Wallabies coach Rennie weighs in on trans-Tasman competition debate

How many English players at the English clubs. Seems to be saffas islanders the main stars and a few old abs

the discussion was kinda about the setting up a new franchise thing so at least a can draw a line through your comment as having nothing to do with mine, and move on

How has that been left it? It’s been alluded to in just about every one of my comments. And again, it appears as though the NZR and it’s players are on two different pages because there’s a growing chorus coming from those taking the runs and making the tackles that the level they’re playing at isn’t sustainable.

It is a pointless endevour carrying on any sort of discussion with you Jacko. In almost every exchange you make blatant misrepresentations that make it a joyless experience for me and make you look quite silly. This is no different here with multiple distortions and I just can’t be bothered correcting you. Sure, there are some points here that I could pick up and discuss further, but then you’d go and misrepresent their intent in your next reply. Do you ever stop and wonder why you regularly find yourself in these sorts of skirmishes on the roar? It’s a common occurrence for you- May be reflect on that.

Never claimed they arnt a Franchise Soapit. Just that they ARNT a SR franchise. They are a GRR franchise. And a NRC franchise.

The "no/no/yes/no answers very clearly show the instant disadvantages of your suggestions to the NZRU and as for the "NZ must stop using Sr as a test trial ground well sorry but every tier 1 test side in the world BAR NONE are selected from pro comps like SR. Where do you suggest Test sides are selected from? Club rugby? Overseas interest is valueless? yet thats where many $$ come from and 100,000 viewers should not be ignored. Use a bit of foresight!!! Show me anything at all that shows NZ saying that 5 Aus teams is optimal. When did a partner being financially incapable become irrelevent? So are you say that NZ STATING that it was for 1 year is "nothing in the new alignment" stating its for 1 year? So NZ has Unique and Backward policies? Yet have been extremely successful inspite of their backward policies I guess....Maybe Aus should adopt these Backward policies and become as successful as NZ is with them. As for your uneducated comment around "Rugby is a religion" in NZ well you very clearly have not been to NZ for many years as the VERY reason NZ constantly does in-house reviews is because of the decline in rugby and all other contact sports. Clearly you are kidding yourself. So glad you are happy to allow NZRU to have a camp with its centrally contracted players...So insightful of you it is possibably your smartest comment here on the ROAR. ( not saying a lot )

‘why dont they just add a couple of teams and a PI team and have their own comp?’ They just might. And we just might. That’s the very real likelihood if a model that fits both can’t be found. But to answer your question- because it creates a 10-team league and their financial responsibility is only stretched across half of the competition. 5 teams for NZ is probably their optimum model to effectively cover their small population while 5 teams is probably Australia’s optimum model to effectively cover our small fan base (as much has been suggested by both the NZR and RA). The financial mismanagement of RA is of no great concern to the NZR beyond them having a great rival in a compromised position. That is of course where we are right now and it’s come about predominately thanks to continuing to align ourselves to the hard to engage with Super Rugby. Covid has swept the decks and provides the opportunity to build something that better fits our needs to once and for all unlock our true potential. ‘Aus does not have 5 SR sides and has not had 5 SR sides for some time.’ You continue to come back to this point and it’s gainless. Super Rugby beyond Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Aotearoa isn’t a thing right now and there’s every reason to think that it won’t be a thing again. It’s an absolute certainty that it won’t be what it was before Covid struck. It’s also a certainty that RA will ensure a 5-team approach and base it’s planning on that as such. Move on. ‘The Aratipu report said a NZ run comp. Not a TT comp where Aus runs their teams and NZ runs theirs.’ Yea ok, I’ll pay that. And it might be one of the most insightful comments you’ve ever made on the Roar (not saying a lot). The NZR want Australia involved because despite what you choose to believe, they know a competition that has Australia’s rugby community invested is a stronger rugby competition for NZ. And you’re correct, the NZR aren’t approaching it like a Trans Tasman partnership, more a NZ based competition with Australian teams involved. The issue with this approach for the NZR is that they shouldn’t expect RA to embrace this approach- as much has already been suggested. The NZR will need to pivot quickly from this strategy if they really value Australia’s involvement- which I think they’ll do and they’d be mad if they didn’t. If you think the minor interest shown on the other side of the globe in a competition that’s basically got the floor to itself is going to put you in some sort of position of power…. you’re kidding yourself. ‘And as the report says its a 1 year comp until SAANZAR gets up and running again if C19 ever stops threatening everything.’ As alluded to above; you don’t have to be an expert at reading between the lines to conclude that Super Rugby as it was is done. The rhetoric and planning from all 3 original SANZAR partners has basically put all of the cards on the table. The Sunwolves and Jaguares are done. There’s nothing about the new alignments and infrastructure proposed that suggests what we’re moving towards in 2021 will be just a ‘gap year’ model. Use a bit of foresight. ‘Will the ABs coach be able to ask a SR side to play a person in a different position? Will he be able to get a player moved from 1 team to another to get more game time? Would the Aus teams release the NZ players for ABs camps or would they rest a player at the Abs request?’ No. No. Yes/No. On the x2 and a half ‘no’s’; the sooner that unions stop treating Super Rugby as a trial ground for test rugby and let it be it’s own powerbase- the better. This approach cannibalises interest and compromises it’s legitimacy for fan engagement. If that’s how NZ want to continue to approach their domestic rugby, then by all means go on your way. You’ll continue to be incredibly competitive effectively due to the fact that you’re one of the only places on the planet where the game has a religious-like following, but a country like Australia with it’s incredibly competitive sporting landscape, can’t be held back by these unique to NZ (where you can afford to do what you want) and backward policies. On the x1 ‘yes’; I’d see no reason players couldn’t be released for a mid week camp (to be back with their club before the weekend) as currently happens. These types of initiatives don’t have as great an impact on a Super Rugby team’s competitiveness and it’s a quicker trip to Auckland from our east coast than it is to Perth (so a trip across the ditch for a 2/3 day camp is achievable).

the force arent a new franchise jacko. so no...not like that actually

Soapit do you mean like Aus has for this year? NZ has 10 "force" quality teams playing below SR level.

Rob9 if NZ has to give the 5 teams 5 or 6 players each why dont they just add a couple of teams and a PI team and have their own comp? That way they would know the money from the broadcasters would not be wasted and the comp would be administered properly without the threat of ex captains or broadcasters taking over and stuffing everything up. They would control the player movement and not have to enter in to any partnership at all. Aus does not have 5 SR sides and has not had 5 SR sides for some time. The Aratipu report said a NZ run comp. Not a TT comp where Aus runs their teams and NZ runs theirs. Aus need NZ to get a decent broadcast deal but NZ does not need Aus to achieve that as the ratings for the NZ comp are doing very well in the Uk. And as the report says its a 1 year comp until SAANZAR gets up and running again if C19 ever stops threatening everything. I feel that Aus asking NZ to give up control of its players is asking NZ to give up the very thing that has ensured success over many years and will create a situation where NZ is just handing players over and getting nothing for them. Will the ABs coach be able to ask a SR side to play a person in a different position? Will he be able to get a player moved from 1 team to another to get more game time? Would the Aus teams release the NZ players for ABs camps or would they rest a player at the Abs request?. It would be a very backward step for NZ to have a player sharing system and there would simply be no benifit to NZ rugby. Aus rugby gets all the advantages and NZ rugby ends up disadvantaged.

You selectively leave out something... "Aratipu review suggested NZ pursue a Trans Tasman model that limits Australian involvement to between 2 and 4 teams in order to establish a somewhat even competition"... What you left out and was to maintain quality. Diluting the NZ teams will not maintain the level of quality. The NZ public fans to see THEIR players in THEIR teams and an even comp with the quality we have this year. Your suggestion goes against that.

Different ballgame if we had all of our players ‘available’ to fill 5 teams. Jacko, what you can’t seem to grasp is that the Aratipu review suggested NZ pursue a Trans Tasman model that limits Australian involvement to between 2 and 4 teams in order to establish a somewhat even competition. RA has also expressed a desire for a TT model but have (rightfully) stated a requirement for our 5 Super Rugby AU teams to be included. So try and wrap your head around this; it’s at this point that effective partners set about finding a solution that appeases NZR’s need for a balanced competition and RA’s need to have our 5 teams involved. AGAIN, free player movement (with unchanged test eligibility) is just one possible option to appease the needs of both parties. I’m sure RA would be happy to just have their 5 teams in regardless but free player movement is just one way to meet the NZR desire for an even competition.

I think we have to strike a balance going forward between our number of teams and the standard of play. Surely theres a way we can keep our 5 teams without diluting the talent to the point that we're largely uncompetitive with NZ. Why cant we have our top 50 odd players in the country in the Reds, Brumbies and Waratahs squads, building combinations/competitive culture (important for the Wallabies) and having close to test match level intensity when they play each other (which NZ claim to have when their sides meet)? With the Force and Rebels - can they not have half their squads from the next best 40 odd aussie players and supplement them with 7 to 10 of the best players from the Springboks, Pumas and Flying Fijians? Or is there just no money to attract these internationals to help keep the Rebels/Force competitive? WA and Melb fans will obviously want to see Wallabies in their local team but I think the most important thing in the short term is to have a Wallabies side winning the bledisloe again and to have super rugby sides going toe to toe consistently with the best 3 to 4 from NZ.

This should be about creating a strong balanced competition that can grow the footprint across the region. With right investment and free player movement of course Australia can sustain 5 sides. But if we have a closed borders competition with NZ then short term of course we will struggle. But you find better answers then shrinking oz rugby footprint to irrelevance cf other competing football codes in oz who have spent the last decade expanding their footprint. Other wise nz does not play ball we go it alone with champions league with nz and Japan.

Will probably end up being two years, i can't see SA sorting out Covid in one year, vaccine or not. As much as i think a 10 team TT will have some serious mismatches, if it means they dump two crap teams going forward then that will be worth it.

so theyre gonna set up a new franchise for one year?

Funding won’t increase with 3 teams

The comp is only for 2021 tho ME....It will be all different for 2022 as SAANZAR comes back into play providing we get a C19 vacs..But if we dont???? Who knows what pro sport will look like anywhere...Interesting thinking tho...

Rob I am very confident England would be able to field 5 teams that would compete in the NZ SRA. Also I am just as confident that SA would have the same should they also have all their players available for 5 teams. Maybe France also but Im not so confident around any other country. You ( Not Aus apparently ) seem to want NZ to provide 5 strong teams then also provide more players to strenthen the 5 Aus teams ( Even tho Aus has 4 SR teams ) so that your teams can compete or beat the NZ sides yet you seem to defiently state that Aus must have 5 teams. So which part of any of that is a compromise to suit both parties and what is in that for NZ? If the Aus sides start to win does the player lending stop and if the Aus sides lose what will you want from NZ then?

or.. here's a thought, we don't have "Free Player Movement" and Aussie fields less teams. "Free Player Movement" only suits Aussie, Less Aussie Teams only suits NZ. How about this, in 2021 we have the Five teams in each comp play and the bottom two teams are removed from the comp for any subsequent years. That way we will have 5 NZ teams and 3 Aus teams and a much better comp.