in New Zealand rugby union by an apparent NZ$10 million (US$6.3 million) per year. The broadcast rights include exclusive coverage of all New Zealand's international Test matches from the annual Rugby Championship, tours of Europe and visiting Northern Hemisphere sides, as well as the Super Rugby club season and New Zealand’s other domestic competitions, including the Mitre 10 Cup and women’s competitions such as the Farah Palmer Cup. Coming into effect in 2021, Sky chief executive Martin Stewart said that the partnerships extends the broadcaster’s “commitment is to deliver rugby to all New Zealanders”, including satellite and streaming options, as well as free access to games via its Prime free-view channel. -
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
This is what RA is proposing to broadcasters:
I like this. It is close to my desired outcome.
I gave a few concerns. I'd worry about viability of State of Union as long as Warratahs and Reds exist as state franchises within their domestic SR. Would struggle to sell that .
My other concern, linked to the first in some ways. ARU seem welded to having single professional team representing each of NSW and Qld. This makes no sense in a post-SR world. Sydney and Brisbane need to be the backbone of their competition supplying multiple teams each.
-
BTW. I fully agree with ARU rejecting out of hand NZRU apparent offer of only 2 teams joining TT SR.
On a scale of 1 to 10 stupid, that offer is a 12.
I reckon they can financially and player depth support 3 if NZ stay with 5.
If both nations go their own way domestically , they can please their own.
-
Question for Aussie posters.
How expandable is SR Australia with Reds and Warratahs.
If, for example. Were to keep existing 5 franchises. But expand by adding existing Sydney and Brisbane clubs. Would it work if clear separation from Reds and Warratahs as clubs rather than state teams?
Eg. Reds and Warratahs change their kits. Keep colours but use hoops rather than traditional state team kits.
NSW and Qld rep teams reborn for origin , but use Blues and Maroons branding
Say GPS Brothers, Randwick, Manly, Sydney Uni join.
Have league of:
Qld Reds
Brisbane Brothers
Brisbane GPS
Warratahs
Manly
Randwick
Sydney University
ACT Brumbies
Melbourne Rebels
Western ForceWould supporters of Warringah or Eastrrn Suburbs be still likely to follow Warratahs? Or get in a jealous hump that their close rivals have been elevated to national level?
Or if created NRC style regional pseudo-mergers. Would a Warratahs brand still work if also added a North Shore franchise? Or NSW Country? Or a Manly-Warringah, would a Manly-Warringah work?
Note. The club teams I have inserted just treat as hypothetical. Just trying to gauge ways ARU can expand domestic SR in future while keeping Warratahs and Reds brands.
-
Question for Aussie posters.
How expandable is SR Australia with Reds and Warratahs.
If, for example. Were to keep existing 5 franchises. But expand by adding existing Sydney and Brisbane clubs. Would it work if clear separation from Reds and Warratahs as clubs rather than state teams?
Eg. Reds and Warratahs change their kits. Keep colours but use hoops rather than traditional state team kits.
NSW and Qld rep teams reborn for origin , but use Blues and Maroons branding
Say GPS Brothers, Randwick, Manly, Sydney Uni join.
Have league of:
Qld Reds
Brisbane Brothers
Brisbane GPS
Warratahs
Manly
Randwick
Sydney University
ACT Brumbies
Melbourne Rebels
Western ForceWould supporters of Warringah or Eastrrn Suburbs be still likely to follow Warratahs? Or get in a jealous hump that their close rivals have been elevated to national level?
Or if created NRC style regional pseudo-mergers. Would a Warratahs brand still work if also added a North Shore franchise? Or NSW Country? Or a Manly-Warringah, would a Manly-Warringah work?
Note. The club teams I have inserted just treat as hypothetical. Just trying to gauge ways ARU can expand domestic SR in future while keeping Warratahs and Reds brands.
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Question for Aussie posters.
How expandable is SR Australia with Reds and Warratahs.
I have a view but will preface it by saying this topic would've generated thousands of other views and comments over the past few years.
IMO, yes, there could be more than 1 team in NSW (and potentially also another team in Qld). But it's not a matter of flicking a switch and it would obviously stretch player depth, amongst other things. That's why Fiji is a likely RA invitee.
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Would a Warratahs brand still work if also added a North Shore franchise? Or NSW Country? Or a Manly-Warringah, would a Manly-Warringah work?
The Waratahs brand pulls recognition and viewers. The last thing they should be doing is throwing it away.
As for other franchise options, the idea of promoting or merging existing clubs on their own won't be good enough. The first requirement IMO would be sufficient private backing to cover a minimum five years of operation. Not impossible, but hard to see it happening by 2021.
