'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@voodoo said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I'd be disgusted if the fifth and sixth placed teams in a ten team comp made the finals.
Absolutely this!
Why would you care? In the hypocritical case that the Blues say came 3rd [amended] , and they then had a home playoff QF against the 6th finishing Reds, that should just be extra revenue for them. If they can't get up against them at home then that's their issue.
because regular season games start to mean fuck all when there is less on the line. That 6th team is likely to have a losing record, and yet is a possibility to win the comp
why do i gt invested in the regular season?
It's along the same lines as the criticism the NBA is facing at the moment.
It's what makes the NFL so fucking good. There is only 16 games, and if you fuck up a couple, you are gone. 12 of 32 teams make play offs. College Football is a bit the same. 4 teams out of approximately 47,000 make the finals.
i kind of agree with this but conversely, speaking from experience, once your have lost a few games and the season is gone...people also loose interest
thats why i think football has it right with promotion/relegation...give you something to play for without watering down the finals
hey, let's have everyone play finals! that way, everyone is engaged for as long as possible!
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@voodoo said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I'd be disgusted if the fifth and sixth placed teams in a ten team comp made the finals.
Absolutely this!
Why would you care? In the hypocritical case that the Blues say came 3rd [amended] , and they then had a home playoff QF against the 6th finishing Reds, that should just be extra revenue for them. If they can't get up against them at home then that's their issue.
because regular season games start to mean fuck all when there is less on the line. That 6th team is likely to have a losing record, and yet is a possibility to win the comp
why do i gt invested in the regular season?
It's along the same lines as the criticism the NBA is facing at the moment.
It's what makes the NFL so fucking good. There is only 16 games, and if you fuck up a couple, you are gone. 12 of 32 teams make play offs. College Football is a bit the same. 4 teams out of approximately 47,000 make the finals.
i kind of agree with this but conversely, speaking from experience, once your have lost a few games and the season is gone...people also loose interest
thats why i think football has it right with promotion/relegation...give you something to play for without watering down the finals
hey, let's have everyone play finals! that way, everyone is engaged for as long as possible!
Quarter finals, meaning only two teams aren't engaged, makes it ridiculous.
-
"They had mentioned in their announcement four relationships: one with the Hawaii Tourism Authority who's never heard of them; the Stadium Authority, never talked to them; the University of Hawaii which denied them their practice facilities; and for Hawaiian Airlines they said they had a sponsorship agreement. Hawaiian Airlines has no sponsorship agreement with these folks," Wakai said.
will be interesting if they have a reply to these points
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
"They had mentioned in their announcement four relationships: one with the Hawaii Tourism Authority who's never heard of them; the Stadium Authority, never talked to them; the University of Hawaii which denied them their practice facilities; and for Hawaiian Airlines they said they had a sponsorship agreement. Hawaiian Airlines has no sponsorship agreement with these folks," Wakai said.
will be interesting if they have a reply to these points
Don't you hate it when someone calls you on your marketing bullshit halfway through the presentation?
-
"They had mentioned in their announcement four relationships: one with the Hawaii Tourism Authority who's never heard of them; the Stadium Authority, never talked to them; the University of Hawaii which denied them their practice facilities; and for Hawaiian Airlines they said they had a sponsorship agreement. Hawaiian Airlines has no sponsorship agreement with these folks," Wakai said.
will be interesting if they have a reply to these points
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
"They had mentioned in their announcement four relationships: one with the Hawaii Tourism Authority who's never heard of them; the Stadium Authority, never talked to them; the University of Hawaii which denied them their practice facilities; and for Hawaiian Airlines they said they had a sponsorship agreement. Hawaiian Airlines has no sponsorship agreement with these folks," Wakai said.
will be interesting if they have a reply to these points
"Kanaloa Hawai’i has already appointed Mick Byrne and Tamati Ellison to coach its team in Hawai’i, and Atiga said criticism from Hawaiian senator Glenn Wakai about the franchise had been dealt with behind closed doors, resulting in an apology from the politician.
Atiga also said there would be a completely separate staffing structure for Super Rugby, while players would come from four sources: existing players in New Zealand on the cusp of Blues selection, players from the Pacific Islands, current Super Rugby players with Pacific Island heritage, and some international players.
“We want to bring those (PI) players into our team, and that doesn't exclude Māori,” Atiga said.
“And, if we're being completely honest, we need to be make sure that we have at least a couple of international players that are not ruled out by heritage.
“This is New Zealand, and we shouldn’t be putting any provisos around race.”"
-
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ.
I assume NZR could change its regulations; that would give them some power over what the PI franchise can and cannot do, though.
.
Also, from that article:Instead, Atiga said Kanaloa Hawai’i would work closely with the Blues and had no interest in cannibalising the existing franchise.
“We're not going to come into south Auckland and take over anything the Blues have established.”
which seems to be contradicted by
Atiga also said there would be a completely separate staffing structure for Super Rugby, while players would come from four sources: existing players in New Zealand on the cusp of Blues selection, ...
-
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ.
I assume NZR could change its regulations; that would give them some power over what the PI franchise can and cannot do, though.
.
Also, from that article:Instead, Atiga said Kanaloa Hawai’i would work closely with the Blues and had no interest in cannibalising the existing franchise.
“We're not going to come into south Auckland and take over anything the Blues have established.”
which seems to be contradicted by
Atiga also said there would be a completely separate staffing structure for Super Rugby, while players would come from four sources: existing players in New Zealand on the cusp of Blues selection, ...
@Stargazer said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ
Um What? NZR want a Pacific team, they can hardly call it that if they decide to treat it as just another NZ team
-
-
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ.
I assume NZR could change its regulations; that would give them some power over what the PI franchise can and cannot do, though.
.
Also, from that article:Instead, Atiga said Kanaloa Hawai’i would work closely with the Blues and had no interest in cannibalising the existing franchise.
“We're not going to come into south Auckland and take over anything the Blues have established.”
which seems to be contradicted by
Atiga also said there would be a completely separate staffing structure for Super Rugby, while players would come from four sources: existing players in New Zealand on the cusp of Blues selection, ...
@Stargazer said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ.
Because they're not an NZR team?
-
@Machpants It's not a matter of "deciding" to treat a PI franchise as just another NZ team, or not. It's about which rules apply to this team and what those rules say. It's a legal question, not a political one.
@Bones If only it was that simple.
There are some complex legal issues involved. Here are - for example - some of World Rugby's Regulations about clubs:
2.1.2 A Club or Rugby Body may only be affiliated to one Union and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the bye-laws, rules and regulations of that Union. A Club or Rugby Body may only be affiliated to the Union within whose geographical boundaries its Home Ground is situated and shall only be entitled to play in Matches organised, recognised or sanctioned by that Union, unless specific approval has been given by both Unions. No Club or Rugby Body shall be entitled to change the location of its Home Ground or the name by which its senior teams are known, without the prior written consent of the Union to which it is affiliated.
2.1.3 A Club or Rugby Body that wishes to change its Home Ground to a location outside of the geographical boundaries of the Union to which it is affiliated must, before taking any steps to effect such a change, obtain written permission from the secretary of the Union to which it is affiliated, who in turn, subject to permission being granted by his Union, will seek the agreement of the secretary of the other Union.
2.1.4 For the purposes of Regulations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, Home Ground shall mean the ground within the geographical boundaries of the Union to which the Club or Rugby Body is affiliated, at which the Club or Rugby Body’s senior team plays its home fixtures and which is approved by the Union to which the Club or Rugby Body is affiliated.
2.1.5 A Union may consent or direct that a Club plays a home fixture at a ground other than its Home Ground, provided such ground is within the geographical boundaries of the Union.
So that was about the clubs. This is what World Rugby's Regulations say - among other things - about (contracted) players:4.5.6 Only a Player who is currently Registered with a Union shall be able to participate in competitions organised, recognised or sanctioned by that Union.
USA Rugby is not a Union that organises, recognises or sanctions Super Rugby. It also isn't a partner in SANZAAR. So - even without those regulations about clubs - you'd have to assume that the players would have to be registered in NZ and subject to NZR's jurisdiction if the franchise is based in NZ.
So, hence my question, how can a team be based in NZ, but not be subject to NZR's regulations (jurisdiction). -
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ.
I assume NZR could change its regulations; that would give them some power over what the PI franchise can and cannot do, though.
.
Also, from that article:Instead, Atiga said Kanaloa Hawai’i would work closely with the Blues and had no interest in cannibalising the existing franchise.
“We're not going to come into south Auckland and take over anything the Blues have established.”
which seems to be contradicted by
Atiga also said there would be a completely separate staffing structure for Super Rugby, while players would come from four sources: existing players in New Zealand on the cusp of Blues selection, ...
@Stargazer said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I wonder how a team can be based in NZ but not be subject to NZR's regulations (including rules about eligibility) if they're playing in NZ.
I assume NZR could change its regulations; that would give them some power over what the PI franchise can and cannot do, though.
.
Also, from that article:Instead, Atiga said Kanaloa Hawai’i would work closely with the Blues and had no interest in cannibalising the existing franchise.
“We're not going to come into south Auckland and take over anything the Blues have established.”
which seems to be contradicted by
Atiga also said there would be a completely separate staffing structure for Super Rugby, while players would come from four sources: existing players in New Zealand on the cusp of Blues selection, ...
Why just Blues' fringe players? It's not like they've got this ridiculous depth of talent at that level that the other franchises don't. Also, would the Blues even be happy to start offloading guys who are adding squad depth and who might develop into stars?
-
@Machpants It's not a matter of "deciding" to treat a PI franchise as just another NZ team, or not. It's about which rules apply to this team and what those rules say. It's a legal question, not a political one.
@Bones If only it was that simple.
There are some complex legal issues involved. Here are - for example - some of World Rugby's Regulations about clubs:
2.1.2 A Club or Rugby Body may only be affiliated to one Union and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the bye-laws, rules and regulations of that Union. A Club or Rugby Body may only be affiliated to the Union within whose geographical boundaries its Home Ground is situated and shall only be entitled to play in Matches organised, recognised or sanctioned by that Union, unless specific approval has been given by both Unions. No Club or Rugby Body shall be entitled to change the location of its Home Ground or the name by which its senior teams are known, without the prior written consent of the Union to which it is affiliated.
2.1.3 A Club or Rugby Body that wishes to change its Home Ground to a location outside of the geographical boundaries of the Union to which it is affiliated must, before taking any steps to effect such a change, obtain written permission from the secretary of the Union to which it is affiliated, who in turn, subject to permission being granted by his Union, will seek the agreement of the secretary of the other Union.
2.1.4 For the purposes of Regulations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, Home Ground shall mean the ground within the geographical boundaries of the Union to which the Club or Rugby Body is affiliated, at which the Club or Rugby Body’s senior team plays its home fixtures and which is approved by the Union to which the Club or Rugby Body is affiliated.
2.1.5 A Union may consent or direct that a Club plays a home fixture at a ground other than its Home Ground, provided such ground is within the geographical boundaries of the Union.
So that was about the clubs. This is what World Rugby's Regulations say - among other things - about (contracted) players:4.5.6 Only a Player who is currently Registered with a Union shall be able to participate in competitions organised, recognised or sanctioned by that Union.
USA Rugby is not a Union that organises, recognises or sanctions Super Rugby. It also isn't a partner in SANZAAR. So - even without those regulations about clubs - you'd have to assume that the players would have to be registered in NZ and subject to NZR's jurisdiction if the franchise is based in NZ.
So, hence my question, how can a team be based in NZ, but not be subject to NZR's regulations (jurisdiction).@Stargazer however the 'available for ABs' rule is not within the bounds of that, it is an NZ invented rule that they can change easily. Or add that it does not apply to this team, give them an exemption. NZR has previously given players outside the 2 non ABs qualified Ann exemption to play in super rugby. They can give that entire team all sorts of exemptions. It's their comp they can do what they want with it
-
I just don't get why you'd create a second team in Auckland to cater for only 15% of the population.
Instead of splitting it roughly 31% (plus Northland) to 69% if create a North Auckland franchise.
Let alone, how strongly repulsed I am by the thought of basically an NZ professional domestic team based on race.
PI based or nothing, for me.
-
I just don't get why you'd create a second team in Auckland to cater for only 15% of the population.
Instead of splitting it roughly 31% (plus Northland) to 69% if create a North Auckland franchise.
Let alone, how strongly repulsed I am by the thought of basically an NZ professional domestic team based on race.
PI based or nothing, for me.
-
Australia will rebuff New Zealand Rugby's Super Rugby proposal and look to negotiate on an equal footing after sounding out Argentina and Japan on their interest in alternative models. Rugby Australia boss Rob Clarke has been exchanging emails with his NZR counterpart Mark Robinson but RA is expected to ignore a request to submit expressions of interest in the Kiwis' eight-team competition. "The expression of interest I'm not interested in and if they send it over I won't open it," RA chairman Hamish McLennan said. "If [chairman Brent Impey] and Mark [Robinson] want to chat with Clarkie and myself, I think next week's the week to do it." -
I have no problem basing a PI team in Auckland as it has many advantages over the team being in Suva, for example. The most obvious being the costs required for travel and logistical challenges in the islands. There are also a large number of PI players outside of Auckland, so limiting your player pool to only one city is a stupid move.
The other important point is that if Kanaloa Hawai’i is 100% funding this team then it is similar to Forrest and the Force in Aust. You add a team to your competition at no cost to the home RU. NZR aren't going to ignore that possibility.
-
-
-
@Tim I’m dubious of those figures from The TV ratings be easy enough to change them to support your case of not being the smaller partner
