Kiwi View: Opening up eligibility - the (not so) quick fix to Super Rugby’s inequity?

But I can blame them for refusing to recognise the mistake, and also for the constant shallow short term strategies when a commitment to five to ten years hard work is required. The trade off on the RA Board is that we have nobody who understands rugby, so that we can have lots of high powered business people. The goodwill and support for rugby is deep and financially significant. Real entrepreneurs would craft a strategic plan for the turnaround of the game and turn it into a prospectus to raise debenture money from that support base. Instead it is a total shambles and rugby supporters are staying away in droves.

Correlation and causation are two different things. There is no evidence that adding extra super teams caused the decline.

While you're right, not many at RA can be held responsible for what did or didn't happen 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The fact is (sadly) they don't have the money to put in place an NRC.

Great to see you Mugs! Check out my recent Wales and Ireland article which talks about this sort of stuff - I know you've done a lot of thinking about it so you'll have a lot to add to the conversation. (Also if you have the time and interest the rest of my Golden Generations series.) The Australian one should be out in the next few weeks where I'm hoping for Aussie Roarers to have their say on why Australia rose and fell.

Nice try Mug....

Five teams is a minimum to provide a commercial presence and support international competitiveness. We don't invest in developing players or increasing interest in the game to provide the foundations for success.

What is a hand out? It used to be that you get something for nothing. Australia had a system for developing world class players from 1974 - 1994. Our era of competitive dominance was probably about 1983-2003. Do the math. I think that refusing to spend time and effort on developing players and growing support for the game, then asking someone else to let you use their players to grow support for the game, is getting something for nothing.

Unfortunate that SL own 85% of the global rights. NZR only gets 7.5% so it is not like there is any funding coming back for rugby in NZ.

Look at the NRL or AFL. Buying in talent isn't a sure thing, and there's risk attached. What if we purchased Turbo into Rugby, and he did two hammies and a pectoral in his first test back? Some Origin formulas would be better, but they are all born in NZ or Pasifika.

NZ's early Super Rugby draft was awful, something thankfully consigned to the ash heap of history. The idea of it being re-created in any form is nuts, let alone in a multi-national competition, let alone where it would junior players in the 18-20 category. Unsurprisingly the Scylla and Charybdis of NZ rugby, Hansen and Henry, have come out in support of it, so you know it must be a really stupid idea. At the start of Super Rugby NZ's teams would be able to recruit 25 players from within their own franchise area, players who that Super team had first rights to. Such a selected player could not go into the draft. Any players in the franschise area not picked up by their local team had the right to go into the Super Rugby draft, which would then be run around September in the year before the competition. A lot of teams, and the Crusaders were well ahead on this, would deliberately not select 25 players in their initial squad to see who they could pick up in the draft. Nobody really knows how the draft actually played out, though I suspect in true NZ fashion it involved a lot of number 8 fencing wire, drunken late night negotiations, threats of violence and arbitrary interventions by the AB's coach. Plus the odd feed of paua fritters and whitebait to keep things going. But in the end the clubs would reveal their 25 picks for the year after the NPC finished. During teh season replacement players were picked up in open contracting between player and club. The draft collapsed when the NZ players union insisted it was changed to open contracting, so no obligation to play for the team in your franchise area if they wanted you. Sign for who will have you. This aided the best organised team, the Crusaders, but then the Crusaders had also made the most of the previous system. The draft ended formally then, but what has also happened is that 38 players per team are now funded, not 25, so the surplus talent in the system, players often underestimated initially, has also been radically reduced by comparison with the early days. This was also fully promoted/pushed by the players union. Again, try to increase the number of surplus players in the NZ system to bolster player movement, something that is possibly part of the Australian draft proposal, and you will lose. The NZ SR clubs wont have it, the NZ players union wont have it. A draft without reducing NZ club rosters would only involve NZ players rated 191 and above, so why bother? Why not have open contracting with full national eligibility wherever you play for any NZ player, rated 1 or rated 250? Why not have Tamati Tua eligible for the AB's from the Brumbies? The draft makes no sense. In a much less complex environment, the NRL, it also collapsed. A salary cap is even more ludicrous. Tell All Blacks that they have to move to another club because they can no longer "be fitted under the cap" and they will be gone by lunchtime, and not to another SRP club. Other sports are very different. Unless they are willing to jump to union, NRL players dont have anywhere else to go, which is why they put up with a salary cap. The NRL is so much richer than the Super League in Britain. But then multiply that financial advantage by 10 for the NBA and the NHL, while the AFL and NFL are monopolies. That's why there will be no salary cap.

The potential to undermine NZ rugby, is there MS....because opening up in the SR format, will certainly lead to opening up across the globe. It will encourage players to go overseas with the knowledge that, they will still be considered, for national selection. It's a never ending circle that will IMO, pass down to the junior grades as those players, will start to entertain an overseas opportunity. Before NZR realises it, high school players will also be on the radar, for international scouts. NZ does not want to become a nursery for global rugby - it wants to become a nursery for its own, professional clubs and national squads.

Those players, chose to leave NZ to pursue in all honesty, a higher pay-day. The way I see it, it's not up to SR franchises to look at this as an opportunity....it's up to the player to decide if they want to return first then let the natural process of selection, determine whether they receive an SR contract. The players going overseas, allowed NZR and the SR franchises to contract new players from within hence anyone returning, would have to show that they can better these new players, to secure a new SR contract. I have yet to see a player return, to take up that challenge.

I believe Highlanders are establishing an Academy or have just started one. The other franchises already have established academies and it is here, that emerging players including U-20s, are included. NZR, does not have the financial luxury at the moment, to maintain 50 players outside of the SR contract system, even with these academies. Players in the respective academies, are without doubt, being considered for an SR contract with that academy franchise whereas, players on the stand-by list, are there solely for an opportunity, in the event of an injury. If these stand-by players show they deserve more attention, then not only the franchise that acquired them for injury replacement but also, every other franchise, are entitled to speak to those players, to offer an SR contract.

There is a standby group of players available for any franchise to choose replacements - fringe players who are basically just one rung below gaining an SR contract. Considering the injuries suffered, I suggest that group simply ran out of props hence the choice to also look overseas. There were a few exemptions allowed to both the Saders and Highlanders, allowing ABs to play beyond the 5 game rule due to injuries suffered in both camps.

If he fills in during SR, then he deprives himself of rugby in NZ, to have any chance of impressing the selectors. NPC kicks off in mid August which is too late to try and gain AB selection. It is really, the player’s choice of location and then, deciding if there’s enough time to gain AB selection. Of course, if a player has no interest in National selection, then it doesn’t matter where he plays.

Can you give specifics about these "grandiose plans about caps and drafts, all of which have failed"? I'm not familiar with this having been attempted. Living in the US its always intrigued me how US sports generally follow a kind of communitarian (you might say socialist) philosophy - whereas in Europe and other anglo countries its more dog-eat-dog - the rich get richer etc. The exact reverse of the general political environments in those countries. But when you see such a divergence in performance amongst teams in a competition that is struggling (and lets face it - it's not like NZ SR teams are packing the houses) - then looking for ways to "level the playing field" only seems sensible to me and in the best interests of all in the long run. At least so long as NZR think a combined comp is still in their interests this should be the case. It seems at the moment both NZR and RA are hedging their bets on whether to stick with the combined comp or go it alone. I don't think thats good for anyone. They need to make a decision - if they decide to stick with a combined comp then they both need to be willing to make some sacrifices to make it work better. NZR agreeing on a more even rev share and salary cap would be a start. But they are clearly the senior partner in this relationship so RA also need to be willing to give up something as well. (control? some % of ownership in Aus SR teams?) So comp wide salary cap at a minimum seems like a good idea. But a draft? I'm open minded to it - but it just appears like a really foreign concept. Does any professional rugby comp have an actual draft? I think MLR have a pseudo draft for collegiate players - but thats it? It also just makes me uncomfortable that this will further diminish the local culture of teams. I kind of long for the days when these were truly representative teams like back in the amateur days. When everyone who played for Queensland was a fair dinkum Queenslander. I know that didn't even really exist back in amateur days (there were always ringers) - and we've gone a long way from those days. But still today the majority of the Reds and Tahs squads were born and bred in those states. I fear the day that is no longer the case.

Are player budgets for the kiwi SR sides actually significantly larger than the Aussie sides? By how much? Relaxing national eligibility rules between NZ and Aus super rugby teams seems like an obvious step. However we often hear about how much ABs success is based on the "centralized" system in NZ. Would NZR see this as major undermining of that strength?

I know Oz players go to NPC and really more should do it. But if a player from NZ was to go be a squad filler for the Force say from Counties area, when Counties are picking their NPC squad would the player get picked or would the bosses of Counties say well he has gone overseas so we are giving his NPC spot to someone who stayed in the NZ club system.

But surely they have an under 23 of u 20 teams that is around the main squad just incase they are needed. In Europe you have about 40-45 fully professional and then about 30 of academy players that are generally physically professional but not mentally which is how teams like Leinster and Glasgow can play over 50 players in a season with some players being given 6 months of S&C with a goal to play 2 games that season that may be handpicked. If they need to play more they are ready to go. while waiting they are doing A games etc.

This season there were 8 from both Oz and NZ. In France it was 50. I like the system that NZ use but how many of the under 20s on the stand by list are backs and how many are frontrowers. France is about 50:50. Oz have the players to bring through but they must do it themselves to get to SR level where as in France they are in a professional setup getting professional S&C