The latest round of he-said, she-said between New Zealand Rugby and Rugby Australia has quickly become pointless, and arguments both in support and in defence have become predictably parochial.
Neither New Zealand Rugby CEO Mark Robinson nor Rugby Australia counterpart Andy Marinos will come out of this looking particularly good.
Unless of course a quick consensus is reached for the rest of the tournament. At the time of writing, there do appear to be wheels in motion, and we could well know more by the time you’re reading this.
But beyond this third Bledisloe Cup match and beyond the rest of the Rugby Championship is perhaps where the true extent of the fallout will be felt. This situation cannot lead to a terminal split.
NZRU CEO Mark Robinson. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
Regardless of who communicated what to whom and when and regardless of what was agreed to and then abandoned, the trans-Tasman partnership between the bodies has – again – taken significant body blows.
Like Robinson, I was also asked to have a chat on radio station Newstalk ZB in New Zealand on Saturday, and host Jason Pine finished what had been an enjoyable conversation with a simple plea to Australian rugby fans: “Don’t hate us, mate! Don’t hate us!”.
It’s a bit awkward to quote myself, and I hope you’ll see the sense in doing this, but his question gave me the opportunity to make the one point about the trans-Tasman partnership I really wanted to make when the program got in touch on Friday afternoon to arrange the interview. It’s a point especially worth repeating now.
“I think the general feeling within [Australian rugby towards NZR] has been manifesting itself over the last few years,” I said.
“We saw New Zealand Rugby decide last year that, ‘We’ve actually had enough of Super Rugby as it currently stands, we think we need to go in a different direction’, and that’s prompted the set-up of the Aotearoa competition and what set up Super Rugby AU.
“Those competitions have worked quite well in a domestic setting, but I think what we all know is that neither Australia nor New Zealand can afford from a rugby sense, and from a rugby economics sense, to annoy each other to the point of one walking away.
“That ultimately hurts the game in both countries, and I’m sure that there will be a solution to this, but the whole idea of a partnership is that you work in conjunction with each other.
“It just doesn’t feel like the two national unions are working equally in conjunction with each other at the moment.”
And so while things will be worked out in some shape or form for the rest of the Rugby Championship, what happens when stakeholders on either side of the ditch return to the virtual table and try to thrash out the remaining details around whatever we’re going to call Super Rugby next year? This is even more crucial, with the 2022 format reportedly very close to resolution.
Rugby Australia CEO Andy Marinos. (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Can all stakeholders continue to finalise plans for a united domestic competition with the same levels of trust and willingness to work toward a common goal? Is the common goal still there?
This is the kind of unintended consequence often overlooked – or just not even considered – when these very short-term actions are taken.
Whether NZR’s decision to not travel to Perth was right or wrong is now immaterial, but you do have to wonder if they considered the flow-on impact of other ongoing discussions.
It was not quite a year ago that the RA chairman was pilloried for declaring “there is respect there, but the relationship is at probably the lowest ebb it’s ever been at”. And remember, he’d been in the job less than a year.
While there have certainly been improvements since last September, it’s probably not too big a stretch to see relations between RA and NZR are now right back at this point.
The big question now is what it will take – and how long it will take – for the relationship to be repaired to the point of either side being confident in their dealings with the other. Are things already agreed to suddenly in danger of unravelling again?
And who should be – or who needs to be – the bigger organisation and offer the first step towards conciliation?
Neither body really has any workable alternate solutions, no matter how far fetched they might be, and the reality remains that both countries need each other for many and varied but ultimately mutually beneficial reasons.
The one major benefit from this saga may be that the partnership is actually strengthened over time, and from there things like partnership agreements can become properly formalised and even binding.
If it results in the creation of a formal commission-style body to oversee Super Rugby, particularly with the inclusion of members representing the clubs, then that won’t be a bad thing at all.
But that’s now up to New Zealand Rugby and Rugby Australia to work out among themselves. And sooner rather than later.
Because the domestic game in both countries depends on it.
robel
Roar Pro
Not sure there is a lot of indigenous rugby presence in the WA playing ranks, but must be enough for it to broadcast it. There is on the ground commentary which is useful as he seems to know the names of the players.
The Hen
Roar Rookie
Big mistake scrapping AU for TT. ratings will be ordinary for TT as they were this year. Money will be thin again etc etc. the expansion fools gold wheel here we go again. Cant we expand AU it worked.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Thinking about it.
Joe King
Roar Rookie
You should write another article jeznez.
Joe King
Roar Rookie
It's not the smaller number of teams that make it boring (think SoO), it's the length of competition you want to play. In terms of making it interesting and exciting, it doesn't matter how many teams play, so long as the length of competition suits it.
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks BeeMc. The solution is not clear until the Wuhan virus is sorted. Meantime they can at least pickup the phone and lend professional courtesy, starting with an apology from NZRU. Or at least a display of statesmanship
Loosehead Greg
Guest
The NZ economy is smaller than the economy of NSW. They need us economically. NZ is also a mature rugby nation. And only 25,000 at Eden Cricket Park to watch the last ABs test says local interest has peaked and it’s perhaps a game in decline. More reason for NZR to look off shore. The Australian population and potential TV audience is 5 times bigger than NZ. Australian rugby can actually go it alone without NZ - not that I’m suggesting we should - but it’s certainly not true that we couldn’t make a go of it. Super Rugby AU has opened our eyes to what an Australian national rugby tournament could be. There’s much more money in our economy and potential TV viewers to wim over, and there’s an awakening economic rugby giant in our time zone that sits closer to us in World Rugby rankings than NZ does. Japan. We don’t play Japan enough, and we play NZ too much. That’s bad business.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
A low point for NZ. Probably a lot of the unfair things said about NZRU this week applied to them back then. Extraordinary arrogance just insisting their contractual obligations could be ignored. Actually quite ironic comparing 2003 to this week.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
…. Like inseparable lovers?
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks you old bugger. Robust discussions flush out the facts and the risks, and we need more of it. I am interested in rugby restoring transparency and putting the game, and all players at all levels, at the centre of every decision. Quality rugby decisions will drive commercial value. Making broadcasters, sponsors and fans of other games the central focus results in confused strategy and the destruction of value.
AndyS
Guest
NPC is worth $5M/yr, SR up around $25M/yr. All wishful thinking aside, an enhanced NPC would be somewhere in the middle. But even if it somehow made the same as both put together (dreaming), NPC salary cap is $1M for an average $30k/yr per player, SR is about $5M for an average around $160k/yr. Put them both together, and the 14 teams would have a salary cap of $2.8M for an average $85k/yr. See many of the SR players sticking around for half the money?
Hfunk
Guest
The idea is that there is no SR. Therefore that (quite large) wage bill supplements what is already paid to the NPC squads. As there are more teams, that equals more content = more revenue. Gates would almost certainly be higher as, 2020 excepted, Kiwis have fallen out of love with SR. The franchises would operate as regional 'centers of excellence'- they already run their own academies which means they could aspects of high performance training off the NPC teams and reduce coaching costs. Most of all it would tap into regional rivalries that still exist that SR never managed. Those stories and rivalries go back generations - and as callous as it sounds, that's marketing gold!
jeznez
Roar Guru
Yeah. That might be the only thing. Per that Herald article we know all Super AU sides were offered the 5 year licenses. What we don’t know is if the old ones were perpetual and whether they’ve just refused to sign the new ones. Regardless the Force have their vote based on the 5 year license. At least for its duration and that is what all Super AU sides should be on.
AndyS
Guest
The question then being, even assuming the NPC deal was somehow as big as the old SR deal, how the salaries of 5 SR teams would look spread across 14 teams. My guess is, not that flash and certainly not enough to keep either the ABs or top tier players from SR in NZ. And as noted, that is based on a pretty optimistic assumption. It is easy to assume all the benefits of the existing plus advantages of the alternative. The reality is never that simple.
Ex force fan
Guest
Correction the historical Western Force license didn’t have a fixed term.
Brett McKay
Expert
Sure, it's a great side, but the NPC with the All Blacks playing is a highly unlikely event. Simply because the NPC doesn't and won't earn the same revenue that Super Rugby does. And less revenue means more of those top players won't be able to resist the far more lucrative overseas overtures. So the NPC even needs Super Rugby as a money earner - because the NPC is subsidised by NZR, few unions are profitable - because the more players contracted for Super Rugby means the fewer players the Unions need to contract themselves. So Super Rugby needs to generate revenue, which means it needs a larger market than just NZ, which means Australia. That's just the reality..
Ex force fan
Guest
Hope you are correct jeznez, I will check with those closest to the Force. Not updating the website for something so important is not only lax it is unprofessional. I cannot fault you interpretations however wonder why the constitution is explicit about Superugby licenses held by Rugby Australian that doesn’t have a vote - may be the historic Western Force license that does have a fixed term. I will check if our participation allow us a vote and if the other franchises signed up to the same 5 year term. If not then playing field is still uneven.
Old Bugger
Roar Rookie
Agreed but, it depends on which side of the ditch, those poor rugby decisions originate.
Faith
Roar Rookie
I guess if he doesn't deliver and the ABs still struggle this year he could still be fired. Right?
Tobokani Sebele
Guest
Appointing Nic Berry would prejudice the All Blacks because he would be very reluctant to call any 50/50 calls against the Boks. Thats why a lot of people are upset at Rassie I reckon. Nic Berry has integrity, I have no doubt, but what Rassie did will stick with him, subconsciously, for a very long time...