Turning Super Rugby AU to gold

By Rob9 / Roar Guru

When sifting through rugby news in recent times, it’s hard to not hum the Bob Dylan classic The Times They Are A-Changin’.

In our little corner of the globe, it looks like the last nail has been hammered into the Sunwolves coffin, the Jaguares are having their first couple belted in, while a claw has mysteriously risen from the ground beneath a tombstone that has ‘Western Force’ chiselled into it.

In among all of the movements in rugby’s births (or re-births) and deaths columns, most of the SANZAAR partners have been busy pulling together their response to a Covid-impacted world.

Interestingly, it appears as though there has been an eye cast to the other side of the pandemic with some using this as an opportunity to revisit the drawing board to come up with something that provides a better fit for the long-term health of the game.

New Zealand rugby was the first cab off the rank to blaze a trail into the covid headwind with the inception of Super Rugby Aotearoa. Barely before a ball was kicked, discussions quickly shifted to New Zealand’s long-term plans for domestic rugby which prompted the launch of the Aratipu review.

Following the completion of the review, there appeared to be a desire to move towards a Trans-Tasman arrangement, but some early whispers suggested it would come with the strings attached of narrowing down Australia’s elite footprint to just two or three teams.

Mark Robinson fronted the press on Friday and effectively confirmed that not all of the five Super Rugby AU clubs will be offered a spot. The NZR wants to add a team for the Pacific to their 5, along with another two to four teams from an ‘Expressions of Interest’ process.

This would suggest that the best case scenario for RA is that four clubs get the sign off from the NZR.

Rugby Australia has been upfront about their desire to proceed with our existing Super Rugby clubs and a Twiggy-backed Force, so the scene is set for showdown at the negotiations table. Early in the timeline of the pandemic, RA used Covid-19 to shout even louder for our long-desired Trans-Tasman model that no doubt represents our best interests moving forward.

The issue for us appears to be that significant compromises will need to be made to maintain the partnership at this level. RA has to proceed with caution because it’s the significant compromises for the interests of external stakeholders that has effectively dropped in the position we find ourselves (eg. not a good one).

Tom Banks of the Brumbies. (Photo by Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images)

On the positives; while the global pandemic has presented the opportunity to scrap the mess we’ve aligned ourselves to and push a more favourable agenda with our partners, it’s also presented an environment that’s as good as it’s going to get for taking the brave plunge and going it alone.

It’s no secret that the driving force behind hitching our wagon to Super Rugby is the financial windfall it provides us in order to keep most of our talent on our shores. Many believe that any pivot from a model that’s topped up by external stakeholders would result in a mass-exodus of players to northern hemisphere clubs.

While there’s little doubting this logic, there have been factors at play that suggest it might be overstated, while there’s also little consideration for the fact that an unattractive model (which Super Rugby has been for some time) goes no way towards maximising the revenue we’re able to generate locally.

Furthermore, the onset of Covid-19 seems to have brought forward a ‘correction’ in northern hemisphere club rugby that many have been predicting for some time.

Clubs living well beyond their means has been a hot topic in Europe for the last number of seasons and now there’s evidence to suggest the purse strings are tightening among clubs in the notoriously big spending Top 14. Meanwhile, over the Channel, clubs are bleeding out at an accelerated pace with the current predicament resulting in the salary cap for the Premierships 2021-22 season being cut by £2m (with many expressing the desire to make this more permanent).

Considering the great ‘leveller’ that this global pandemic has been, Rugby Australia has the opportunity to build something in an environment where the ‘haves’ of world rugby aren’t in that perceived position of power that they may have been in earlier.

So the question becomes; what does an ongoing ‘Super Rugby AU’ product look like? For starters, five teams isn’t going to cut it so I would suggest the following 8-team structure (with home grounds in brackets):

Brisbane Buccaneers (Suncorp Stadium)
South Queensland Cyclones (new boutique venue on Brisbane’s Southside)
North Shore Mariners (revamped Brookvale Oval)
Sydney Steelers (new SFS)
Wester Sydney Rangers (Bank West Parramatta Stadium)
Canberra Brumbies (GIO Stadium)
Melbourne Rebels (AAMI Park)
Western Force (HBF Park)

Firstly, let’s not get too caught up on the monikers. They’re just quick ideas that are by no means at the bedrock of this proposal.

On the stadiums, six of the eight are built or under construction. If Peter V’Landy’s gets his way (and so far in his NRL tenure, it looks like he usually does), Brookvale should get a much-needed lick of paint for a team based north of the harbour in arguably the game’s most significant heartland in Australia.

Then there’s certainly a case for a new boutique stadium in Brisbane for soccer and potentially a second rugby league side in the River City. A new rugby entity would serve to add some weight to this claim.

The season will kick off in early to mid-February and involve each team playing the others home-and-away for a 14-week regular season. Mid to late May will see the top half of the competition break away into a four-team finals series played over a two-week period.

Bankwest Stadium in Parramatta. (Photo by Matt Blyth/Getty Images)

Then ‘alignment’ must be front of mind in the design of something new for the game in this country. That is establishing a clear line between grassroots to clubs to elite rugby to representative rugby and through to the Wallabies. Therefore, each of these teams needs to represent a patch of dirt that encompasses their immediate surrounds while stretching further into other regions to engage and take the folk from these areas on the rugby journey.

They need to provide a pathway while being responsible for tailored strategies that provide the required growth in their space. These teams/district unions will represent the following areas:

Brisbane Buccaneers: North Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Central Queensland, North Queensland.
South Queensland Cyclones: South Brisbane, Gold Coast, Darling Downs.
North Shore Mariners: North Sydney, Northern Beaches, Central Coast, Hunter region, North Coast.
Sydney Steelers: City and Eastern suburbs, Southern Sydney, Illawarra/South Coast.
Western Sydney Rangers: Western Sydney, Central West NSW, New England.
Canberra Brumbies: ACT, Riverina and Southern NSW.
Melbourne Rebels: Victoria, Tasmania.
Western Force: Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory.

To reinforce this connection, those five teams in Brisbane and Sydney where there will be more than seven home games of content for local fans, will take one of their games ‘on the road’ to another centre in their region. Brisbane will play a game in Townsville’s new Queensland Country Bank Stadium. South Queensland will take a game to Cbus Stadium on the Gold Coast.

North Shore will go to McDonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle. Sydney will nip down to the Gong for a game at WIN Stadium. While there are no major regional centres with large stadium infrastructure in Western Sydney’s patch, they’ll take on the Western Force in Adelaide.

Also in the vein of alignment, these eight teams are aligned to one of three ‘State Unions’. The two Brisbane teams are aligned to the Queensland State Union. The three Sydney teams are aligned to the New South Wales State Union and the remaining three teams are aligned to an Allied States Union.

Following the 16-week domestic competition, these ‘Unions’ come to life with a three-week series where players have the opportunity to represent their ‘home union’ in a concept following the ‘origin’ format. This gives RA an engaging product to sell to TV while also funnelling the competitions best players into three teams to have them competing at a higher standard to prepare for the rigours of Test rugby.

It also provides Wallaby selectors with an effective platform to pick their squad from. This three-week window would occupy June before the three inbound Tests which are said to be moved to July under a global calendar.

Players are the final piece of this puzzle. As mentioned, those northern raids have always presented a barrier for pursuing such a model and there’s no doubt that implementing something along these lines would result in some more players heading off shore, even with the compromised systems that Covid will leave behind in Europe.

What RA would need to do as a result is centrally contract the top 35 to 40 players in the country and distribute them across the eight teams to avoid a couple of clubs being stacked with all of the talent. This will ensure that those household names remain in our local news cycle and available for Wallaby selection.

We can then expect to have a good chunk of those ‘middle tier’ players head off shore as many already do with the current trend. With a sustainable salary cap of around $3m per team (outside Wallaby wages), we should be able to hold onto some of those ‘fringe’ Wallaby squad hopefuls while providing plenty of opportunities for young up and coming players to nab a professional contract and develop their talents in this league.

This is certainly a more favourable environment than the status quo where many promising young players are ‘shut out’ of opportunities locally and turn their back on the sport or head overseas as a result.

In disconnecting from Super Rugby, it should still remain our goal to maintain our relationship with the SANZAAR partners to keep our spot in the Rugby Championship. Depending on what each partner does following the dismantling of Super Rugby, a Champions League-style concept should be explored for the window between the end of TRC and the beginning of the northern hemisphere tour.

What have you made of the Super Rugby return? (Photo by Patrick Hamilton/AFP via Getty Images)

If not with the existing partners, then certainly with emerging nations like Japan and the US. Any extra dollars we can accumulate through these means will be valuable in ensuring the success of a more domestically focused approach.

That said, this approach should also pay dividends with more money being able to be drawn out locally as a result of a product that hasn’t been compromised by the needs and wants of external stakeholders.

The number of clubs and their locations are important pieces of the national competition puzzle, but these elements are by no means the core focus of this piece. This simply explores the possibilities of standing alone and the opportunities that could present themselves with a calendar that is our own.

It unpacks a somewhat turbulent and murky landscape that represents a unique opportunity to stick our neck out to begin a rebuild alone while the pre-existing threats are vulnerable. And finally it’s an acknowledgment of the limitations and changes of thinking required around what we want professional rugby to offer in designing something specific to our needs.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2020-07-23T04:21:59+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


Thanks for the feedback Phil. Totally agree, once the dust settles and everyone’s had a chance to re-establish themselves, a Champions League-style tournament needs to be explored. Particularly for the extra revenue opportunity it represents. Given the knowns and the likelihood of South Africa shifting their attention north (so they’re likely not to make themselves available) and New Zealand needing at least 8 teams of their own to operate their own domestic competition, I would run with the following: The 8 teams from Australia and New Zealand, along with the 8 strongest teams from the Japanese Top League (or new professional league if that’s the path they go down) form a 24-team competition. I think all of Australia’s and NZ’s teams should be involved to expose all players and clubs to the concept (and the extra revenue). Then break them up into 4 pools of 6 teams with each pool containing 2 teams from each country. Everyone plays each other once, before the top 2 from each pool progress to the quarter finals (and so on). I’d wedge it in an 8 week window between the end of the Rugby Championship and the beginning of the Northern Hemisphere tour.

2020-07-23T03:22:52+00:00

LuckPhil

Guest


Broadly agree, although to make it more sustainable, there needs a way to engage both Japan and NZ. Japan for the money and NZ for the opposition. The changes I would make are: * Keep the domestic league as Rob9 suggested. * The domestic league could either start early Feb or not have a final series. The thinking here is the Japan and NZ domestic competitions should finish at the same time. * Following the end of the domestic competition in May, there should be a 6 team competition, including franchises from Japanese, Australian and NZ sides. The players would comes from the domestic teams from the three countries, and it would be up to each team/franchise to contract the players much the same way the Big Bash works. Players that play in any of the franchises should be able to be selected for their National side. * The National sides are then selected from these games to play the July incoming tours, August-Sept Rugby Championship and October-November Spring Tours. Players would be paid by their domestic team and franchise on a contract basis, but the National team would be on a pay per play basis. This would give players a logical pathway, have Australian Rugby on TV for 10 months a year, and potentially allow the better players to be paid enough that they aren't having to chase $ overseas.

AUTHOR

2020-07-22T05:55:52+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


Look forward to having a read

2020-07-22T03:04:28+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


I very much agree we have to be making decisions in our interests. We are sliding very fast towards the cliff edge and we can make our own decisions engaging with external parties. However there needs to be absolute certainty that when we grab something that it will hold. If it does not hold then I can guarantee that rugby in Australia will be falling over the cliff and the next decisions will be made by external parties. Personally if I was RA and figured I could live with two teams and have a viable NRC then I would be using that as a base to argue for, amongst as many other things that could be gained: - defined pathway back to 3, 4 and ultimately 5 competitive teams which I think can be done, and will support sustained rugby and commercial viability - PI team based in western Sydney - as much help as possible to assist us to rebuild our once good, but now rotting, rugby development structure - SR competition structure that runs successfully in conjunction with a preferred NRC structure The best possible outcome for NZ in the long term is 5 competitive Australian SR teams and a powerful Wallabies. The worst is a weak 5/5 TT now. Running any kind of domestic only competition is a potentially safe middle ground, but has to be risky in terms of international competitive success. Commercially it will probably be underpinned by 'private equity investment' which is not as great as it sounds. I should have an article up shortly on why I believe these types of investments provide a minimal risk return to PE while most of the risk is transferred back to rugby.

AUTHOR

2020-07-22T02:46:45+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


Muglair, I think we’ve been through this all before somewhere else. To save time, this is where I believe we differ; ‘Two Australian teams in a TT competition has been tested pre-1995. Just because it was amateur and 25 years ago does not make that irrelevant’. I believe that ‘test’ is largely irrelevant. We’re talking about two landscapes that are effectively foreign to one and other. Very little can be learned and banked on as such. I appreciate you hold a different position. Regarding pretty much everything else; I’m the first to admit this ‘solution’ isn’t the best. But given the competing forces, it may present as such and all of the justification for that is in the article. At least it sure beats shrinking ourselves from existence to appease an external partners desires.

2020-07-22T02:28:29+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


This is all very high level stuff Rob9: - SANZAAR and Super Rugby have not had a bomb put under it. Both have being dying a long slow death for ten years. There have been a couple of serious attempts to face up to its problems but the comfortable complacency of 'more teams, more games, more revenues' has continually prevailed. Short term stability at a long term cost. So poor the trade-off, no real gain for long term pain - Since human beings were not up to the task, something came along and put a bullet in the corpse so we humans could take control of our destiny again - In 2019 we had a SR structure with 4 Australian teams, the best of which was unlikely to be a contender, and the rest largely not competitive. It has been like that for quite some time. Waning interest and commercial value - In 2019 we had a NRC competition which is tagged on to the end of a shortened club season. Many supporters resent its existence, have clocked off after club finals, are watching RC international games or the NRL end of season rounds and finals. - The NRC does effectively showcase players for potential SR contracts but that could probably be managed on its own with a week of trial games. It has also been some compensation to the Force to keep them alive and kicking. - If professional rugby is feasible in Australia then there has to be a workable domestic competition. This is totally untested as the NRC is a joke, and can certainly not be continued in this form. It is essential that there is viable broadcast content produced for such a commitment of playing strength. - Two Australian teams in a TT competition has been tested pre-1995. Just because it was amateur and 25 years ago does not make that irrelevant, only one thing has been tried since. If two highly competitive Australian teams playing in what would be the world's highest quality provincial competition is not viable then we can all pack up and go home. - Tested or untested I think there would be a big difference in a Wallaby squad of 30 that have been playing across two franchises against some of the best provincial teams in the world, and one drawn from a domestic competition where those 30 players are spread evenly across eight teams. - Everything has to be tested somehow, risks have to be reduced as much as possible or eliminated. Proposals need to be able to withstand scrutiny from the rugby support base so that there is a basis for some certainty moving forward that it will be supported. - There are heaps of alternatives thrown up on the Roar, all limited without access to data or resources to refine ideas. I would like to think RA was just as as active, but I suspect they are not. Based on past performance, they will be throwing up their own ideas cooked up at Moore Park with just enough rigour to get someone to fund it in the short term.

2020-07-22T01:27:47+00:00

Quite Right

Guest


Agree with you on this. Soccer is moaning that their season is too short and not enough players are getting opportunities. What if you don't get selected to one of the two teams to get invited to this revamped NZ rugby competition? You go to NRL, Europe, Japan or to find a job. Shrinking your way to NZ's requirements is not in our sport's interests. Bye bye NZ. I would be happy the Wallabies lost to NZ more but the playing numbers surged from grassroots to the highest competition level. The Wallabies games are for about half a dozen days a year, what about the rest of the year?

2020-07-22T00:56:24+00:00

Double Agent

Guest


Go away?

AUTHOR

2020-07-21T21:36:29+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


That’s still a very surface level analysis, but sure. An expanded Super Rugby AU is a more accurate comparison. In any event, it’s ‘more focus’ that’s key. As mentioned elsewhere- the NRC has been established and run as a player development tool (it’s effectiveness in this space is certainly up for debate). This hits that mark and most importantly, it’s a fan engagement tool (which the NRC is not). You build your fan base and there’s a positive impact felt in just about every KPI including your player pool.

2020-07-21T21:18:51+00:00

Wheelbarrow

Roar Rookie


Move the nrc up a tier. ... Same - just has more focus.

AUTHOR

2020-07-21T20:34:49+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


Muglair, SANZAAR and in particular Super Rugby has had a bomb put under it. That’s all we’ve known in the professional age. The next move is untested whether you like it or not.

2020-07-21T16:03:56+00:00

gatesy

Roar Guru


Your article makes sense - I think that this debate is finally going in the right direction - and whatever happens we need to go it alone and get back to our roots. NZ sees us as 'easy beats' - so we pull back, so they have no one to beat - they will have to look for competition against the Boks. Good luck to both of them, and let's get our game back in order and then sneak up and bight them all. It's about respect. Let's get it back.

2020-07-21T13:31:42+00:00

Steve 50

Roar Rookie


Go away. NZ/South Africa/England and Ireland schools all have the national rugby body heavily involved in there rugby programs.

2020-07-21T13:31:19+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


This is not the time for untested. Rugby Australia is broke and our playing standards busted. You have to at least find some parts that can be absolutely 'banked' and do the hard work to figure how to make the best of what you have left and then make it work. This sport is in a business crisis, virtually insolvent and no plans, and everyone thinks they are playing monopoly with plastic chips and paper money. The people who have been running the game in Australia for the last 15 years have adopted the same attitude and it does not work.

2020-07-21T12:43:19+00:00

Double Agent

Guest


Those schools are in the school business not the rugby business.

2020-07-21T12:41:11+00:00

Double Agent

Guest


How does this bloke's suggestion destroy the clubs?

AUTHOR

2020-07-21T11:10:26+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


No. Yes.

2020-07-21T10:48:20+00:00

LBJ

Roar Rookie


Soooo, the NRC then. That comp that just died a horrible slow death?

AUTHOR

2020-07-21T10:25:49+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


This is the thing; the NRC is a 3rd tier, semi professional competition, not including test players, played in a cramped window (BBL style) and utilized as a player development tool as opposed to a fan engagement one Beyond being an 8-team competition with a national footprint, there are no similarities with the NRC. No results (good or bad) in the NRC can be pulled across to this and used to draw conclusions because it’s a completely different beast. Think of it as an expanded Super Rugby AU (hence the title of the article). Western Sydney is there for its potential which arguably exceeds that of Perth and Melbourne.

AUTHOR

2020-07-21T10:13:32+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


‘most of those players listed will head overseas’ There are 45 names listed and one of the pillars of this proposal is centrally contracting 40 players, distributing them evenly across the 8 teams and not counting them against the salary cap. A $3m salary cap is just using the current Super Rugby spend on salaries. Again, with a product that’s designed for our needs that isn’t held back by the desires of other, I don’t think it’s an unrealistic target to set the bar higher. Furthermore, a professional rugby player isn’t exactly a secure job at the moment (anywhere in the world). Especially for those that aren’t at test-standard. Don’t expect the usual players to be swooping down picking off talent on mass. As discussed in the article- the landscape has changed and it presents more favourable conditions to take risks. The other consideration/possibility is tapping into private investment to bridge us through the building phase. Private investors seem to be using the pandemic to circle global sporting clubs and leagues that may have presented as over inflated investments previously. I believe there’s a good sell here to drum up some interest. I agree, a $3m cap is probably going to result in the loss of a decent chunk of the NRC ‘professionals’ to overseas clubs. If we can push it out to $4m, I think we’re starting to get in a better position to hold onto a lot more in that bracket thanks in no small part to the compromised global player market.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar