Exodus
-
@mariner4life I think it was Chris Pringle who, when some Aussie in the crowd called him a sheep shagger replied, "Don't knock it till you've tried it".
If the problem is that we haven't got enough cash and there's no hope of making more ourselves from our non-internationals, we've probably got to look a bit further outside the box.
I'll tell you one of the things that worried me the most last year.
Remember the good old days when NZ and Fiji shared the rugby sevens crown - if we didn't win, they did - pretty much.
Last year we came seventh - miles behind Argentina - and well behind fucking Spain!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024–25_SVNS
Our decline is happening pretty much across the board.
-
look, while i applaud the outside the box thinking, this isn't like soccer where it's gonna be rugby and nothing else. if NZ's best players spend most of the year outside the country, and play in NZ 4-6 times a year, then you are just laying down, lubing up, and spreading your cheeks for the NRL.
The Kiwis would be fucking good though
-
The lengths people will go to to keep the NPC.
This is it.
Having 20 semi professional/professional teams across two competitions is stupid.
We will always export rugby players. What is disappointing is that we spend so much time developing players and some overseas union gets the benefits of our hard work.
-
The lengths people will go to to keep the NPC.
Yep, I want to keep the NPC. Why? Because it probably the best and enjoyable comp in the country. Does it cost NZR money, yep, but I only looking at it as what I want.
We stuck with trying to have a pro comp in a country of 5.5 mill people that's down the other side of world , so it's not going to be great and work for everyone, especially those who reside outside of the country. Super ain't going to run for longer , as we not only country in it, and both countries(as do most world wide) like it or not make most of their money from their test teams. And during July to September we play most tests etc to fund the game. So we got what we got, and we will lose the odd player overseas, but so be it.
The irony is a lot who are talking of exodus on forums have joined the exodus of the country anyway!
I -
The lengths people will go to to keep the NPC.
Yep, I want to keep the NPC. Why? Because it probably the best and enjoyable comp in the country. Does it cost NZR money, yep, but I only looking at it as what I want.
We stuck with trying to have a pro comp in a country of 5.5 mill people that's down the other side of world , so it's not going to be great and work for everyone, especially those who reside outside of the country. Super ain't going to run for longer , as we not only country in it, and both countries(as do most world wide) like it or not make most of their money from their test teams. And during July to September we play most tests etc to fund the game. So we got what we got, and we will lose the odd player overseas, but so be it.
The irony is a lot who are talking of exodus on forums have joined the exodus of the country anyway!
IAustralia would be keen to make more out of Super. They are now running domestic Super during our NPC.
A consistent international window that allows a longer domestic season and is one product would be the right fit.
International windows. Two. Have one domestic competition that runs from March - September. With an international window.
Your views on the NPC are well known and regularly stated. I generally like it. It just isn't viable to have 20 semi/professional sides.
While making changes would create a clear and consistent product. It won't stop players leaving for a more money and experiencss overseas.
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
What is disappointing is that we spend so much time developing players and some overseas union gets the benefits of our hard work.
whats worse, is we are no longer developing players properly as they move to Super & AB rugby and they still leave....
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
We will always export rugby players. What is disappointing is that we spend so much time developing players and some overseas union gets the benefits of our hard work.
We need to start demanding a transfer fee as not all players are off-contract when they leave. There are enough examples of players being granted an early release (usually from a PU contract) without any compensation.
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
The lengths people will go to to keep the NPC.
Yep, I want to keep the NPC. Why? Because it probably the best and enjoyable comp in the country. Does it cost NZR money, yep, but I only looking at it as what I want.
We stuck with trying to have a pro comp in a country of 5.5 mill people that's down the other side of world , so it's not going to be great and work for everyone, especially those who reside outside of the country. Super ain't going to run for longer , as we not only country in it, and both countries(as do most world wide) like it or not make most of their money from their test teams. And during July to September we play most tests etc to fund the game. So we got what we got, and we will lose the odd player overseas, but so be it.
The irony is a lot who are talking of exodus on forums have joined the exodus of the country anyway!
IAustralia would be keen to make more out of Super. They are now running domestic Super during our NPC.
A consistent international window that allows a longer domestic season and is one product would be the right fit.
International windows. Two. Have one domestic competition that runs from March - September. With an international window.
Your views on the NPC are well known and regularly stated. I generally like it. It just isn't viable to have 20 semi/professional sides.
While making changes would create a clear and consistent product. It won't stop players leaving for a more money and experiencss overseas.
Yep mate, not saying I right, but genuinely don't believe Aus is interested in expanding super at all, the domestic super is just a glorified NPC with a different name, and (probably rightfully) using the names of existing teams etc to have a 3rd tier comp. It being used exactly as NPC, as way to blend in youngsters with experienced heads rather than ust going from academies to super.. Not saying it right or wrong, but as with NZ if you had full season super season, not only stuffs mid year tests, but bumps up pay etc.
-
@mariner4life said in Exodus:
look, while i applaud the outside the box thinking, this isn't like soccer where it's gonna be rugby and nothing else. if NZ's best players spend most of the year outside the country, and play in NZ 4-6 times a year, then you are just laying down, lubing up, and spreading your cheeks for the NRL.
The Kiwis would be fucking good though
In more out-of-the-box thinking, given that league was only created to allow players in Northern England to get paid - maybe now everyone is professional, it's time for the two codes to merge again?
The leaguies can't be that attached to their stupid fucking play the ball and shit scrums - and I wouldn't mind seeing possession having to be handed over after a certain number of phases.
Wouldn't the Kiwis be populated with showponies, surrender monkeys and guys who can't take the high ball?!!
-
they already have the superior game to watch (but, importantly, not play) and a fuck ton of money. I reckon they are good.
Rugby can just become for the Europeans.
-
@taniwharugby said in Exodus:
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
What is disappointing is that we spend so much time developing players and some overseas union gets the benefits of our hard work.
whats worse, is we are no longer developing players properly as they move to Super, don't get selected for AB rugby and they still leave....
Fixed
-
I laughed when the players threatened to organize their own comp during the last CBA negotiations.
And NZR would have been laughing too.The only possible game changer is for some outsider to come in with a huge pile of cash, and do a complete revamp.
The comments Rob Nicholl made after he had been chattering with R360 were quite interesting.
He said to them something along the lines of : we already have a comp that needs a major investment, and why dont they jump in there.
They weren't interested then, but they've gone away for a rethink; it seems they do have access to a stash of cash; so they might come back with something a bit more practical than what they had initially.
So long as it doesn't interfere with the international rugby cash cow, I don't think NZR/AR would care what they did.Shoulda gone with Kerry Packer back in 95.
I think the rugby (league and union) landscape in NZ and Aus (and SA) would be entirely different today if we had.The way the IPL came about is interesting.
It was originally a rebel comp (ICL?) which the Indian cricket establishment crushed.
And when they had done that; the establishment took up the model and created virtually the same thing.
It brought huge outside money into the game thru the franchise model.
Aus cricket is considering something similar RN. -
That's a point a lot of people don't understand. They keep speaking like any changes will just shuffle the same amount of cash around. There's ways of making a much more compelling competition which would increase the revenue
One thing I think NZR has really got its head around, is the financials.
If there is any spare revenue floating around in the NZ economy, they'll be on to it in a flash.
Looks like NZR have kinda written off domestic pro rugby.
If there was any possibility of making a meaningful change, they'd have done it.
It is a just a drain on their line.It was compelling in olden times; 40 or 50,000 at a Ranfurly shield game; world class players all over the field . . . great days.
And they were astute enough to further develop that into Super Rugby. Then somewhere along the way they ruined it instead of cleverly adapting it.
It was clear a long time ago that Australia couldn't compete on an equal footing. To me, and I've said this before, the answer was to dilute the strength of the New Zealand squads by adding more. Then you'd have a 30 week competition (10 NZ teams and 5 Oz) which would add the seasonal amount of rugby required, would boost the skill and depth element of players through opportunity, and grow the market in Australia because they'd no longer be regular whipping boys.
More interest. More games. More value to broadcasters.
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
Having 20 semi professional/professional teams across two competitions is stupid.
We do not have 20 pro teams in NZ as far as the players are concerned.
We have 5 for half the season, then there is a reshuffle of those players, and 9 more teams worth of players are brought in for the second half; so 14.(And one teams worth of players [the best players] taken out in the second half of the season, the one team that makes the money to pay all the players).
So that is 5, + 9 more later in the season, as far as the players are concerned.
BS model, but with the current financials, a marginal improvement might be made somewhere, but nothing that will be of much dif to the players pockets.
Looks like NZR has accepted this situation.As for rugby league in NZ, well . . . the direction things are heading RN . . . i can see the Kiwis being a very very good team in 20 years time.
-
Yep, I want to keep the NPC. Why? Because it probably the best and enjoyable comp in the country. Does it cost NZR money, yep, but I only looking at it as what I want.
Haha
The older ferners can remember when NZ did have a world class domestic rugby comp.
Big crowds, great players, great games.
So sad for the younguns; at least the olduns have the memories. -
Super Rugby isn't driving enough revenue.
I think the long-term solution is going to be a joint Japanese, Australian and NZ franchise rugby competition to replace Super Rugby. Then some sort of play offs against the top European teams.
The status quo is slowly dying.
League is the smaller sport in Europe. Super League average attendances are about 10,000 compared to 15,000 in the Guinness Premiership or 12,000 in League One (third tier) football and the United Rugby Championship.
European club rugby will remain an attractive destination for players in the second half of their careers.
-
Super Rugby isn't driving enough revenue.
I think the long-term solution is going to be a joint Japanese, Australian and NZ franchise rugby competition to replace Super Rugby. Then some sort of play offs against the top European teams.
The status quo is slowly dying.
League is the smaller sport in Europe. Super League average attendances are about 10,000 compared to 15,000 in the Guinness Premiership or 12,000 in League One (third tier) football and the United Rugby Championship.
European club rugby will remain an attractive destination for players in the second half of their careers.
I agree. The intractable problem is that Australian rugby is not high enough up the food chain in the codes in Australia and NZ is a much smaller country than Japan, France & England. So, revenue wise Super rugby has a limited ceiling.
Fiji, Samoa & Tonga are small ponds.
NZ, Aus rugby union, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are medium sized ponds.
France and England are big ponds.NRL is more akin to France and England RU in terms of financial muscle. The only way for super rugby to compete with these bigger operations would be to expand to new markets. I don't see any other way that you could generate/grow more revenue.
-
@mariner4life said in Exodus:
they already have the superior game to watch (but, importantly, not play) and a fuck ton of money. I reckon they are good.
Rugby can just become for the Europeans.
You Aussies can have your f***en league if you think it superior to watch.
Rugby can stay for NZ, South Africans and Europeans.
In case you didn't realise , I think League is a shit boring game, and genuinely can't turn brain off enough to sit through a game. And don't drink enough to numb the brain to enjoy it.
-
@SouthernMann said in Exodus:
Having 20 semi professional/professional teams across two competitions is stupid.
We do not have 20 pro teams in NZ as far as the players are concerned.
We have 5 for half the season, then there is a reshuffle of those players, and 9 more teams worth of players are brought in for the second half; so 14.(And one teams worth of players [the best players] taken out in the second half of the season, the one team that makes the money to pay all the players).
So that is 5, + 9 more later in the season, as far as the players are concerned.
BS model, but with the current financials, a marginal improvement might be made somewhere, but nothing that will be of much dif to the players pockets.
Looks like NZR has accepted this situation.As for rugby league in NZ, well . . . the direction things are heading RN . . . i can see the Kiwis being a very very good team in 20 years time.
This isn't about the players per se, this is about driving further profit (which can be passed on to players) through reducing costs by reducing the number of pro / semi-pro organizations and creating a better product that broadcasters will pay for (as opposed to NPC).
That's totally apart from the fact that having only one pro team to play for will give more stability and opportunity for development.
I think there is general agreement on here from many that 8-10 teams (depending on how MP and the Drua are counted) would be the ideal number.
