The Roar
The Roar

alex gordon

Roar Rookie

Joined May 2021

4k

Views

1

Published

50

Comments

Published

Comments

Your format Idea is really interesting Ken but I don’t think its the most probable format for next year. Since I wrote the article it seems the format for next year might change however, Looks like RA want a conference system now: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/super-rugby-negotiations-stall-as-australia-cools-on-trans-tasman-competition-20210622-p583bp.html. Intersting to see what happens.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

These guys do get a run but there is a cost. we lose players like Nisarani, mac Hansen, Dempsey, BPA, Hegarty overseas and we lose players like this every year. We also have less money for grassroots because we are sinking so much into the rebels. And we have a weaker comp and loose fan engagement there. there is just such a huge cost for keeping the rebels and we are getting so little return. The other thing is if those guys are good enough they will get a run anyway by outcompeting players in the other 4 provinces and earning selection.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

I think we are just on different sides of the fence on this one Piru 🙂

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

that’s a nice analogy. My opinion is just that i don’t think we can afford to keep running 5 taps, particularly if we are going into a permanent comp with the NZ sides. My other argument for that is based on cohesion but thats a debate for a different time
I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of these arguments I just don’t think its feasible currently.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Hey Piru, your right it is a result of the force being cut but my point is that the dilution of talent does not strengthen the super rugby teams. No matter where the talent is produced the more it is diluted the weaker the teams. the guy above was arguing “Cutting a team doesn’t improve the quality of the other 4” and I am disagreeing with that.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

if the brumbies don’t want to merge fair enough. And yea I absolutely believe the other sides are worse after the reintroduction of the force (also think the force should stay). The force have already raided the brumbies academy for next year and are likley to continue to take players from the other clubs as they are well within their rights to do. Arguing that this doesn’t weaken our clubs though is just ridiculous, if you want the rebels to stay fair enough but don’t pretend there is no cost

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

I think the lack of player and coaching talent strengthens the argument for limiting expansion. Put simply if you don’t have the resources for it don’t do it.

We can try to fill the void with foreign players but we can’t afford high-quality foreign players, we can’t even afford to keep many of our own high-quality players, so i feel this strategy is a bit of a dead-end. the rebels have been trying it for 10 years and it hasn’t gone too well so far

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Because the Brumbies makes the most strategic sense. The Brumbies operate in a town of 395,000 people most of whom are rugby league fans. Giving the brumbies exposure to Victoria would put a high-quality side in an expansion state (which is what expansion needs to succeed). It would also give the brumbies access to a mass financial market. the Brumbies major sponsor is pluss500 – a retail training company no one has ever heard of. exposure to the Melbourne market could give brumbies access to super funds or mining company’s (high end sponsors). It could secure the financial future of the brumbies and promote the game in Victoria, all the while consolidating resources and talent.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

My mistake re stacy iLi, in particular, saw his Wikipedia and assumed he was from NZ. I didn’t consider the injuries much when making the claim that they are using foreigners to fill their starting 15. however I still think the fact that the rebels (and force) are using foreign players to fill their roters is an indicator that there is an oversupply of professional rugby contracts In Australia and that cutting a team would consequently not have drastic ramifications in terms of limiting oppertunities for high-quality local players.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

True Olly but the rebels don’t make money. the only profit they have reported was in 2020 and that was because they got so much money from Jobkeeper. If they are not profitable then even if you lose the TV dollars you are still ahead

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

hey in brief. Rugby went pro in 96 so when we had 3 teams it was actually professional. I know we would lose players if we cut a team (as there are fewer professional contracts available) but we would only be losing fringe players. We would actually have more money per player contract so I don’t think we would end up loosing too much talent

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

hey Geoff, your right correlation isn’t causation and there are many other factors that contribute to success, but at the end of the day we were stronger when we had less teams. We have relatively less resources than we did in say the 2000’s and we only had 3 then 4 teams in the 2000’s. Its because our resources have depleted that i believe we should withhold from exspansion and return to 4 teams

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Thanks EFF, you’ve certainly opened my eyes to a few new ideas. disagreement and discussion is what we are here for 🙂

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

I think if the probability it will be worth it is higher than not then I would pull the trigger. As a random pundit I reckon the probability is higher

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

I hear what your saying, maybe my point is a bit simplistic but couldn’t the remaining 4 clubs continue the same developmental pathways. eg the force could have a scout in Melbourne who signs promising juniors to Perth?

I suppose you might be less likely to have promising juniors in Melbourne without a super team though

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

but Ferret, the more professional rugby positions we create the less money we available have per player, and the more players we will lose to league or overseas rugby. If retaining talent is the goal surely consolidation will help with this

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

I think the rebels have certainly been better but excluding superAU their strongest ever finish is 9th (2018), I really just don’t think the expansion has been successful in Melbourne

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Hey zero_Cool only highlighting this here because a few people have said it now, reds win was with 4 teams not 5, tahs was with 5 teams though 🙂

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

I suppose we don’t have any assurance, I think it would mean we get considerably stronger but it could be the case that we improve slightly and then it doesn’t justify the sacrifice.

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Hey Ken, that is a left field idea but its interesting, I’m kind of intrigued to see how Aussie rep teams would fair against NZ!

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

hey ex force fan, this is a really fair point I hadn’t even thought about it before, let alone considered it in the article. I love what Twiggy is doing in WA and the idea of a member-owned franchise is super appealing. food for thought 🙂

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

hey Andy,

I think it’s more than saving face. In terms of super rugby, I think the competition will shrink in terms of fan engagement and revenue if it remains as competitive as it currently is. So stronger means performances of teams improve and the competition grows. I’m basically arguing that we are not engaging well with the victorian market anyway so cut the rebels and grow the game by making the comp better.

cheers for reading

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Passion is what rugby is all about! i was abrupt with my response which was also uncalled for, sorry mate, and cheers 🙂

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

But Piru our teams are so bad, by the path we are on I’m referring to exspansion we can’t afford. which has been going on far longer than 1 year (rebels entered the comp in 2012). If we don’t improve we risk losing ground in established areas like NSW and QLD and if we lose ground there we won’t be able to expand to victoria.

If you think of the force when we had 4 teams the force had players like drew Mitchell, Giteau, Pocock, Sharpe and James O’Connor all playing for them, wouldn’t it be better for the force and Australian rugby to concentrate talent like this again?

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

Cheers bro 🙂

Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive

close