Could a trans-Tasman competition replace Super Rugby?

That would be an adequate sort of structure WCR. Out of interest, what extra area would you include from both Australia and NZ? Personally I believe that as the Gold Coast, Newcastle and Western Sydney all represent rugby heartlands with significant populations, all have equal (or close to equal) claims for a professional rugby team. And lack of coverage seems to me to be at the centre of a lot of rugby’s problems in this country. So if there’s a major heartland that’s not directly represented at the elite level, then it must become a priority for the ARU to fill this void. Then in NZ, they absolutely have the playing talent to stock another 3 professional teams (and then some). Their markets aren’t as large but obviously rugby is king within their landscapes which allows professional teams to be successful in those mid-sized markets. Hawkes Bay, Bay of Plenty (Tauranga primarily but also Rotorua) and North Harbour (Auckland 2) could all directly operate within local (city) markets that are larger than Dunedin. Under this structure I’d go back to everyone playing each other once for 15 games followed by a top 8 finals system. Following the June Tests and TRC and before the end of year tour, get SA, ARG and JAP (eventually include the US and CAN) for a Champions League style tournament involving the 8 teams from AUS/SA/NZ along with the best 4 from ARG and JAP. 8 pools of 4 played in an 8 week window. This creates another interesting tournament that can be sold onto TV and increase sponsorship values and gives clubs at least an extra 6 games to generate income from. It also means that all of Australia’s professional players will have a minimum of 21 games a years which is an adequate amount without having to worry about creating some money sucking national based third tier which just won’t work.

I wouldn't go as far as 8 teams each. Instead use the current five from both and introduce one new team from both nations. That's 12 teams playing one and a half round (17 games) plus finals or two full rounds plus finals.

I think your pretty well bang on there Billy Bob. A big issue rugby has in this country is a lack of presence. I'm a PE teacher at a Queensland (supposedly a rugby heartland) state high school and I'm genuinely frightened by the lack of rugby knowledge the majority of students have. We need to make more of an impact on Australia's sporting landscape and start to get into the hearts and minds of the public and in particular the young ones.  Currently we have a competition thats not conducive to fans needs and is not particularly easy to engage with. That tribalism that you speak of is so important, yet one third of our second tier comes from a far away land that your average Jo Citizen in Australia knows little about. Those outside rugby circles certainly don't know what cities teams like the Sharks or the Bulls come from. Making the competition even harder to engage with is the fact that one third of the games aren't on at fan friendly times. I'm all for a Heineken Cup or Champions League style tournament involving SA teams and played in an 8 week window somewhere during the season. But our regular 'domestic' structure needs a shake up. More teams provides us with more coverage and we can start to build that all important tribalism. It also provides greater opportunities for young athletes looking to make it with some sort of professional football career. As you've rightly touched on there, many talented young rugby players aren't exactly finding their way to a Super Rugby contract once they've finished school. More opportunities need to be put in front of them. 

Paul, with respect, of course it's about culture! That is accepted by all. The discussion is about which structural change would best assist that cultural shift. My view is that the rugby culture has a visibility problem. ATM the mums dads and kids can't even see regular passionate tribal contests at any level similar to afl and NRL, or A league. And these codes are dominating the playground, smoko shed and office conversations. Apart from rugby invisibility is the connected issue of player pool. A certain percentage of our best schoolboy talent is going to other codes and countries. Especially to NRL . We need a restructure, even one that some fans dislike, if necessary. Whatever structure it takes to encourage the passionate expanding culture required.

Andrew the ARC ran into some resistance from Sydney and Brisbane clubs because it was effectively replacing what they represented and now again represent- that being our third tier. The model I’m proposing would replace our 2nd tier- that being Super Rugby. Without going into finer details, Australia being represented by 8 professional teams does look like a bit of an ask. But when you include foreign import rules such as 2 players per team from tier 1 countries and create a free player market between Australia and New Zealand so Kiwis can play for Australian teams and vice versa, we could very easily support 8 teams to compete on the same level as 8 NZ sides. Yes, this does open the gates for potential international eligibility issues to arise. But to ensure there are no sh#t storms between Australia and NZ, the unions would need to enter into an agreement that goes over and above the current irb eligibility rules to avoid poaching. Something along the lines of players who have lived in a country until the age of 18 can only be selected by that country would suffice. I estimate what we’d be left with is a league that involves a team’s worth of foreign players (from outside Australia and NZ) scattered throughout the league, 6 teams worth of Australian players and 9 teams worth of Kiwi players. So yes I agree that in terms of playing talent the ledger is well and truly in NZ’s favour, but these sort of rules should even it up and ensure Australia fields competitive teams. Australia still gets the benefit of an extra team’s worth of players playing professionally while increasing rugby’s presence within our market (in particular, some important heartland areas) which is something that’s holding rugby back in this country. NZ also gets that greater professional presence while having an extra 4 teams worth of players playing rugby for a living which they can no doubt support. I’m sure the NZRU would be happy to achieve this (9 teams of professional players eligible for AB selection), especially considering the other side of the Tasman will be covering the wages of a team’s worth of players. You’re probably right in saying that a Trans Tasman competition would only eventuate if SA withdrew themselves from SR. But I still believe that both the Australian and NZ unions would be better served if our second tier didn’t involve SA in order to increase professional opportunities for players and achieve greater coverage within each market. And I also believe SA would be better served themselves by going it alone and I’d expect that them backing out will become a reality one day as the current structure of the relationship has a used by date. That will probably occur when SA outgrows the format and feels held back and too constrained by Aus/NZ needs- and we’re already hearing murmurs of that.

Australia must develop its own rugby solution. A cross-Tasman competition is probably unaffordable - as was the failed Australian rugby championship. The kiwi system is good but its success took many years and it is specific to their game. If there is something to learn from the kiwis, then look where their players come from - the schools and the clubs. Same thing for AFL and NRL - good feeders based around schools and clubs. This debate has thrown up some interesting ideas, but many look like manufactued solutions. You can't impose a surgical fix because rugby in its essence is a culture. That means people need to feel connected, and that comes through the grassroots - the schools and clubs. We should look there, be patient, think long term, figure out how to get more dads and mums involved with their kids. Australia is loaded with good youngsters, we just need to get get more of them into our sport.

Best start now then...

I agree with you let Australia get their own completion organised and stop relying on New Zealand to help them out . If we had a trans Tasman comp the Aussies will still steal our players

Testify!

Great idea (a Trans Tasman comp.), but it's been poorly constructed here.  A new competition involving Australian and New Zealand should be brought in to replace SR. The answer isn't absorbing Australian teams into a semi professional NPC.  8 fully professional teams from NZ including the current 5 cities and teams from areas such as Hawkes Bay, Bay of Plenty and North Harbour (Auckland 2). Then 8 fully professional teams from Australia including the current 5 cities then add in Newcastle, the Gold Coast and West Sydney.  The result is a professional league that has a more domesticated feel with more teams from both of these countries, travel distances that aren't as vast as they currently are and all teams are from 1 of 2 countries that are culturally and socially similar.  It's not about NZ propping up Australia. This is a league designed to benefit both countries. More teams means more players from each country have the opportunity to play rugby for a living. It also means that professional rugby has greater coverage with more fans in heartland areas being exposed to the elite game. And cutting one partner makes it easier for the game to grow internally in each country when the times right. And combining instead of each going it alone means the league is operating in a larger market which has benefits for TV and sponsorship dollars. It's very doable when you have 2 culturally similar nations that are geographically close together- see the NHL. The more 'domesticated' ANZ Cup (Netball) is the model we should be heading towards. Two strong countries sharing a professional league with an equal number of teams from both. The best option economically and for the ongoing development and growth of the game in these 2 countries.

There's no doubt a Trans-Tasman rugby comp would work. But I would only consider it when it becomes obvious Australian rugby is totally incapable of coming up with something of its own.

true biltongbek, CC would be a better product than a joint aus / nz ITM like comp. ITM isnt broken. it was and its been fixed. aus should not be allowed to touch it because they cant be bothered creating their own domestic comp.

Why would SA go west by 8-10 hours timezone and reduced quality opposition? If we leave we must go on our own. no sense getting involved in a competition that is less competitive. Our Currie Cup will be stronger than a trans atlantic tournament.

I liked the idea of a NZ-Australia-Japan competition. Then South Africa can join with Argentina, Canada and USA in a Atlantic competition. This can solve the problem of hours between the existing Super Rugby countries.

bottom line aus needs its own domestic comp. emphasis on the "domestic". ITM is NZ's domestic comp, if this became a trans tasman thing then we'd have to create another domestic comp to replace it. with 2 nations playing the ITM then neither country has control of it to make decisions that benefit themselves.

There are many different suggestions being made on the roar. Most of them a motivation for assistance from either NZ if SA were to leave the Super Rugby competition or an expansion of Super Rugby in one format or another. There in lies the problem. I know I have been given all the reaons over the past 8 months of why ARU can't put a domestic tournament in place, cost of travel, sponsorships, lack of interest etc. etc. But what are the reasons WHY it could work? In my view Australia MUST find a way to put a sustainable feeder system in place that develops talent. now I don't even want to go in the direction of what Jake White suggested some time last year whereby the University of Canberra? Get young SA talent over there to study and surprise- play rugby. But the concept makes sense. i am not sure how many Universities there are in Australia, but that should be step one. To give you an idea, the students in SA that play varsity cupgets a small salary to play rugby, so it isn't as if you need big money to run a comp. The next step would be to get a format for Club rugby, even if it is amateur or semi pro, that is the foundation of grass root rugby. Schools rugby, is another area, now I do understand that these kids compete with Rugby League etc. But there are only so many spots available, so there is a saturation point, and what do those that don't make pro league do, stop playing sport? At the end of the day, for those who don't make it in Rugby League, surely Rugby Union isn't that far removed that nobody wants to play it? If this system is in place, things can progress from there. Only then worry about whether SA leave, lr whether you can put something together with NZ. The onus rests on ARU to start doing the right thing, nothing else will be a permanent solution unless there are sustainable development systems in place.

I like super rugby but it seems Im the only one. Everybody just seems to moan about it and offer a solution of more, less or different. My solution is 5 teams per country, in a comp...a super comp. Perfect.

This makes no sense .. 14 / 16 teams ... something about 1950 and Fiji ... What of provinces such as Manawatu, BOP, Northland ? ... The NPC is a semi pro comp run as lean as possible trying to run a concurrent completion to SR will bankrupt the provinces before the end of the first year ... and why would the NZRFU and ARU try and run something that would directly compromise SR

No need to scrap Super Rugby - Just expand it in a thoughtful manner and watch the money roll in... 1996 Deal $US555 million over ten years $41.5 million per year ($55.5 million minus the current cost of NPC and CC) 84 Total SANZAR matches/season = $494,047/match 2006 Deal $US323 million over five years $50.6 million ($64.6 million minus NPC/CC) 109 Total SANZAR matches/season = $464,220/match 2011 Deal $437 million over five years 73.4 million (87.4 million minus NPC/CC) 131 Total SANZAR matches/season = 560,305/match The figures from the 1996 and 2006 deal have 14 million deducted annually to cover the current estimated value/cost of the NPC and CC which were automatically incorporated into the value of each deal. The 2011 NPC and Currie Cup broadcast deals were negotiated separately and were estimated at $US50 million for Currie Cup and $US20 million for NPC. It follows that a proposed season which disposes of or incorporates the current NPC and CC into the conference system of Super Rugby would work out roughly like so: 194 Total SANZAR matches, at the historical broadcast deal average of $US506,190 per match, would equal about $US491 million over five years. A very conservative estimate considering the large increase of “premium” SR content for the broadcaster. Not to mention the ability to still run (and sell to the broadcaster) a Vodacom Cup and ITM Cup style competition later in the season. However, The 2011 deal provided roughly 20% more SANZAR matches (Super Rugby and RC tests) than the 2006 deal (from 109 to 131 matches). In turn the average revenue per match increased roughly 20% (from $464,220 to $560,305) It would then follow that if we increase the number of SANZAR matches in 2016 by 48% (from 131 to 194 matches) the average revenue per match should increase accordingly by 48% (from $560,305 to $829,251) That would result in $US1.608 billion over 10 years or $US804 million over five years !!!