Can we replace Super Rugby?



  • SJK thinks so....

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/108123499/sir-john-kirwans-big-idea-for-nz-rugby-bring-back-the-tribalism

    It's basically a concept that I think many of us would love to see. The only downside is that the pool required dips into numbers of 'lower standard' players and, unless there are some rules around caps/eligibility etc we could rapidly go back to the days of a couple of unions hoarding the top level talent to the expense of the provinces.

    I have no issue with the Aucklands and Canterburys capturing talent that has been developed through their systems but it gets messy when young players developed in HB, Naki, BOP etc are lured away with promises of higher exposure. Maybe a better transfer compensation system?



  • @rocky-rockbottom said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    unless there are some rules around caps/eligibility etc we could rapidly go back to the days of a couple of unions hoarding the top level talent to the expense of the provinces.

    seppo-style draft

    My problem with that is that (for me) it removes some of the tribalism that we are trying to get back.
    I've never quite understood the concept of supporting a team from your 'home' that is full of players from other places and the players you should be proud of because they are from your town/school/club are off wearing another provinces colours.
    I'm not stupid enough to think that can be eliminated, and there are plenty of valid reasons for players that restrictions would be an unfair constraint. I do think that provinces should at least be given a good chance to hang on to local talent though and the best way of doing this is to ensure (maybe artificially) that the teams have even funding/spending. I think we may have this model working OK in the NPC at the moment.

    There will always be the unfortunate situations where homegrown talent ends up elsewhere, but I don't think we need to make it a cornerstone of recruitment by spreading players around the country. (it is also unfair on young families)



  • My first question with respect to a new competition format would be whether it's financially viable. Competitions aren't financed through ticket sales but by sponsors and broadcasters. They'd need to be interested.

    Also, the player pool isn't equal. Auckland, and to a lesser degree Canterbury, Wellington, Waikato and Otago have far more players to pick from. If NPC stays semi-professional, smaller provinces will keep on losing players to provinces with universities and more employment opportunities. If some players (e.g., players straight out of school) are required by a SR franchise they've signed with to play for the NPC team of the SR franchise's home base, than the other provinces from a SR franchises catchment will keep on losing players.

    So while smaller provinces have smaller player pools, they also lose players to bigger provinces with bigger player pools. And what happens then? Bigger provinces can pick and choose. The unwanted players, yes, you guessed it, end up in smaller provinces to fill the gaps. As a supporter of a smaller province, I find that very frustrating and I don't quite see how this suggested new format is going to improve that. Even if some of our local talent didn't end up in bigger provinces, we still would lack depth in some positions. Smaller provinces sometimes need imports, but it would help if we could retain our local talent (the Bay would have George Bridge, Caleb Makene, Bailyn Sullivan; for example. Hugh Renton wouldn't have left; Dominic Bird would have played for us).



  • I'd be happy with franchises being limited to Premiership teams. It's crazy that a tiny place like Dunedin has a franchise. Especially when Auckland only has one.



  • I’d be happy with going back to strong NPC sides. Maybe put a limit on how many players can contracted, so encourage a spread of talent to smaller population areas.

    If it’s done right, the top 14 NZ sides should have enough to contract young players coming up in their area.

    Besides, if it’s done right the tribalism will keep players local especially if they get a chance to play on the same competition.



  • @tim I disagree entirely. Premiership/Championship status has absolutely nothing to do, and shouldn't have anything to do with where SR franchises are based.

    Premiership/Championship status also doesn't have anything to do with the size of their home base. Nelson, Pukekohe and Hamilton are all smaller than Dunedin.



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @tim I disagree entirely. Premiership/Championship status has absolutely nothing to do, and shouldn't have anything to do with where SR franchises are based.

    Premiership/Championship status also doesn't have anything to do with the size of their home base. Nelson, Pukekohe and Hamilton are all smaller than Dunedin.

    Which doesn’t negate the main point that there should be at least two SR teams in Auckland. Just based on population alone.



  • @kirwan Only if players from an area can't play for franchises based in other areas. As long as talent from the Auckland area gets the opportunity to play SR (for one of the 5 franchises), there's no need for two franchises in the Auckland area. I doubt two franchises in Auckland would both be able to attract sufficient crowds to fill big stadiums.



  • @stargazer Hamilton and Waikato are double the size of Dunedin and Otago.



  • @tim Maybe, but Nelson and Pukekohe arent'.



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kirwan Only if players from an area can't play for franchises based in other areas. As long as talent from the Auckland area gets the opportunity to play SR (for one of the 5 franchises), there's no need for two franchises in the Auckland area. I doubt two franchises in Auckland would both be able to attract sufficient crowds to fill big stadiums.

    They would if they tap into the tribalism that Sir John is talking about.

    Two sides, Harbour and Auckland would go great.

    And so generous of you to send the Auckland region players around the country to prop up their miserable depth.



  • @kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @tim Maybe, but Nelson and Pukekohe arent'.

    Population of Counties Manukau is over 500,000. Dunedin is 120,000.



  • SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?

    In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.

    If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.



  • @tim said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    It's crazy that a tiny place like Dunedin has a franchise.

    Teams Population
    Crusaders 783,700
    Chiefs 1,308,200
    Hurricanes 1,00,400
    Blues 1,363,900
    Highlanders 332,200


  • @crucial I'm going to run for Parliament at the next election on a platform of ending the Highlanders and giving Harbour their rightful place in Super Rugby.



  • You can't convince me. Population size isn't everything. If they'd pull the Highlanders in favour of another franchise in the Auckland area, that would kill off rugby in the south of the South Island. All local rugby talent would move north. You can see what's happening in Southland. That would also happent in Otago. I don't see any justification for that.



  • @crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.

    Always cared more about Auckland rugby than the Blues. Same with posters like TR and Hooroo for their teams.

    Byproduct of the manufactured nature of SR teams and the draft designed to weaken Aucklands dominance.



  • @duluth The obvious adjustment to make is to remove the Highlanders and have two Auckland based teams: Counties-Manukau/Auckland, and North Harbour/Northland. About 1,800,000 people in the Auckland and Northland regions, with Auckland growing at 45,000 per year.



  • @kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?

    In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.

    If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.

    You're confusing Super Rugby and NPC.



  • @tim said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @crucial I'm going to run for Parliament at the next election on a platform of ending the Highlanders and giving Harbour their rightful place in Super Rugby.

    +one vote.



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?

    In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.

    If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.

    You're confusing Super Rugby and NPC.

    It’s the main topic of this thread genius.



  • @stargazer New Zealand needs to maximise the value of its domestic competitions. The best way to do that is to concentrate on the largest populations. The investment of a franchise for 300,000 people just can't be justified.



  • @kirwan Obviously, my comment about small provinces losing players to other provinces was only related to NPC.



  • @tim Again, revenue from games doesn't come from crowd numbers but from sponsors and broadcasting deals.



  • @kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.

    Always cared more about Auckland rugby than the Blues. Same with posters like TR and Hooroo for their teams.

    Byproduct of the manufactured nature of SR teams and the draft designed to weaken Aucklands dominance.

    Same with me. Counties is my Team. Chiefs are a pro rugby set up that I follow.



  • @stargazer More people will watch if they have a team representing them, if they're being intensely marketed too. The Blues have never represented the North Shore, Rodney, or Northland.



  • Hawke's Bay is my team. I like watching all SR teams for the quality of rugby, especially if there are Bay players on the field (i.e. 4 of the 5 franchises at the moment).



  • NPC populations were mentioned

    Teams Population
    Auckland 872,600
    Waikato 350,900
    Otago 146,400
    Canterbury 512,900
    Wellington 416,700
    Hawkes Bay 164,000
    Taranaki 130,800
    BOP 252,200
    Counties 468,700
    Tasman 152,500
    Northland 175,400
    Southland 98,400
    Manawatu 132,600
    North Harbour 315,900


  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @tim Again, revenue from games doesn't come from crowd numbers but from sponsors and broadcasting deals.

    Who care about the number of consumers they can reach, which obviously follows population.

    Rugby is dying in the south of the South Island. Look at the trouble Southland have putting a competitive team together.

    The population drift north has weakened rugby in the area. And we can’t afford to artificially prop up regions for fun.

    Ironically Sir Johns proposal is the closest we’d get to a lifeline in that area.



  • Ha, so Tasman and Counties have larger populations than Otago.



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kirwan Obviously, my comment about small provinces losing players to other provinces was only related to NPC.

    So you are fine about it in one competition but not another? That’s a dishonest position.



  • @duluth said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    Just looking at those numbers, it seems like a good idea to level the field would be to merge Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay - into some sort of "Central" team.



  • @tim said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @stargazer More people will watch if they have a team representing them, if they're being intensely marketed too. The Blues have never represented the North Shore, Rodney, or Northland.

    Christ, Northland supporters actively dislike the Blues.



  • @kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @tim Again, revenue from games doesn't come from crowd numbers but from sponsors and broadcasting deals.

    Who care about the number of consumers they can reach, which obviously follows population.

    Rugby is dying in the south of the South Island. Look at the trouble Southland have putting a competitive team together.

    The population drift north has weakened rugby in the area. And we can’t afford to artificially prop up regions for fun.

    Ironically Sir Johns proposal is the closest we’d get to a lifeline in that area.

    No, they follow tv viewers, who can be all over the country and not just local population.



  • @kruse Just don't call them Vikings.



  • @stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    @kruse Just don't call them Vikings.

    Do it!

    Retro jerseys and everything.
    Great times!

    Cue: @Nepia runs to the thread.....



  • @crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:

    There will always be the unfortunate situations where homegrown talent ends up elsewhere, but I don't think we need to make it a cornerstone of recruitment by spreading players around the country. (it is also unfair on young families)

    Drafts in the USA also bring serious dollars to the drafted players, so it's worth relocating. But - they usually happen after a few years from school; not sure what that looks like here where people are falling over themselves to sign 18 year olds who might be the next big thing



  • Another batshit crazy proposal from SJK. I have absolutely no interest in financially tying NZ Rugby to Australia alone, if it can be avoided.

    On the draft front though I have long been in favour of an entry draft from Mitre 10 Cup to Super Rugby for NZ franchises, with players declaring after their first year and the teams drafting the rights of the players.

    It would give the Mitre 10 Cup a lot more context, would hopefully avoid some positional logjams within franchises and negate the need for extensive franchise scouting budgets which is the biggest waste of money in NZRU currently.


Log in to reply