Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

All things Rugby
User avatar
Puma
Posts: 4078
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Puma »

goeagles wrote:
Puma wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
camroc1 wrote:FWIW it's being reported in Ireland that the four SA super sides will replace the Cheetahs, and the Kings in the Celtic/Pro whatever League from next season.
Nice one, win-win for everyone.
Jaguares say "meowwwww..."
I know it sucks but long term focusing on a more Argentina-centric SLAR could be a good thing.
In an ideal world, the endgame would be to develop the region in order to have a high standard local competition.

In the real world, this is back to 2007. Nearly half of the top Jaguares players have reached agreements with european clubs.

And SLAR, while being a great development tool, it had nearly zero public draw... IMHO it's only sustainable if it gains respectability (top stars and organization) and a central spot (not the thursday night TV spot it had...
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by kiap »

UncleFB wrote:
kiap wrote:
UncleFB wrote:it was written into the 1970s agreement when we saved Aussie rugby from extinction.
Gold lives matter, bro.
Exactly, we marched for you in the 70s (well our parents and grandparents did at least) and then gave you meaningful competition to keep you going through a rough patch ... we'll likely try to do the same now if your administrators keep calm.
Yebo :lol:

How about a calm thanks but no thanks.
RandomNavigat0r
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:32 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by RandomNavigat0r »

Slim 293 wrote:
kiap wrote:
Jensrsa wrote:Oz going it alone?
Fixtures would be a bit like 2019 ... minus South Africa. So, to that extent yes.

But, overall, I would say no.
Jensrsa wrote:How is the NRC doing?

2019: Attendance 57,800 (average 1,865 per match)
NRC was a 2nd div comp in the spring and leading into summer. Crowds for the actual rugby season were 8k to 10k+ average in 2019:

Tahs 13,069
Reds 11,532
Force 9,946
Rebels 8,870
Brums 8,509

That figure came from a poster at G&GR taking a guess...

The Rebels only posted crowd figures for one match last year, but I think it's fair to say their numbers would've been even lower than the Brumbies average.
That tahs crowd average was substantially lower. Doubt it included the Cheetahs game where only 4000 people turned up.
RandomNavigat0r
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:32 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by RandomNavigat0r »

Puma wrote:
goeagles wrote:
Puma wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
camroc1 wrote:FWIW it's being reported in Ireland that the four SA super sides will replace the Cheetahs, and the Kings in the Celtic/Pro whatever League from next season.
Nice one, win-win for everyone.
Jaguares say "meowwwww..."
I know it sucks but long term focusing on a more Argentina-centric SLAR could be a good thing.
In an ideal world, the endgame would be to develop the region in order to have a high standard local competition.

In the real world, this is back to 2007. Nearly half of the top Jaguares players have reached agreements with european clubs.

And SLAR, while being a great development tool, it had nearly zero public draw... IMHO it's only sustainable if it gains respectability (top stars and organization) and a central spot (not the thursday night TV spot it had...
Maybe you can join Global Rapid Rugby. Send Twiggy an email, or better yet get Pichot to make a call to his old boss. It may one day act as a feeder for a spot in the TT comp one day.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by UncleFB »

kiap wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
kiap wrote:
UncleFB wrote:it was written into the 1970s agreement when we saved Aussie rugby from extinction.
Gold lives matter, bro.
Exactly, we marched for you in the 70s (well our parents and grandparents did at least) and then gave you meaningful competition to keep you going through a rough patch ... we'll likely try to do the same now if your administrators keep calm.
Yebo :lol:

How about a calm thanks but no thanks.
All we can do is extend our olive branch, if the Australian Rugby News Limited Junta don't want to accept it like their 1970s fore-bearers did then it is what it is.
User avatar
Sensible Stephen
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Sensible Stephen »

I agree with the Kiwis in that 5 teams is too many, the NZ teams are too strong. You'd either have a couple of strong teams and then 2 easy beats. 4 teams is better, but I can see the argument for 3 (but not 2!). Merge ACT and Melbourne. 5 + 3 = 8.
User avatar
fonzeee
Posts: 4520
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by fonzeee »

Sensible Stephen wrote:I agree with the Kiwis in that 5 teams is too many, the NZ teams are too strong. You'd either have a couple of strong teams and then 2 easy beats. 4 teams is better, but I can see the argument for 3 (but not 2!). Merge ACT and Melbourne. 5 + 3 = 8.
Split games between ACT and Melbourne or would it be one or the other?

Is Canberra still a rugby stronghold?
User avatar
Sensible Stephen
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Sensible Stephen »

fonzeee wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:I agree with the Kiwis in that 5 teams is too many, the NZ teams are too strong. You'd either have a couple of strong teams and then 2 easy beats. 4 teams is better, but I can see the argument for 3 (but not 2!). Merge ACT and Melbourne. 5 + 3 = 8.
Split games between ACT and Melbourne or would it be one or the other?

Is Canberra still a rugby stronghold?
Split them. They will never cut Melbourne, there is too much potential $$$ there. ACT just doesn't have the same potential.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by kiap »

Sensible Stephen wrote:Merge ACT and Melbourne.
Hard to make happen. Even with a bankruptcy there'd just be a team deletion -- which could achieve your preferred goal -- but still a need to force insolvency.

Alternatively, you have more than one comp. Oz-controlled (5, 6 or more teams) feeding into a Champs Cup/Challenge Cup where there are TT matchups. The arrangements then are more flexible rather than existential.

But whichever way this goes, the whole shebang is likely to be a 2-year proposition only, requiring a future re-deal.

Sky TV NZ is in trouble. Foxtel is in touble. Channel Nein is in trouble, dot dot dot...

That's the sort of timeframe needed before a semblance of clarity can emerge.
RandomNavigat0r
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:32 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by RandomNavigat0r »

kiap wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Merge ACT and Melbourne.
Hard to make happen. Even with a bankruptcy there'd just be a team deletion -- which could achieve your preferred goal -- but still a need to force insolvency.

Alternatively, you have more than one comp. Oz-controlled (5, 6 or more teams) feeding into a Champs Cup/Challenge Cup where there are TT matchups. The arrangements then are more flexible rather than existential.

But whichever way this goes, the whole shebang is likely to be a 2-year proposition only, requiring a future re-deal.

Sky TV NZ is in trouble. Foxtel is in touble. Channel Nein is in trouble, dot dot dot...

That's the sort of timeframe needed before a semblance of clarity can emerge.
Its what should have happened in 2017 when they axed the wrong side.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Slim 293 »

RandomNavigat0r wrote:
kiap wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Merge ACT and Melbourne.
Hard to make happen. Even with a bankruptcy there'd just be a team deletion -- which could achieve your preferred goal -- but still a need to force insolvency.

Alternatively, you have more than one comp. Oz-controlled (5, 6 or more teams) feeding into a Champs Cup/Challenge Cup where there are TT matchups. The arrangements then are more flexible rather than existential.

But whichever way this goes, the whole shebang is likely to be a 2-year proposition only, requiring a future re-deal.

Sky TV NZ is in trouble. Foxtel is in touble. Channel Nein is in trouble, dot dot dot...

That's the sort of timeframe needed before a semblance of clarity can emerge.
Its what should have happened in 2017 when they axed the wrong side.

It was covered at length all those years ago, but in short - RA couldn't merge them, and they were certainly not going to cut their top performing team.
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

UncleFB wrote:
grievous wrote:
kiap wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:Where are the other three coming from? After an Adelaide side I assume?
Possibly not Adelaide, unless a big benefactor gets behind it. While it is a city of 1.3 million and does have premiership rugby, the standard of amateur competition there is still lagging. Would be a long-term project.

NSW and Qld could support more than one team. Sydney itself is a bigger polity than nz. Another possibility could be a side from Fiji, again dollars are what drives these options.
As much as I would like Adelaide to have a side (they havent even been given an official Wallabies test yet) this would be too much, a semi pro NRC team maybe but that comp is dead now.
CEO quoted as saying
Rugby Australia chairman Hamish McLennan delivered a scathing assessment of New Zealand plans to limit Australia to two or three teams in a trans-Tasman competition, calling the dynamic between the nations "master-servant" as negotiations heat up over the future of Super Rugby.

McLennan paid tribute to the longstanding ties between the two rugby nations but said Australia needed the maximum number of teams in whatever replaced the ailing competition in 2021 and suggested New Zealand would be foolish to walk away from what Australia had to offer.

He was backed up the chairs of the NSW and Queensland Rugby Unions in a move to go it alone in an amped-up domestic competition, potentially featuring city and country sides from NSW and Queensland, the Western Force and a Big Bash-style injection of foreign talent from South Africa and Argentina.

"I love New Zealand and its people and we have strong cultural ties and a rich rugby heritage, but it feels a bit master-servant at the moment," McLennan said.

"If we're building up to the [2023] World Cup and rebuilding Australian rugby we need the maximum amount of teams in the competition, including our friends at the Force.

"From what I've heard, the Super Rugby clubs on both sides of the Tasman have been speaking and I hear they want a fullblown trans-Tasman competition as well.

Everyone would prefer a full trans-Tasman next year but we've got our own options and we're not going to be beholden to a one-horse race.

NSW chairman Roger Davis
"What we have is a much larger population of 25 million and a bigger economy and it would be very sad if New Zealand didn't tap into that."

McLennan's comments came as New Zealand Rugby went into damage control over a Herald report the union was trying to strong-arm Australia into accepting a niche presence in an eight-team Super Rugby replacement.

The union's Aratipu strategic review has not been released publicly but various leaks have revealed it canvases the dismantling of the SANZAAR joint venture for all but Test rugby, and a professional competition featuring the five New Zealand teams, two or three Australian teams and potentially a Pacific Islands side.

NZR boss Mark Robinson said suggestions, floated by the Herald, that his board was divided on the way forward were "nonsense" and that he had been on the phone to his RA counterpart Rob Clarke on Thursday. The Herald has been told Robinson's early morning call broke a long period of silence from across the ditch.

"There is absolutely no division on our board whatsoever, it's absolute nonsense to suggest so," Robinson said.

"I talked to Rob Clarke this morning about a whole range of different things and the partnership, shared with him where we were getting to with timing. There's been good dialogue there.

"There's nothing we're hearing about what they would and wouldn't be open to at this stage."

NSW chairman Roger Davis and Queensland chairman Jeff Miller confirmed to the Herald they had been briefed by RA on proposals for alternative competition structures if New Zealand held fast.

"Everyone would prefer to be in a full trans-Tasman bubble next year but we've got our own options here and we're not going to be beholden to a one-horse race," Davis said. "We met with Rugby Australia this morning and we talked about alternatives and we are determined to pursue the best option for Australia. If the New Zealanders aren't interested we'll go our own way."

The Waratahs' Kiwi coach Rob Penney also weighed into the debate.

"If New Zealand don't get positive around the relationship they have with Australia that is their loss," Penney said.

"They probably see themselves in a powerful bubble, which they have done for a number of years. So be it. We'll create one here and then they'll come knocking I'm sure."
Let NZ take their teams and play Kirribati, Tokelau and Pitcairn Is in a South south Pacific island extravaganza.
FFS, is everyone involved in Aussie rugby a little whiny bitch? Even AC's family friend and bestest coach ever Rob Penney has joined in with it.
Its not a whine, its a valid point. What a small chippy world you live in.
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

fonzeee wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:I agree with the Kiwis in that 5 teams is too many, the NZ teams are too strong. You'd either have a couple of strong teams and then 2 easy beats. 4 teams is better, but I can see the argument for 3 (but not 2!). Merge ACT and Melbourne. 5 + 3 = 8.
Split games between ACT and Melbourne or would it be one or the other?

Is Canberra still a rugby stronghold?
Its dropped since the Brumbies have been less successful, Raiders now are no. 1 but that has reversed and can again. General stink the Super comp has become hasnt helped where as Raiders get regular day games.
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

RandomNavigat0r wrote:
kiap wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Merge ACT and Melbourne.
Hard to make happen. Even with a bankruptcy there'd just be a team deletion -- which could achieve your preferred goal -- but still a need to force insolvency.

Alternatively, you have more than one comp. Oz-controlled (5, 6 or more teams) feeding into a Champs Cup/Challenge Cup where there are TT matchups. The arrangements then are more flexible rather than existential.

But whichever way this goes, the whole shebang is likely to be a 2-year proposition only, requiring a future re-deal.

Sky TV NZ is in trouble. Foxtel is in touble. Channel Nein is in trouble, dot dot dot...

That's the sort of timeframe needed before a semblance of clarity can emerge.
Its what should have happened in 2017 when they axed the wrong side.
No sides should have been axed.
5 sides need to remain going forward, this not strong enough argument is bullshit, since when do you get 10 teams of the same strength in any comp?
We dont have 5 teams that NZ think are worthy? Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by UncleFB »

grievous wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
grievous wrote:
kiap wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:Where are the other three coming from? After an Adelaide side I assume?
Possibly not Adelaide, unless a big benefactor gets behind it. While it is a city of 1.3 million and does have premiership rugby, the standard of amateur competition there is still lagging. Would be a long-term project.

NSW and Qld could support more than one team. Sydney itself is a bigger polity than nz. Another possibility could be a side from Fiji, again dollars are what drives these options.
As much as I would like Adelaide to have a side (they havent even been given an official Wallabies test yet) this would be too much, a semi pro NRC team maybe but that comp is dead now.
CEO quoted as saying
Rugby Australia chairman Hamish McLennan delivered a scathing assessment of New Zealand plans to limit Australia to two or three teams in a trans-Tasman competition, calling the dynamic between the nations "master-servant" as negotiations heat up over the future of Super Rugby.

McLennan paid tribute to the longstanding ties between the two rugby nations but said Australia needed the maximum number of teams in whatever replaced the ailing competition in 2021 and suggested New Zealand would be foolish to walk away from what Australia had to offer.

He was backed up the chairs of the NSW and Queensland Rugby Unions in a move to go it alone in an amped-up domestic competition, potentially featuring city and country sides from NSW and Queensland, the Western Force and a Big Bash-style injection of foreign talent from South Africa and Argentina.

"I love New Zealand and its people and we have strong cultural ties and a rich rugby heritage, but it feels a bit master-servant at the moment," McLennan said.

"If we're building up to the [2023] World Cup and rebuilding Australian rugby we need the maximum amount of teams in the competition, including our friends at the Force.

"From what I've heard, the Super Rugby clubs on both sides of the Tasman have been speaking and I hear they want a fullblown trans-Tasman competition as well.

Everyone would prefer a full trans-Tasman next year but we've got our own options and we're not going to be beholden to a one-horse race.

NSW chairman Roger Davis
"What we have is a much larger population of 25 million and a bigger economy and it would be very sad if New Zealand didn't tap into that."

McLennan's comments came as New Zealand Rugby went into damage control over a Herald report the union was trying to strong-arm Australia into accepting a niche presence in an eight-team Super Rugby replacement.

The union's Aratipu strategic review has not been released publicly but various leaks have revealed it canvases the dismantling of the SANZAAR joint venture for all but Test rugby, and a professional competition featuring the five New Zealand teams, two or three Australian teams and potentially a Pacific Islands side.

NZR boss Mark Robinson said suggestions, floated by the Herald, that his board was divided on the way forward were "nonsense" and that he had been on the phone to his RA counterpart Rob Clarke on Thursday. The Herald has been told Robinson's early morning call broke a long period of silence from across the ditch.

"There is absolutely no division on our board whatsoever, it's absolute nonsense to suggest so," Robinson said.

"I talked to Rob Clarke this morning about a whole range of different things and the partnership, shared with him where we were getting to with timing. There's been good dialogue there.

"There's nothing we're hearing about what they would and wouldn't be open to at this stage."

NSW chairman Roger Davis and Queensland chairman Jeff Miller confirmed to the Herald they had been briefed by RA on proposals for alternative competition structures if New Zealand held fast.

"Everyone would prefer to be in a full trans-Tasman bubble next year but we've got our own options here and we're not going to be beholden to a one-horse race," Davis said. "We met with Rugby Australia this morning and we talked about alternatives and we are determined to pursue the best option for Australia. If the New Zealanders aren't interested we'll go our own way."

The Waratahs' Kiwi coach Rob Penney also weighed into the debate.

"If New Zealand don't get positive around the relationship they have with Australia that is their loss," Penney said.

"They probably see themselves in a powerful bubble, which they have done for a number of years. So be it. We'll create one here and then they'll come knocking I'm sure."
Let NZ take their teams and play Kirribati, Tokelau and Pitcairn Is in a South south Pacific island extravaganza.
FFS, is everyone involved in Aussie rugby a little whiny bitch? Even AC's family friend and bestest coach ever Rob Penney has joined in with it.
Its not a whine, its a valid point. What a small chippy world you live in.
It's 100% a whine, based on media reports and nothing substantial.
Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
Speaking of small chippy worlds/ :lol:
User avatar
sonic_attack
Posts: 4111
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Contact:

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by sonic_attack »

Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

UncleFB wrote:
Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
Speaking of small chippy worlds/ :lol:
I think you live in Sydney, one of the many Fleewees in here.
Why would you like to see the further demise of the game here by not joining a TT comp as an equal partner? Game here has nothing to gain by being a sub partner when the game in the region needs the strongest solution.
You would prefer there is no rugby here and prefer to watch league instead?
I dont get that attitude.
Going alone is not chippy its survival.
If its a nothing media beat up you still seem to share the sentiment that rugby here should kowtow to NZRU
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

sonic_attack wrote:Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
Its accepted but going down to only two....of which the politics will always dictate its NSW and Qld, will not raise the standards of rugby here, retain players to the code or onshore, grow the game or a dozen other things so its not worth considering.
RandomNavigat0r
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:32 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by RandomNavigat0r »

grievous wrote:
RandomNavigat0r wrote:
kiap wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Merge ACT and Melbourne.
Hard to make happen. Even with a bankruptcy there'd just be a team deletion -- which could achieve your preferred goal -- but still a need to force insolvency.

Alternatively, you have more than one comp. Oz-controlled (5, 6 or more teams) feeding into a Champs Cup/Challenge Cup where there are TT matchups. The arrangements then are more flexible rather than existential.

But whichever way this goes, the whole shebang is likely to be a 2-year proposition only, requiring a future re-deal.

Sky TV NZ is in trouble. Foxtel is in touble. Channel Nein is in trouble, dot dot dot...

That's the sort of timeframe needed before a semblance of clarity can emerge.
Its what should have happened in 2017 when they axed the wrong side.
No sides should have been axed.
5 sides need to remain going forward, this not strong enough argument is bullshit, since when do you get 10 teams of the same strength in any comp?
We dont have 5 teams that NZ think are worthy? Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
Yeah I'll agree with that. I meant IF one side definitely had to go there were other sides more logical than the Force, Melbourne in particular.

But yes Australia should never have dropped a side. They still won 2 Super Rugby titles with 5 sides so depth was always there.

But to think New Zealand of all fu'cking places thinks it can dictate the number of teams operating in Australia is damn right near delusional. If thats there attitude cut em loose. If anything NZL should be going to 6 teams with a Taranaki side emerging as a new catchment, or even another part of NZL which doesnt have strong ties to their Franchise. This whole Australia dropping a side needs to end now. Force have beaten the Highlanders are Crusaders plenty of times whilst being cellar dwellers.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Ellafan »

grievous wrote:
Ellafan wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:Not a silly idea to have a couple NSW and Queensland sides. Would probably be quite good for each state.
Why would you dismantle any of the existing Australian SR teams to create new teams from NSW or QLD? The Brumbies, Force and Rebels have history, culture and a support base - only a f**king idiot would throw that away for zero benefit. And thes new teams that you mention would only dilute and weaken the Waratahs and the Reds. Stupid stuff.
They already dilute and weaken the Waratahs and Reds.
...and Syd Uni
Indeed, it is appropriate for you to acknowledge that the world -leading rugby development program at the University has produced a stream of professional and international rugby players over the last 15 years who have played all around the world.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Ellafan »

Sensible Stephen wrote:I agree with the Kiwis in that 5 teams is too many, the NZ teams are too strong. You'd either have a couple of strong teams and then 2 easy beats. 4 teams is better, but I can see the argument for 3 (but not 2!). Merge ACT and Melbourne. 5 + 3 = 8.
And WA into the big blue team. :thumbup:
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 17721
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Zakar »

sonic_attack wrote:Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
I agree with that proposition, but in no way does that automatically mean less Aussie teams.

It.could also be offset by
1. Another kiwi team
2. Expanded player eligibility
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41635
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Will the saffas sue the aussie/kiwis ?
Mullet 2

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Mullet 2 »

Zakar wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
I agree with that proposition, but in no way does that automatically mean less Aussie teams.

It.could also be offset by
1. Another kiwi team
2. Expanded player eligibility
And there are two squads of players about to sacked to fill them out
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 17721
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Zakar »

Mullet 2 wrote:
Zakar wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
I agree with that proposition, but in no way does that automatically mean less Aussie teams.

It.could also be offset by
1. Another kiwi team
2. Expanded player eligibility
And there are two squads of players about to sacked to fill them out
... and those lads don't seem pricey.
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

Ellafan wrote:
grievous wrote:
Ellafan wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:Not a silly idea to have a couple NSW and Queensland sides. Would probably be quite good for each state.
Why would you dismantle any of the existing Australian SR teams to create new teams from NSW or QLD? The Brumbies, Force and Rebels have history, culture and a support base - only a f**king idiot would throw that away for zero benefit. And thes new teams that you mention would only dilute and weaken the Waratahs and the Reds. Stupid stuff.
They already dilute and weaken the Waratahs and Reds.
...and Syd Uni
Indeed, it is appropriate for you to acknowledge that the world -leading rugby development program at the University has produced a stream of professional and international rugby players over the last 15 years who have played all around the world.
Not leading enough to help Oz rugby
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by UncleFB »

grievous wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
Speaking of small chippy worlds/ :lol:
I think you live in Sydney, one of the many Fleewees in here.
Why would you like to see the further demise of the game here by not joining a TT comp as an equal partner? Game here has nothing to gain by being a sub partner when the game in the region needs the strongest solution.
You would prefer there is no rugby here and prefer to watch league instead?
I dont get that attitude.
Going alone is not chippy its survival.
If its a nothing media beat up you still seem to share the sentiment that rugby here should kowtow to NZRU
FFS, you're just making shit up now, I was merely commenting on whining Aus fisheads and coaches. I didn't make any comment on the competition structure aside from the implication that it's not confirmed yet.

I'd like to see Oz rugby be successful but it's a shit show at the moment dominated by a media organisation who rolled the administration with their puppets the moment they didn't automatically give them the rights at a cut price.
grievous
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by grievous »

UncleFB wrote:
grievous wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
Speaking of small chippy worlds/ :lol:
I think you live in Sydney, one of the many Fleewees in here.
Why would you like to see the further demise of the game here by not joining a TT comp as an equal partner? Game here has nothing to gain by being a sub partner when the game in the region needs the strongest solution.
You would prefer there is no rugby here and prefer to watch league instead?
I dont get that attitude.
Going alone is not chippy its survival.
If its a nothing media beat up you still seem to share the sentiment that rugby here should kowtow to NZRU
FFS, you're just making shit up now, I was merely commenting on whining Aus fisheads and coaches. I didn't make any comment on the competition structure aside from the implication that it's not confirmed yet.

I'd like to see Oz rugby be successful but it's a shit show at the moment dominated by a media organisation who rolled the administration with their puppets the moment they didn't automatically give them the rights at a cut price.
It keeps being explained to you, its about the $$$$
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by UncleFB »

grievous wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
grievous wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Fine, Seeyuz Broz we will go it alone.
Speaking of small chippy worlds/ :lol:
I think you live in Sydney, one of the many Fleewees in here.
Why would you like to see the further demise of the game here by not joining a TT comp as an equal partner? Game here has nothing to gain by being a sub partner when the game in the region needs the strongest solution.
You would prefer there is no rugby here and prefer to watch league instead?
I dont get that attitude.
Going alone is not chippy its survival.
If its a nothing media beat up you still seem to share the sentiment that rugby here should kowtow to NZRU
FFS, you're just making shit up now, I was merely commenting on whining Aus fisheads and coaches. I didn't make any comment on the competition structure aside from the implication that it's not confirmed yet.

I'd like to see Oz rugby be successful but it's a shit show at the moment dominated by a media organisation who rolled the administration with their puppets the moment they didn't automatically give them the rights at a cut price.
It keeps being explained to you, its about the $$$$
What on earth are you on about? What is 'keeps being explained' to me?
User avatar
sonic_attack
Posts: 4111
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Contact:

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by sonic_attack »

Zakar wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
I agree with that proposition, but in no way does that automatically mean less Aussie teams.

It.could also be offset by
1. Another kiwi team
2. Expanded player eligibility

I'm not sure New Zealand could field another team that would be as competitive as the existing five, or if another team was created it wouldn't just steal from the existing sides. NZ has had a pretty good balance with the 5 sides from inception. For the most part every NZ team has been competitive even when losing more than they win. I don't believe over the course of super rugby New Zealand were gifted or developed a bunch of excess quality players, the production line has been pretty stable through 20+ years.
Australia and South Africa just overreached with expansion diluting the quality of their super rugby inception sides, so I don't believe expansion is a sound model for NZ to follow.

Super 12 probably showed the limits of all three nations really and the best balance overall. My memory of that time was any two teams on any day could pretty much topple the opposition which is probably why we were all so engaged in it.

Maybe 3 is the right number for Australia. It trims off a bunch of expense for the ARU and pushes the players into a tighter grouping of quality. The same way it does in New Zealand when we compact the 10-11 top NPC provincial sides into just 5 regional franchises. It seems in hindsight there's evidence to suggest Australia did much better with 3 than with 5.

I haven't really considered the economics of 3 V 5 teams for Australia in terms of income from TV but at some stage the margin must just get very tight with more teams to feed. It seems the ARU were barely rowing the boat with 4 teams, struggling hard right up until Covid.

From the outside it looks like Australia squeezing blood from a stone. 3 super rugby teams would be about level par with NZ, possibly stronger. I don't imagine the Wallabies being less competitive because of it. There's probably more upsides than downsides for Australia by contracting and becoming stronger for it.

In saying all that I'm not entirely sure how NZRU came to 8 being the magic number. Would work for home/away presumably but we have pretty clear evidence 12 teams works very well as a round Robin with semis and a final inside a 4 month window.
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 17721
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Zakar »

The whole point of another NZ team is it would dilute the rest. That is a good outcome. More games, more TV to sell, more competitive.
RandomNavigat0r
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:32 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by RandomNavigat0r »

sonic_attack wrote:
Zakar wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:Australia doesn't have 5 competitive teams to match New Zealand. I don't see the harm in accepting that at least, its really not that big a deal, it's just the way it is.

I can see the argument for both sides, but it's like Australia is going down the same road that got them where they were pre covid, which wasn't much prettier than where they are right now.
I agree with that proposition, but in no way does that automatically mean less Aussie teams.

It.could also be offset by
1. Another kiwi team
2. Expanded player eligibility

I'm not sure New Zealand could field another team that would be as competitive as the existing five, or if another team was created it wouldn't just steal from the existing sides. NZ has had a pretty good balance with the 5 sides from inception. For the most part every NZ team has been competitive even when losing more than they win. I don't believe over the course of super rugby New Zealand were gifted or developed a bunch of excess quality players, the production line has been pretty stable through 20+ years.
Australia and South Africa just overreached with expansion diluting the quality of their super rugby inception sides, so I don't believe expansion is a sound model for NZ to follow.

Super 12 probably showed the limits of all three nations really and the best balance overall. My memory of that time was any two teams on any day could pretty much topple the opposition which is probably why we were all so engaged in it.

Maybe 3 is the right number for Australia. It trims off a bunch of expense for the ARU and pushes the players into a tighter grouping of quality. The same way it does in New Zealand when we compact the 10-11 top NPC provincial sides into just 5 regional franchises. It seems in hindsight there's evidence to suggest Australia did much better with 3 than with 5.

I haven't really considered the economics of 3 V 5 teams for Australia in terms of income from TV but at some stage the margin must just get very tight with more teams to feed. It seems the ARU were barely rowing the boat with 4 teams, struggling hard right up until Covid.

From the outside it looks like Australia squeezing blood from a stone. 3 super rugby teams would be about level par with NZ, possibly stronger. I don't imagine the Wallabies being less competitive because of it. There's probably more upsides than downsides for Australia by contracting and becoming stronger for it.

In saying all that I'm not entirely sure how NZRU came to 8 being the magic number. Would work for home/away presumably but we have pretty clear evidence 12 teams works very well as a round Robin with semis and a final inside a 4 month window.
You clearly arebt getting it. 5 teams is non negotiable. We arent splitting a country of over 22 million up over 3 teams you twat. 5 is the perfect number. Whether NZL wants to come to the party and dillute their teams to a further 6, or even 7, when there was clearly talk of them doing this even during Super Rugby during expansion with Taranaki and another area being earmarked is up to NZL rugby but we would be going with 5 teams regardless of their structure. The alternative would be we would go ourselves and may even have our own 8 team comp with 2 NSW and 2 QLD sides with the other Super Rugby teams + a South Australian or PI team would be an alternative template. This could even lead to a one off series vs a GRR side or any other possibilities. The point is Australia is way too big to have 3 teams regardless of the insular inward view shared by most New Zealanders. Think of it like this, out of every country in the Southern Hemisphere our population numbers are able to generate the most lucrative TV rights deals even for sports that dont exist elsewhere in the world like NRL and AFL, think of it as a privledge to be allowrd to become part of our competiton which would be structured very similar to the way NRL goes about their business model to generate lucrative rights deals so either NZL toe the line or spend the next two decades on the dole queue getting handouts from Sky NZL.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by towny »

This is a cripple fight. NZRU has no future on their own. The Pay TV model is dying fast - the ‘genius’ equity deal that they made with Sky isn’t worth 10 cents. They seem intent on total dependence on the All Black brand to fund the entire sport. Seems sustainable.... player numbers are going down fast and the latest schoolboy and u20 teams have struggled, most likely for this reason.
Don’t even get me started on the Oz problems. Fml

The best chance that both countries have is work together and do what’s best for the sport. Not what’s best for the ABs or what’s best for Sydney clubs, but I don’t know if the clowns running these goatf*cks have enough smarts to put aside their petty politics. Look at the jingoistic bullsh*t on this thread - just a lot of drunks flapping around a paddock throwing cow dungs.

Plus we have the Covid wildcard, and I have little expectation that there will be tours crossing equators or oceans any time soon, so this undermines the model which relies on test tv money.

The NRL has 16 teams.
The AFL has 18 teams.

Don’t anyone f*cking tell me that Australia and NZ cannot put together more than 8 teams. If we get stuck on easily disprovable bullsh*t like this, we will never get anywhere. But as I said, this is a cripple fight so I don’t expect anything else to happen.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Wilderbeast »

Agree with towny. The concern is the difference in quality but I’ve long thought measures need to be brought in to help level the playing field. Allowing AB players into Aussie teams who play in the competition is a good start imo.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 31505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Ali's Choice »

Wilderbeast wrote:Agree with towny. The concern is the difference in quality but I’ve long thought measures need to be brought in to help level the playing field. Allowing AB players into Aussie teams who play in the competition is a good start imo.
I also agree with Towny, and like him have been pushing for a TT comp for years.

And the quality argument is very shortsighted. We should be designing a comp for where we want to be in 5-10 years time, not where we currently are. Australian Rugby will turn around quickly when some of their schoolboy athletes start choosing Rugby over Rugby League, and that won't happen very often we we restrict Rugby and keep it a niche sport in this country.

I hope that common sense will prevail. In saying that, this is the same NZR that chose Ian Foster and Brad Moar as a coaching team over a Scott Robertson and Leon Macdonald team.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20336
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by CrazyIslander »

Wilderbeast wrote:Agree with towny. The concern is the difference in quality but I’ve long thought measures need to be brought in to help level the playing field. Allowing AB players into Aussie teams who play in the competition is a good start imo.
Agree.
There should be a draft.
In the first year.
Each country (its teams) have a draft where they have a priority pick of 7 players over 21 and 7 players below 21.
Afterwards, all players from both countries and overseas are available negotiate a contract with any team.

Beyond first year, the draft only applies for new players. Home teams still get priority if the choose to get 7 youngsters from home.

National coaches must actively be encouraged to choose from non-resident players in the comp.
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4119
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Working Class Rugger »

CrazyIslander wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:Agree with towny. The concern is the difference in quality but I’ve long thought measures need to be brought in to help level the playing field. Allowing AB players into Aussie teams who play in the competition is a good start imo.
Agree.
There should be a draft.
In the first year.
Each country (its teams) have a draft where they have a priority pick of 7 players over 21 and 7 players below 21.
Afterwards, all players from both countries and overseas are available negotiate a contract with any team.

Beyond first year, the draft only applies for new players. Home teams still get priority if the choose to get 7 youngsters from home.

National coaches must actively be encouraged to choose from non-resident players in the comp.
It would require a radical rethink and change of attitudes on both sides of the Tasman but I agree. A central draft for talent should be something enacted to create balance and competitiveness across the board. I'd go for three distinct categories in the draft though. One for Aus/NZ U20/21s,another for Aus/NZ players over 21 and an International draft with priority given to PI talent.

I also think we could go to 12 teams. But not necessarily with any new teams in NZ. With greater balance two new teams could be established in Australia easily enough in regards to competitive balance.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 31505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Ali's Choice »

The reports of some NZR board members arrogantly demanding Australia reduce their number of SR teams down to three are very unhelpful. If true, these board members should resign. or at the very least they should shut their stupid mouths. That is not how negotiations should be carried out. A Trans Tasman competition is crucial for both nations, and making silly demands and scoring cheap political points is not how you negotiate. Negotiations should be respectful, constructive and be made with a long-term, growth mindset. I would suggest that potential broadcasters will also need to be involved, because ultimately we need a product that is attractive to them.

This argument about competitiveness is a joke. Australian SR teams aren't relatively weak now because Aussies aren't good at sport, or their juniors aren't strong enough, fast enough or good at catching and passing an oval shaped ball. They are relatively weak because of the never ending player drain to the NRL and NH 'easy rugby'. Their relative weakness is a symptom of the athlete drain, and the fact that fewer Aussie athletes are choosing a professional, Australian based career in Rugby.

The solution to this isn't further limiting the pathways and sphere of influence of Rugby in Australia by reducing its professional foot print to three teams. That makes no sense. The solution is to generate more revenue, so that the player drain is arrested and more talented Aussie athletes choose to make a career in Rugby instead of other sports. In the future talented NH juniors should be traveling south to forge careers in Super Rugby and SH Rugby. That's how you strengthen the Aussie teams. You don't keep culling teams until they miraculously become strong. You increase the wealth of Rugby in the SH. And to do this you need to increase revenue by creating the most attractive and sustainable long-term Trans Tasman comp that can be devised. And by attractive I mean attractive to sponsors and broadcasters. That should be the goal of NZR and RA baord members as they begin negotiations.

I think the actual format of the competition is much more important than the number of teams. We need to learn from past mistakes, so no conference system, and no crazy finals system where teams are qualifying to play post-season rugby on less points than teams that miss out. My proposal would be for a 10 team comp (Five each fron NZ and Aus) playing each other team twice. 18 games each a season, 9 home and 9 away. That's 90 games in total. If this season is deemed too long by broadcasters (keeping in mind the NRL season is 26 weeks long) then I would halve it to 9 games each per season, with teams playing each other once. It is a non-negotiable that the scheduling is as even and fair as possible - we cannot have the debacle of the Lions in 2017 when they qualified for the finals without playing a single Kiwi team.

In terms of finals, I'd love to see the top teams properly rewarded. So I'd propose a top 4. At the end of the round robin, team 1 plays 2 in a qualifying final, and 3 plays 4 in an elimination final. The winner of 1 vs 2 goes straight through to host the final and earns a week's rest. The loser of this match plays the winner of 3 vs 4 in a preliminary final, so gets a 2nd bite at the cherry.

Also back to neutral referees please. 20-1 penalty counts need to be relegated to the annals of history.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by Slim 293 »

It should be noted that Australia had better results in the first incarnation of Super Rugby with 5 teams, than they did with 4 teams during the Super 14 era...

Having said that, we had 3 teams with excellent coaches that all made the finals with our other 2 teams going from being poor to competitive...

Following the departures of McKenzie, White and Cheika from SR there was certainly a dip in overall quality, particularly as McKenzie and Cheika's replacements were shite, although the Brumbies still managed to stay up there and have now become good with McKellar.

Tim Sampson over at the Force is also a very good upcoming coach, and if they start to attract some more Super Rugby standard players they will be quite competitive.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Trans-Tasman comp to replace Super Rugby in 2021

Post by towny »

Australian teams did better before 30+ of its best players, plus most of its best coaches, were in Europe and Japan. This, and only this, is the reason why Oz isn’t as competitive as they were 15 years ago, at super and test level.

There is no way NZ are as strong as they could be with so many of its best talent unavailable.

Both countries have lower numbers of kids playing each year, so do the maths on where we will be in another 15 years.
Post Reply