Super Rugby 2023
-
"Like, would you believe, Super Rugby does not even have its own administration, its own board, its own leadership and decision-making structure. The intent is there, but common ground has been difficult to find."
“For it to become the competition we want it to be we need to have people working on it 24/7 and to do that you need to build capacity and strategic direction,” adds the Blues boss. ”We need an independent board like the NRL, like the AFL, which enables an independent management team to be built which can then be thinking, growing and developing the competition.”
"Hore sees two pathways for NZ Rugby and their mates in Australia. “Either you go like cricket and run little high-performance hubs and basically diminish what we have; or if you want to thrive and challenge the NRL and AFL we’ve got to invest, to allow people to be thinking about it every day and we’ve got to think big. That’s also going to take some empowerment for people."
“We need to be fan-centric, and at the moment we’re high-performance-centric and the balance isn’t quite right. It’s about what the fan wants, what they need to see, and that can sometimes go against high performance.”
“At the moment we’re still hitched to the national bodies, and they’re not necessarily motivated to make franchises better. That’s the issue. The national bodies need to decide: do we want to build a product that everyone’s going to cherish and reinvest in; or do we want to run it, and own everything?"
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
"Like, would you believe, Super Rugby does not even have its own administration, its own board, its own leadership and decision-making structure. The intent is there, but common ground has been difficult to find."
“For it to become the competition we want it to be we need to have people working on it 24/7 and to do that you need to build capacity and strategic direction,” adds the Blues boss. ”We need an independent board like the NRL, like the AFL, which enables an independent management team to be built which can then be thinking, growing and developing the competition.”
"Hore sees two pathways for NZ Rugby and their mates in Australia. “Either you go like cricket and run little high-performance hubs and basically diminish what we have; or if you want to thrive and challenge the NRL and AFL we’ve got to invest, to allow people to be thinking about it every day and we’ve got to think big. That’s also going to take some empowerment for people."
“We need to be fan-centric, and at the moment we’re high-performance-centric and the balance isn’t quite right. It’s about what the fan wants, what they need to see, and that can sometimes go against high performance.”
“At the moment we’re still hitched to the national bodies, and they’re not necessarily motivated to make franchises better. That’s the issue. The national bodies need to decide: do we want to build a product that everyone’s going to cherish and reinvest in; or do we want to run it, and own everything?"
Fuck me, lets create the board and put that man in charge, love everything he said. We really do need to look at the AFL and figure out how they have some of the highest attendance figures on a regular basis.
-
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
-
Lets have a look at the standings, the TAB odds, and the run home for the top 5 teams.
Chiefs: Highlanders away, Reds home, Hurricanes home, Brumbies away, Force away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Brumbies: Rebels away, Highlanders home, Force away, Chiefs home, Rebels home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Hurricanes: Drua away, MP home, Chiefs away, Blues away, Crusaders home.
Should win 2 or 3 of those.
Blues: MP home, Crusaders away, Reds away, Hurricanes home, Highlanders home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders: Force home, Blues home, MP home, Waratahs home, Hurricanes away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders probably have the best run home, and could well win all their remaining games. Hurricanes have the toughest.
Lets say that the Chiefs and Crusaders win 5, Blues and Brumbies 4, and Hurricanes 2. With no bonus points, which could be key, that gives:
Chiefs 60
Brumbies 48
Crusaders 48
Blues 46
Hurricanes 39As far as bonus points go, I could see all teams getting 3 each.
That gives the Hurricanes a tough quarterfinal away to the Blues, Crusaders, or Brumbies. The winner of that has to play the Chiefs in Hamilton. Maybe the Crusaders will beat the Brumbies in Canberra, and play the Chiefs in the finals. Blues would really be looking forward to spoiling the party in Hamilton though - after all, they just had to kick some of the many penalties in the Chiefs 22 last time ...
-
Lets have a look at the standings, the TAB odds, and the run home for the top 5 teams.
Chiefs: Highlanders away, Reds home, Hurricanes home, Brumbies away, Force away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Brumbies: Rebels away, Highlanders home, Force away, Chiefs home, Rebels home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Hurricanes: Drua away, MP home, Chiefs away, Blues away, Crusaders home.
Should win 2 or 3 of those.
Blues: MP home, Crusaders away, Reds away, Hurricanes home, Highlanders home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders: Force home, Blues home, MP home, Waratahs home, Hurricanes away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders probably have the best run home, and could well win all their remaining games. Hurricanes have the toughest.
Lets say that the Chiefs and Crusaders win 5, Blues and Brumbies 4, and Hurricanes 2. With no bonus points, which could be key, that gives:
Chiefs 60
Brumbies 48
Crusaders 48
Blues 46
Hurricanes 39As far as bonus points go, I could see all teams getting 3 each.
That gives the Hurricanes a tough quarterfinal away to the Blues, Crusaders, or Brumbies. The winner of that has to play the Chiefs in Hamilton. Maybe the Crusaders will beat the Brumbies in Canberra, and play the Chiefs in the finals. Blues would really be looking forward to spoiling the party in Hamilton though - after all, they just had to kick some of the many penalties in the Chiefs 22 last time ...
-
Lets have a look at the standings, the TAB odds, and the run home for the top 5 teams.
Chiefs: Highlanders away, Reds home, Hurricanes home, Brumbies away, Force away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Brumbies: Rebels away, Highlanders home, Force away, Chiefs home, Rebels home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Hurricanes: Drua away, MP home, Chiefs away, Blues away, Crusaders home.
Should win 2 or 3 of those.
Blues: MP home, Crusaders away, Reds away, Hurricanes home, Highlanders home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders: Force home, Blues home, MP home, Waratahs home, Hurricanes away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders probably have the best run home, and could well win all their remaining games. Hurricanes have the toughest.
Lets say that the Chiefs and Crusaders win 5, Blues and Brumbies 4, and Hurricanes 2. With no bonus points, which could be key, that gives:
Chiefs 60
Brumbies 48
Crusaders 48
Blues 46
Hurricanes 39As far as bonus points go, I could see all teams getting 3 each.
That gives the Hurricanes a tough quarterfinal away to the Blues, Crusaders, or Brumbies. The winner of that has to play the Chiefs in Hamilton. Maybe the Crusaders will beat the Brumbies in Canberra, and play the Chiefs in the finals. Blues would really be looking forward to spoiling the party in Hamilton though - after all, they just had to kick some of the many penalties in the Chiefs 22 last time ...
@Tim You are very confident re Blues there. On paper your calculations look good. But..
If Hurricanes have an upset win or two and Chiefs rest players when home playoffs are assured then it is possible that Blues and Crusaders play QF and winner plays Brumbies away. Wearing a Chiefs hat that could be a great scenario...
-
@Tim You are very confident re Blues there. On paper your calculations look good. But..
If Hurricanes have an upset win or two and Chiefs rest players when home playoffs are assured then it is possible that Blues and Crusaders play QF and winner plays Brumbies away. Wearing a Chiefs hat that could be a great scenario...
-
@Stargazer corrected
-
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
"Like, would you believe, Super Rugby does not even have its own administration, its own board, its own leadership and decision-making structure. The intent is there, but common ground has been difficult to find."
“For it to become the competition we want it to be we need to have people working on it 24/7 and to do that you need to build capacity and strategic direction,” adds the Blues boss. ”We need an independent board like the NRL, like the AFL, which enables an independent management team to be built which can then be thinking, growing and developing the competition.”
"Hore sees two pathways for NZ Rugby and their mates in Australia. “Either you go like cricket and run little high-performance hubs and basically diminish what we have; or if you want to thrive and challenge the NRL and AFL we’ve got to invest, to allow people to be thinking about it every day and we’ve got to think big. That’s also going to take some empowerment for people."
“We need to be fan-centric, and at the moment we’re high-performance-centric and the balance isn’t quite right. It’s about what the fan wants, what they need to see, and that can sometimes go against high performance.”
“At the moment we’re still hitched to the national bodies, and they’re not necessarily motivated to make franchises better. That’s the issue. The national bodies need to decide: do we want to build a product that everyone’s going to cherish and reinvest in; or do we want to run it, and own everything?"
Fuck me, lets create the board and put that man in charge, love everything he said. We really do need to look at the AFL and figure out how they have some of the highest attendance figures on a regular basis.
@chimoaus said in Super Rugby 2023:
Fuck me, lets create the board and put that man in charge, love everything he said. We really do need to look at the AFL and figure out how they have some of the highest attendance figures on a regular basis.
Time to follow the NRL structure of a separate SR organisation to run SR. Keep the 12 clubs, use a salary cap and allow players to move between any of the 12 teams. If Scott Barrett or Damian McKenzie want to play for the Force, no problem, their salary comes out of a salary cap. Maybe ring fence the so called 'super stars' or buy-ins from cross code (NRL) and allow registered third party deals (limited to one or two per team). International representation would be to country of birth. Something needs to happen to make SR a strength in our game and we need to make Australia strong again… who knows we may see the odd overseas player down under with third party deals bringing some stars down from the North or back home.
-
@ARHS I can't see the Hurricanes winning at Eden Park, unless there is an injury crisis in the Blues squad. Canes at home against Crusaders probably a better chance for them to win.
Blues will flog the Highlanders.
@Tim said in Super Rugby 2023:
@ARHS I can't see the Hurricanes winning at Eden Park, unless there is an injury crisis in the Blues squad. Canes at home against Crusaders probably a better chance for them to win.
Blues will flog the Highlanders.
Fair enough. Just saying I think Canes are a chance in both. An upset might hugely change finals permutations.
-
Lets have a look at the standings, the TAB odds, and the run home for the top 5 teams.
Chiefs: Highlanders away, Reds home, Hurricanes home, Brumbies away, Force away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Brumbies: Rebels away, Highlanders home, Force away, Chiefs home, Rebels home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Hurricanes: Drua away, MP home, Chiefs away, Blues away, Crusaders home.
Should win 2 or 3 of those.
Blues: MP home, Crusaders away, Reds away, Hurricanes home, Highlanders home.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders: Force home, Blues home, MP home, Waratahs home, Hurricanes away.
Should win 4 or 5 of those.
Crusaders probably have the best run home, and could well win all their remaining games. Hurricanes have the toughest.
Lets say that the Chiefs and Crusaders win 5, Blues and Brumbies 4, and Hurricanes 2. With no bonus points, which could be key, that gives:
Chiefs 60
Brumbies 48
Crusaders 48
Blues 46
Hurricanes 39As far as bonus points go, I could see all teams getting 3 each.
That gives the Hurricanes a tough quarterfinal away to the Blues, Crusaders, or Brumbies. The winner of that has to play the Chiefs in Hamilton. Maybe the Crusaders will beat the Brumbies in Canberra, and play the Chiefs in the finals. Blues would really be looking forward to spoiling the party in Hamilton though - after all, they just had to kick some of the many penalties in the Chiefs 22 last time ...
-
May as well put this here after the comment about resting over the last 5 games.
The run home for the NZ contenders...with opportunities to rest players in bold
Chiefs: Highlanders (A), Reds (H), Hurricanes (H), Brumbies (A), Force (A)
Hurricanes: Drua (A), Moana (H), Chiefs (A), Blues (A), Crusaders (H)
Blues: Moana (H), Crusaders (A), Reds (A), Hurricanes (H), Highlanders (H)
Crusaders: Force (H), Blues (H), Moana (A), Tahs (H), Hurricanes (A)Laying that out you can see that with only 4 points separating places 2-5 on the table and four NZ teams being in that group there is likely to be some shuffling of positions .
Blues and Crusaders have both the draw and ability to come home with a wet sail. Chiefs have a nice 8 point table lead so can plan a run to the finals with no big concerns if they drop a game.
Canes have a hard last three weeks.Rough table points for NZ sides at end of RR?
Chiefs 60
Crusaders 50
Blues 50
Canes 44Brumbies 52
My crystal ball tells me that we will have a Chiefs v Blues and Brumbies v Crusaders semis
-
May as well put this here after the comment about resting over the last 5 games.
The run home for the NZ contenders...with opportunities to rest players in bold
Chiefs: Highlanders (A), Reds (H), Hurricanes (H), Brumbies (A), Force (A)
Hurricanes: Drua (A), Moana (H), Chiefs (A), Blues (A), Crusaders (H)
Blues: Moana (H), Crusaders (A), Reds (A), Hurricanes (H), Highlanders (H)
Crusaders: Force (H), Blues (H), Moana (A), Tahs (H), Hurricanes (A)Laying that out you can see that with only 4 points separating places 2-5 on the table and four NZ teams being in that group there is likely to be some shuffling of positions .
Blues and Crusaders have both the draw and ability to come home with a wet sail. Chiefs have a nice 8 point table lead so can plan a run to the finals with no big concerns if they drop a game.
Canes have a hard last three weeks.Rough table points for NZ sides at end of RR?
Chiefs 60
Crusaders 50
Blues 50
Canes 44Brumbies 52
My crystal ball tells me that we will have a Chiefs v Blues and Brumbies v Crusaders semis
@Crucial said in Super Rugby 2023:
May as well put this here after the comment about resting over the last 5 games.
The run home for the NZ contenders...with opportunities to rest players in bold
Chiefs: Highlanders (A), Reds (H), Hurricanes (H), Brumbies (A), Force (A)
I expect all of the Taranaki players to be involved in the Reds game. That allows you to rest Cane and Taukei’aho at least. Rest DMac, Retallick and a few others for the Force.
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
Super Rugby is only a new comp because of Covid. The NRL and AFL did not have to reconfigure their comps due to Covid. SR did as the Saffas used it as an excuse to leave.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
Super Rugby is only a new comp because of Covid. The NRL and AFL did not have to reconfigure their comps due to Covid. SR did as the Saffas used it as an excuse to leave.
@Nepia they both did change their comps quite a bit, teams having to be away for months, whilst melbourne was locked down the melbourne teams all played away, they had hubs and super rounds etc....rugby just kind of said..."too hard"
I think what i have taken from above is an independent board running the comp might have worked a way to do it rather than 5 independent nations trying to nut it out and failing
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
Super Rugby is only a new comp because of Covid. The NRL and AFL did not have to reconfigure their comps due to Covid. SR did as the Saffas used it as an excuse to leave.
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
Super Rugby is only a new comp because of Covid. The NRL and AFL did not have to reconfigure their comps due to Covid. SR did as the Saffas used it as an excuse to leave.
I seem to remember the geniuses at NZR kicking out Argentina, SA, and 3 of 5 Ozzie teams too
