Super Rugby - The Future
-
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
@Nepia in my heart i agree....but, i also look back at the crowds we use to get and wonder if thats just the sad reality of making things viable
edit: i would ditch the franchise branding though and go with the PU's or some up with something new though
-
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
It's behind a paywall so I assume you didn't read it
The franchises were surprised by the suggestion and disagree with some of the assumptions made (competing for sponsorship dollars etc)
The tone of the article is about confusion caused by conflicting reviews
What the clubs are really saying is that the report is advocating for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s the appearance of this almost random idea to merge Super Rugby clubs with provincial unions that has sparked concern about whether New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has an excessive culture of commissioning needless reports, the findings of which are rarely acted upon. -
The Idea that two professional teams in the same area are competing for the same sponsors does just feel like common sense, much like the idea that one team playing across two competitions (ie more tv over a longer period) might make it more attractive for bigger companies to sponsor
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
It's behind a paywall so I assume you didn't read it
The franchises were surprised by the suggestion and disagree with some of the assumptions made (competing for sponsorship dollars etc)
The tone of the article is about confusion caused by conflicting reviews
What the clubs are really saying is that the report is advocating for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s the appearance of this almost random idea to merge Super Rugby clubs with provincial unions that has sparked concern about whether New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has an excessive culture of commissioning needless reports, the findings of which are rarely acted upon.@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Oh great, a return to when the Super franchises just dominated and sucked all the players away.
Although it's Gregor Paul so I'd take it with a grain of salt.
It's behind a paywall so I assume you didn't read it
The franchises were surprised by the suggestion and disagree with some of the assumptions made (competing for sponsorship dollars etc)
The tone of the article is about confusion caused by conflicting reviews
What the clubs are really saying is that the report is advocating for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s the appearance of this almost random idea to merge Super Rugby clubs with provincial unions that has sparked concern about whether New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has an excessive culture of commissioning needless reports, the findings of which are rarely acted upon.We're supposed to read before we comment now? What is the Fern coming too? I'm not Mauss.
Also, the inference I'm too poor to afford a Herald subscription is bit galling.
-
@Nepia in my heart i agree....but, i also look back at the crowds we use to get and wonder if thats just the sad reality of making things viable
edit: i would ditch the franchise branding though and go with the PU's or some up with something new though
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia in my heart i agree....but, i also look back at the crowds we use to get and wonder if thats just the sad reality of making things viable
edit: i would ditch the franchise branding though and go with the PU's or some up with something new though
With the crowds I don't think correlation equals causation.
In all honesty, as long as the franchise unions don't use the sharing to exert power over the playing stocks in NZ rugby (like they used to under the old system) then I don't really care.
It will annoy me if franchise cash is used to prop up a financially reckless provincial union though. Yeah, I'm looking at you Wellington.
-
i think setting them up in Melbourne would be a huge mistake, locals didnt support the rebels even though they were supposedly representing them...let alone if theyre actually from somewhere else, surprisingly few south africans knocking around the rugby scene here
relocating MP MIGHT be able to tap into the expat PI communities...maybe
my biggest gripe was always games in RSA seemed to be afternoon or late after noon so 3am NZ time....but games in NZ were always 730 or even 8 (i was told and i dont know hoe true this is but so it was a better time for RSA to watch)....a more even schedule would help a lot...for me
-
The potential disruption to the competition would probably know this one on the head. The Argentinians were supposed to be reentering Super Rugby, have ditched it.
@SBW1 yeah, the Jags (or equivalent) re-entering was a very strong rumour thats not eventuated
-
@SBW1 yeah, the Jags (or equivalent) re-entering was a very strong rumour thats not eventuated
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@SBW1 yeah, the Jags (or equivalent) re-entering was a very strong rumour thats not eventuated
Probably not helped by the Argentinian economy completely tanking.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@SBW1 yeah, the Jags (or equivalent) re-entering was a very strong rumour thats not eventuated
Probably not helped by the Argentinian economy completely tanking.
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@SBW1 yeah, the Jags (or equivalent) re-entering was a very strong rumour thats not eventuated
Probably not helped by the Argentinian economy completely tanking.
Under Javier Milei SR could have a new bankroll.
We need to be enticing them back.
-
The Jaguares were never going go rejoin Super Rugby without South Africa's involvement, it was a rumour with no legs.
The Cheetahs absolutely won't be joining either (and why would you want them involved? The four best South African sides were getting worse and worse by the time the old format ended, and the Cheetahs are considerably worse than that).
-
Somehow linking up with North American and Japanese competitions is the only way I can see Super Rugby surviving in the medium term. International interest in the competition since the South Africans left is virtually zero.
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Somehow linking up with North American and Japanese competitions is the only way I can see Super Rugby surviving in the medium term. International interest in the competition since the South Africans left is virtually zero.
This remains true.
-
The South African teams are viewed with some serious rose tinted glasses by not only South Africans but NZers.
They were quite poor in the closing years of the competition as we knew it (Lions aside I guess), with the overseas selection rule hurting their franchises as well as just generally not being as good as the NZ sides.
-
The South African teams are viewed with some serious rose tinted glasses by not only South Africans but NZers.
They were quite poor in the closing years of the competition as we knew it (Lions aside I guess), with the overseas selection rule hurting their franchises as well as just generally not being as good as the NZ sides.
@zedsdeadbaby said in Super Rugby - The Future:
The South African teams are viewed with some serious rose tinted glasses by not only South Africans but NZers.
They were quite poor in the closing years of the competition as we knew it (Lions aside I guess), with the overseas selection rule hurting their franchises as well as just generally not being as good as the NZ sides.
That may well be true but I do believe they added a harder edge to our forwards that we don't get only playing the Aussie forwards. At the end of the day most of those Saffa teams had big guys in the forwards who loved to win collisions.
While we've won games against Ireland we've struggled against France ( top team ) and South Africa. Looking at how easily the Lions are winning collisions against the Aussie teams there are question marks around whether or not Super Rugby is adequately preparing our forwards to win collisions against big strong players.
-
The South African teams are viewed with some serious rose tinted glasses by not only South Africans but NZers.
They were quite poor in the closing years of the competition as we knew it (Lions aside I guess), with the overseas selection rule hurting their franchises as well as just generally not being as good as the NZ sides.
@zedsdeadbaby said in Super Rugby - The Future:
The South African teams are viewed with some serious rose tinted glasses by not only South Africans but NZers.
They were quite poor in the closing years of the competition as we knew it (Lions aside I guess), with the overseas selection rule hurting their franchises as well as just generally not being as good as the NZ sides.
Just like some players. The less they play, the better they get!
