Super Rugby 2023
-
@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. -
@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.@Crucial yeah, ditch super, seems like a weak flex now compared to super 12 days
i'd re brand them all so it at least appeared like everyone was starting from the same point plus we can get rid of the horribly 90's logos/names, remove any stigma from selecting a new team to support in areas being carved out of existing franchises
My first choice is like @Kirwan says, reinvest in the NPC, make it shiny enough to sell but call back to the history thats already there, make the Ranfurly shield a bigger deal (our version of the FA cup)
-
@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.
@Kirwan I’m happy to hear feedback to my idea (and it is just an off the cuff idea I’m still thinking through)
My concern with the top ten NPC proposal is that it will kill the provinces not in the top 10. The top ten may not have the required geographical spread either.
Most of all, what would the selling point be outside of piddly little NZ? How would it generate enough money to stop a player drain? -
@Crucial yeah, ditch super, seems like a weak flex now compared to super 12 days
i'd re brand them all so it at least appeared like everyone was starting from the same point plus we can get rid of the horribly 90's logos/names, remove any stigma from selecting a new team to support in areas being carved out of existing franchises
My first choice is like @Kirwan says, reinvest in the NPC, make it shiny enough to sell but call back to the history thats already there, make the Ranfurly shield a bigger deal (our version of the FA cup)
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crucial yeah, ditch super, seems like a weak flex now compared to super 12 days
i'd re brand them all so it at least appeared like everyone was starting from the same point plus we can get rid of the horribly 90's logos/names, remove any stigma from selecting a new team to support in areas being carved out of existing franchises
That could have advantages.
I guess the concern with starting completely fresh is that there is no longer any proven setups or fan groups to attract financiers.
Then again fresh starts does put everyone on a even position. -
@Kirwan I’m happy to hear feedback to my idea (and it is just an off the cuff idea I’m still thinking through)
My concern with the top ten NPC proposal is that it will kill the provinces not in the top 10. The top ten may not have the required geographical spread either.
Most of all, what would the selling point be outside of piddly little NZ? How would it generate enough money to stop a player drain?@Crucial Selling point is no worse that what you've proposed, except NZ provinces will be a stronger competition.
MP, Drua, Japanese, US clubs or players are weaker than most if not all NPC sides bolstered with Super Rugby players and ABs.
The first order of business is a strong and entertaining comp. Second is affordable, streamlined structure that supports player longevitiy and the international pathway.
We can't be all things to all people.
And perhaps there is revenue to be had outside the normal broadcasting model if it can't be sold as a traditional package everywhere, with options online or on Apple TV streaming.
The latter is looking at innovative broadcast options and have been having trouble convincing NFL and MLB to try new things. Let them experiment with Rugby, for a price.
-
is the a compromise, give unions the chance to go it alone but if Otago and southland (for example) realise theyre too small to go it alone they can go up as "Otago Southland Rugby"
que central vikings jokes but thats effectively what the Highlanders are hiding behind a different logo and it worked for Ta$man
-
@Crucial Selling point is no worse that what you've proposed, except NZ provinces will be a stronger competition.
MP, Drua, Japanese, US clubs or players are weaker than most if not all NPC sides bolstered with Super Rugby players and ABs.
The first order of business is a strong and entertaining comp. Second is affordable, streamlined structure that supports player longevitiy and the international pathway.
We can't be all things to all people.
And perhaps there is revenue to be had outside the normal broadcasting model if it can't be sold as a traditional package everywhere, with options online or on Apple TV streaming.
The latter is looking at innovative broadcast options and have been having trouble convincing NFL and MLB to try new things. Let them experiment with Rugby, for a price.
@Kirwan said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crucial Selling point is no worse that what you've proposed, except NZ provinces will be a stronger competition.
MP, Drua, Japanese, US clubs or players are weaker than most if not all NPC sides bolstered with Super Rugby players and ABs.
The first order of business is a strong and entertaining comp. Second is affordable, streamlined structure that supports player longevitiy and the international pathway.
We can't be all things to all people.
And perhaps there is revenue to be had outside the normal broadcasting model if it can't be sold as a traditional package everywhere, with options online or on Apple TV streaming.
The latter is looking at innovative broadcast options and have been having trouble convincing NFL and MLB to try new things. Let them experiment with Rugby, for a price.
Maybe my idea wasn’t explained well enough as what you are describing isn’t quite what I had in mind.
The extra franchises would be NZ based (unless Oz wanted to run one from there eg reverse Warriors situation)
The link to Us/Japan markets comes from recruitment from those countries to help fill rosters. Totally up to the franchise how they want to position themselves, but it may make some sense for marketing if you picked a few overseas stars and played some pre season stuff somewhere else.
I like the broadcast ideas, that would possibly fit in nicely
