Super Rugby 2023
-
Ok, so he would be able to play for the ABs while playing for MP then? I didn't think that was the case.
@Crazy-Horse I thought they had an allowance of 20% or so of non-eligible players?
Just my assumption that it would be a smarter move than 'pushing him' to another NZ franchise due to that...I mean surely any team playing with abs on thier roster are going to attract more eyeballs, potentially sponsors as well.
-
@Crazy-Horse I thought they had an allowance of 20% or so of non-eligible players?
Just my assumption that it would be a smarter move than 'pushing him' to another NZ franchise due to that...I mean surely any team playing with abs on thier roster are going to attract more eyeballs, potentially sponsors as well.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crazy-Horse I thought they had an allowance of 20% or so of non-eligible players?
Just my assumption that it would be a smarter move than 'pushing him' to another NZ franchise due to that...I mean surely any team playing with abs on thier roster are going to attract more eyeballs, potentially sponsors as well.
Yeah I knew about the 20% or so, just something in the back of my mind is making me think there was some sort of agreement not to select them. It wouldn't surprise me if I was completely wrong though.
-
Stuff have written a summary of what each team needs to do in the last two rounds
-
Super Rugby Pacific was celebrating late last year after it was agreed that New Zealand and Australia would both commit to the competition until 2030. But now the Australians are reneging on key features of the deal they signed, and fears are rising that Super Rugby Pacific is going to fall apart, leaving professional club rugby in the Southern Hemisphere with a bleak and uninspiring future. Gregor Paul reports.
In December last year, months of what had been tense and at times confrontational negotiations concluded when the rugby unions of New Zealand and Australia signed a joint-venture agreement to commit to Super Rugby Pacific until 2030.
The deal, described by then Rugby Australia chief executive Andy Marinos as “the dawn of a new era”, was built on the three pillars of a short-term revenue sharing agreement, the appointment of an independent commission led by a chief executive and governed by a nine-person board, and a general commitment to give Super Rugby Pacific greater commercial and management autonomy and a stronger identity.
The commission, it was agreed, would have a remit to drive commercial revenue, oversee rules and regulations, shape the future strategic direction and generate fan-first initiatives.
It was being set up to take the lower-level decision-making and day-to-day running out of the hands of Sanzaar, the Sydney-based administrative company owned, funded and governed by the national unions of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.
The 12 Super Rugby Pacific clubs are unanimous in their belief that Sanzaar is conflicted as it primarily exists to protect and promote the interests of the national bodies it represents and its decision-making over the last two decades has reflected its desire to put the international game first.
What NZR and RA agreed when they both signed the term sheet securing Super Rugby Pacific’s future through to 2030, was that the new commission would manage, market and promote Super Rugby, Sanzaar would continue to do the same for the Rugby Championship and that decision-making authority for “major matters” such as negotiating broadcast deals, changing eligibility laws, expanding the number of teams or materially changing the format of either competition would remain categorically with the national unions.
The significance of the agreement was enormous as it ended what was a real prospect of Southern Hemisphere rugby being destroyed by an ongoing and seemingly irresolvable feud between NZR and RA which began in June 2020 when NZR unilaterally blew up the competition, announced it was launching a new one and then told Australia only three of their teams would get in.
The Australians never quite got over being treated like that, and in mid-June last year unexpectedly announced they were ready to quit Super Rugby Pacific at the end of 2023 and set up their own competition — a threat that seemingly ended with the joint-venture agreement until 2030.
“This long-term agreement provides certainty for players, coaches, fans, sponsors and broadcast partners,” declared NZR chief executive Mark Robinson in December last year.
“And it solidifies our joint commitment to ensuring Super Rugby Pacific is the most entertaining, innovative and fan-focused cross-border club competition in the world.”
But six months on and the sense of certainty has been replaced by what is beginning to feel like betrayal as there is still no independent commission or board in operation, and according to multiple sources, RA is reneging on or at least trying to alter many of the conditions that were included in the term sheet it signed.
The fear in New Zealand is that RA is trying to unpick the deal that saved Super Rugby Pacific and persevere with an archaic and conflicted management model that leaves it under the control of national unions and forced to pander to the needs of the Wallabies and All Blacks.
As the Herald understands it, an independent chair and four independent directors have been found to join the CEOs of NZR and RA and the heads of the New Zealand and Australian professional player associations to form a nine-person board as per the terms of the deal.
But it is believed RA chairman Hamish McLennan is claiming that neither he nor his board were made aware of all the conditions in the term sheet and that they don’t support an independent commission being set up.
It is understood that RA now wants an unspecified, but smaller number of people handpicked from the two national unions and participating clubs to run Super Rugby — more as a committee than an active, funded body empowered to drive change.
That would effectively leave Super Rugby under the management and governance of Sanzaar — whose chair is McLennan.
Several sources have confirmed this change of heart occurred after McLennan failed to get his way over the appointment of a chief executive for the independent commission.
Sources say RA wanted to hand-pick the appointment, whereas NZR felt it was more appropriate to run a process. When they couldn’t agree, RA then began walking back its commitment to the commission.
The Herald has also been told that despite the signed term sheet clearly spelling out that “major matters” remain entirely within the control of the national unions, RA has aired concerns that it believes the commission would be able to kick Australian teams out of Super Rugby Pacific on a whim and renegotiate broadcast rights.
RA’s refusal to commit to what it agreed last year has left Super Rugby Pacific in a state of limbo at a time when some of the key metrics around the competition are showing growth.
Broadcast audiences in New Zealand are at their highest levels in five years and NZR wants the commission — which would effectively be a super-charged marketing arm — to be in place to capitalise on this fan revival.
NZR and New Zealand’s clubs also believe that the commission would play a vital role in driving fans back to games as while broadcast numbers are climbing, attendances are suffering an overall decline, albeit with major spikes for specific, high-profile games.
And there is universal agreement on both sides of the Ta$man that more needs to be done to address the inequity in the competition which has seen a gulf open between the top five teams and bottom seven.
Robinson says that talks with RA will resume this week, but that NZR remains committed to implementing the terms agreed last year.
He said: “New Zealand Rugby and our clubs’ position is that we see benefit in having a more dedicated, focused Super Rugby in the shape of a commission with dedicated resource around governance and management model that might have more a singular focus and bring fresh perspective to some of the challenges we have historically seen in the competition.
“We continue to work in partnership with Rugby Australia to work through these matters.”
Given that RA has signed a legally binding contract, it’s unclear what will happen if it continues to refuse to accept the commitment it made last year.
NZR would presumably be reluctant to head to court due to the expense, permanent damage it would inflict upon the relationship and lack of certainty that it would deliver a beneficial, practical outcome.
The more likely consequence is that NZR will withdraw the $7m of annual funding it has agreed to pay RA annually until 2025 as part of a retrospectively agreed broadcast revenue sharing agreement.
But the fact that NZR is having to contemplate court action or cutting the purse strings is a worrying sign that Super Rugby Pacific is not on the solid ground it believed it was late last year.
The future of the Southern Hemisphere’s showpiece club competition is once again shrouded in doubt and being held hostage by vested interests and RA’s refusal to cede any kind of control.
-
Super Rugby Pacific was celebrating late last year after it was agreed that New Zealand and Australia would both commit to the competition until 2030. But now the Australians are reneging on key features of the deal they signed, and fears are rising that Super Rugby Pacific is going to fall apart, leaving professional club rugby in the Southern Hemisphere with a bleak and uninspiring future. Gregor Paul reports.
In December last year, months of what had been tense and at times confrontational negotiations concluded when the rugby unions of New Zealand and Australia signed a joint-venture agreement to commit to Super Rugby Pacific until 2030.
The deal, described by then Rugby Australia chief executive Andy Marinos as “the dawn of a new era”, was built on the three pillars of a short-term revenue sharing agreement, the appointment of an independent commission led by a chief executive and governed by a nine-person board, and a general commitment to give Super Rugby Pacific greater commercial and management autonomy and a stronger identity.
The commission, it was agreed, would have a remit to drive commercial revenue, oversee rules and regulations, shape the future strategic direction and generate fan-first initiatives.
It was being set up to take the lower-level decision-making and day-to-day running out of the hands of Sanzaar, the Sydney-based administrative company owned, funded and governed by the national unions of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.
The 12 Super Rugby Pacific clubs are unanimous in their belief that Sanzaar is conflicted as it primarily exists to protect and promote the interests of the national bodies it represents and its decision-making over the last two decades has reflected its desire to put the international game first.
What NZR and RA agreed when they both signed the term sheet securing Super Rugby Pacific’s future through to 2030, was that the new commission would manage, market and promote Super Rugby, Sanzaar would continue to do the same for the Rugby Championship and that decision-making authority for “major matters” such as negotiating broadcast deals, changing eligibility laws, expanding the number of teams or materially changing the format of either competition would remain categorically with the national unions.
The significance of the agreement was enormous as it ended what was a real prospect of Southern Hemisphere rugby being destroyed by an ongoing and seemingly irresolvable feud between NZR and RA which began in June 2020 when NZR unilaterally blew up the competition, announced it was launching a new one and then told Australia only three of their teams would get in.
The Australians never quite got over being treated like that, and in mid-June last year unexpectedly announced they were ready to quit Super Rugby Pacific at the end of 2023 and set up their own competition — a threat that seemingly ended with the joint-venture agreement until 2030.
“This long-term agreement provides certainty for players, coaches, fans, sponsors and broadcast partners,” declared NZR chief executive Mark Robinson in December last year.
“And it solidifies our joint commitment to ensuring Super Rugby Pacific is the most entertaining, innovative and fan-focused cross-border club competition in the world.”
But six months on and the sense of certainty has been replaced by what is beginning to feel like betrayal as there is still no independent commission or board in operation, and according to multiple sources, RA is reneging on or at least trying to alter many of the conditions that were included in the term sheet it signed.
The fear in New Zealand is that RA is trying to unpick the deal that saved Super Rugby Pacific and persevere with an archaic and conflicted management model that leaves it under the control of national unions and forced to pander to the needs of the Wallabies and All Blacks.
As the Herald understands it, an independent chair and four independent directors have been found to join the CEOs of NZR and RA and the heads of the New Zealand and Australian professional player associations to form a nine-person board as per the terms of the deal.
But it is believed RA chairman Hamish McLennan is claiming that neither he nor his board were made aware of all the conditions in the term sheet and that they don’t support an independent commission being set up.
It is understood that RA now wants an unspecified, but smaller number of people handpicked from the two national unions and participating clubs to run Super Rugby — more as a committee than an active, funded body empowered to drive change.
That would effectively leave Super Rugby under the management and governance of Sanzaar — whose chair is McLennan.
Several sources have confirmed this change of heart occurred after McLennan failed to get his way over the appointment of a chief executive for the independent commission.
Sources say RA wanted to hand-pick the appointment, whereas NZR felt it was more appropriate to run a process. When they couldn’t agree, RA then began walking back its commitment to the commission.
The Herald has also been told that despite the signed term sheet clearly spelling out that “major matters” remain entirely within the control of the national unions, RA has aired concerns that it believes the commission would be able to kick Australian teams out of Super Rugby Pacific on a whim and renegotiate broadcast rights.
RA’s refusal to commit to what it agreed last year has left Super Rugby Pacific in a state of limbo at a time when some of the key metrics around the competition are showing growth.
Broadcast audiences in New Zealand are at their highest levels in five years and NZR wants the commission — which would effectively be a super-charged marketing arm — to be in place to capitalise on this fan revival.
NZR and New Zealand’s clubs also believe that the commission would play a vital role in driving fans back to games as while broadcast numbers are climbing, attendances are suffering an overall decline, albeit with major spikes for specific, high-profile games.
And there is universal agreement on both sides of the Ta$man that more needs to be done to address the inequity in the competition which has seen a gulf open between the top five teams and bottom seven.
Robinson says that talks with RA will resume this week, but that NZR remains committed to implementing the terms agreed last year.
He said: “New Zealand Rugby and our clubs’ position is that we see benefit in having a more dedicated, focused Super Rugby in the shape of a commission with dedicated resource around governance and management model that might have more a singular focus and bring fresh perspective to some of the challenges we have historically seen in the competition.
“We continue to work in partnership with Rugby Australia to work through these matters.”
Given that RA has signed a legally binding contract, it’s unclear what will happen if it continues to refuse to accept the commitment it made last year.
NZR would presumably be reluctant to head to court due to the expense, permanent damage it would inflict upon the relationship and lack of certainty that it would deliver a beneficial, practical outcome.
The more likely consequence is that NZR will withdraw the $7m of annual funding it has agreed to pay RA annually until 2025 as part of a retrospectively agreed broadcast revenue sharing agreement.
But the fact that NZR is having to contemplate court action or cutting the purse strings is a worrying sign that Super Rugby Pacific is not on the solid ground it believed it was late last year.
The future of the Southern Hemisphere’s showpiece club competition is once again shrouded in doubt and being held hostage by vested interests and RA’s refusal to cede any kind of control.
-
@Tim So tiresome. We can expect a response from Mclennan any moment that will have counter-claims.
Bunch of muppets on both sides that only hurts the competition.
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby 2023:
Bunch of muppets on both sides that only hurts the competition.
TBH I think we've been (partially) hard on NZR, they've clearly been dealing with bad actors this entire time. Even a few of the Aussies I know have come to this conclusion - Marinos leaving kind of kicked their brains into action.
I've alway been in favour of a combined comp as I think we need to help Oz and regular matches is going to that from an on field perspective, but I think (provided the Magpies are involved
) NZ going alone might actually be the best thing. -
I have a problem if RA actually signed agreement and now says it doesn't like it. I actually really wonder if the reports is particularly correct or smacks or poor/incompetent work be said board. They can't be that bad, and as I say I not convinced about much of it.
I also really believe it needs to be run by independant board anyway, always have. -
Get on the phone to Japan, before Aus
-
Get on the phone to Japan, before Aus
-
Get on the phone to Japan, before Aus
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Get on the phone to Japan, before Aus
Weren't we recently just on the phone to Japan? That might be what set Kim Jong Mclennan off.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Get on the phone to Japan, before Aus
Weren't we recently just on the phone to Japan? That might be what set Kim Jong Mclennan off.
@Nepia fast track whatever plans they were working on
-
@taniwharugby get on the phone to broadcasters for a ten year deal for a strengthened NZ only comp with ten teams.
Does it matter if it’s Hawkes Bay getting smashed or the Reds?
@Kirwan said in Super Rugby 2023:
@taniwharugby get on the phone to broadcasters for a ten year deal for a strengthened NZ only comp with ten teams.
Does it matter if it’s Hawkes Bay getting smashed or the Reds?
i know we rely on a lot of players from hawkes bay but we dont spell Otago like that just yet ;o)
-
If we want to control our own destiny then we should take the opportunity of the ability gap between us and Oz and go it alone.
Agree with changing the model. Take 10 franchises and allow imports.
We can always put some rules around protecting the top 150 odd players in the country.
We need to create a saleable product given our timezone (in the way that football does). One that a package can be sold to Japan/US.
Encourage the use of imports from the cream of those countries to increase interest.
Oz can decide whether to allow their players in.
10 top line teams will take a while to settle so some distribution of talent may be required.- Existing 5 franchises
- Drua
- MP with an ability to bolster team with imports (including Oz based PI players if they wish to target them)
- 3 more bases. Geographically it would be ideal to slice the Chiefs in half but probably more likely that Taranaki is one new base. HB another. Splitting Auckland in two would make a lot of sense to create a proper derby situation (a Rangers/Celtic, Hibs/Hearts, Man U, Man C type thing)
-
If we want to control our own destiny then we should take the opportunity of the ability gap between us and Oz and go it alone.
Agree with changing the model. Take 10 franchises and allow imports.
We can always put some rules around protecting the top 150 odd players in the country.
We need to create a saleable product given our timezone (in the way that football does). One that a package can be sold to Japan/US.
Encourage the use of imports from the cream of those countries to increase interest.
Oz can decide whether to allow their players in.
10 top line teams will take a while to settle so some distribution of talent may be required.- Existing 5 franchises
- Drua
- MP with an ability to bolster team with imports (including Oz based PI players if they wish to target them)
- 3 more bases. Geographically it would be ideal to slice the Chiefs in half but probably more likely that Taranaki is one new base. HB another. Splitting Auckland in two would make a lot of sense to create a proper derby situation (a Rangers/Celtic, Hibs/Hearts, Man U, Man C type thing)
NZs struggling to support 5 or 6 teams now. Add three more and it might be too big a cost. I think we must continue to work with aust. I know there's a major issue with them with too many teams. But NZ need to sort ourselves out first. To ensure the Highlander and MP are much stronger. And one team doesn't always win it. Is NZR can't do this how will they achieve more equal teams with even more teams
-
NZs struggling to support 5 or 6 teams now. Add three more and it might be too big a cost. I think we must continue to work with aust. I know there's a major issue with them with too many teams. But NZ need to sort ourselves out first. To ensure the Highlander and MP are much stronger. And one team doesn't always win it. Is NZR can't do this how will they achieve more equal teams with even more teams
@Winger said in Super Rugby 2023:
NZs struggling to support 5 or 6 teams now. Add three more and it might be too big a cost. I think we must continue to work with aust. I know there's a major issue with them with too many teams. But NZ need to sort ourselves out first. To ensure the Highlander and MP are much stronger. And one team doesn't always win it. Is NZR can't do this how will they achieve more equal teams with even more teams
The inequity is with Oz though and it is becoming apparent that they see their future with internal comps only. They get better crowds and more engagement.
10 teams is 350 players.
We comfortably have half of those to supply into the pot, if not a little more.
Drua supply 10%, MP maybe 5%. That leaves say 25% of rosters to be filled with imports 90-100 players from Japan, Oz and US. Probably some Saffas and Argies too plus a handful of Europeans. They can be a mixture of upcomers, oldtimers and experience seekers.
I reckon you'd fill it if the marketing was independent from teams, the recruitment was innovative etc.
Our point of difference would be targeting US/Japan. If a new franchise got a hold of a couple of popular top Japan players they could sell the hell out of jerseys etc if they were allowed to do deals outside of the adidas one.
Yep, it's a think big strategy but it does have some foundation. We have a history for quality and coaching ability. We play a style that is more exciting etc -
we fan may also need to lower our expectations for a few years, spread the tallent a bit and over time the over all skill level will come back up
what ever we do i think we need to commit to it long term (and so we need to pick something that works with that)...the great sporting comps generally have history, we're never going to build that if we keep chopping and changing, adding 1-2 teams every so often can work but the over all structure needs to stay the same, same trophy and name etc
-
NZs struggling to support 5 or 6 teams now. Add three more and it might be too big a cost. I think we must continue to work with aust. I know there's a major issue with them with too many teams. But NZ need to sort ourselves out first. To ensure the Highlander and MP are much stronger. And one team doesn't always win it. Is NZR can't do this how will they achieve more equal teams with even more teams
@Winger If we consolidate the NPC and Super Rugby teams then drastically reduce costs.
Crucial's idea is terrible. Just spread the talent across the existing top ten NPC sides (with a view to population growth) and leverage the tribalism that's already there.
That gives a spread of talent over areas like Auckland already.
The standard of rugby will be good, and more importantly, entertaining. The key is less is more, for a contact sport you can't have a million games. Solves player burnout at the same time, as well as travel demands.
Have fun Aussie.
-
we fan may also need to lower our expectations for a few years, spread the tallent a bit and over time the over all skill level will come back up
what ever we do i think we need to commit to it long term (and so we need to pick something that works with that)...the great sporting comps generally have history, we're never going to build that if we keep chopping and changing, adding 1-2 teams every so often can work but the over all structure needs to stay the same, same trophy and name etc
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
we fan may also need to lower our expectations for a few years, spread the tallent a bit and over time the over all skill level will come back up
Agree. Some big franchises may have to share some depth around as well, but that can be achieved with a player market. Get a monetary return on players you develop but also bank value for the good ones. .
what ever we do i think we need to commit to it long term (and so we need to pick something that works with that)...the great sporting comps generally have history, we're never going to build that if we keep chopping and changing, adding 1-2 teams every so often can work but the over all structure needs to stay the same, same trophy and name etc
It’s a full reset proposition. I would ditch the “Super” moniker (tarnished), keep existing franchise names and put the other franchises out to market
Super will never stop fiddling because of the make up of countries and governance. Case in point the convicts reneging and not accepting a loss of power in trade for a better comp.
