Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

12 Aus teams is never going to happen and nor should it.

Tv revenue won’t drop, but it doesn’t mean it will increase which causes the biggest issue as your overheads will be guaranteed to increase, as will salaries.

Fox is feeling it isn’t getting much value out of a large portion of the content Super Rugby provides. Pay TV is driven by 2 things, direct debit subscriptions (who and what drives these) and advertising revenue. From my knowledge having rugby on pay tv drives subscriptions. The general demographic has disposable income and attracts high value clients for advertising, so there is two positives rugby brings to Fox. The issue is Super Rugby isn’t providing content at times that translates to advertising dollars, on some weeks there is 1 game during peak revenue spots to sell advertising revenue to, therefore getting value back on the initial investment is difficult. This is where the conversation of dropping SA comes into it from a broadcasters view. It has nothing to do with eye balls in South Africa vs in Australia, without been cruel 10 South Africans watching rugby is probably the value of 1 Australia when you’re talking advertising revenue purely basic economics of one been a third world country with a considerably inferior economy to the other.

SuperSport (South African broadcaster) are in a position to generate more dollars from their investment due to the times that games are on display over there as it’s mid morning breakfast television when in NZ and Aus, then prime time when in SA. Compare this to NZ and Aus where it’s afternoons, nights and early hours of the morning which traditionally are extremely low generating time slots, hence cheap shows and replays like Texas Walker and infomercials filling spots. Moving away from SA would allow Sky and Fox to provide more content at enviable times to generate a profit from as well as capitalize on Sunday time slots, which are currently frowned on due to the travel commitments, themed rounds (Anzac day) etc. that our competitors can easily capitalize on. This would lead to potentially a greater investment from our own providers as they could monetize it greater.

The lack of consistency in time slots and predictability of when teams would play are massive deterrents for FTA providers as consumers like consistency to fit their habitual lifestyles. The likelihood of Ch10 blocking out Fri 730 and Saturday 730 to accommodate rugby is very slim, if they are looking to fill space every 2nd week with a movie rerun during a highly valuable advertising revenue time because there is no game on (We can already see in the NRL how ch9 insists on games during origin period as they want consistency in product, despite calls that the quality declines). They’d rather invest in another show where they can build consistency of viewership. Having SA makes the consistency almost impossible.

SA is a great rugby nation, but it is causing so many issues on the financial growth of the sport here, this is why they have to go. Also if NZ hadn’t been top of the pops for the past 15yrs they would think very similar, let’s see how the next couple of years go if NZ doesn’t manage to become the top of the tree again.

 

[Slim 293]

But the SA timeslots is what brings in the money from the international audiences in the UK/Europe, even though it's largely based on the interest in the NZ and Aus teams playing in that timezone.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see why all the parties want to stick together.

 

[dru]

Whether this is possible allowing for internal power struggles and ego’s being bruised. Privatise say 12 Australian teams and let them play out of small grounds.

Neither RA or the State Unions have the enterprise or capital to get us out of the hole we are in.

Before you answer my post, answer this question first, would you cancel your Fox subscription if we moved to 12 local teams.

I like this. We should understand the comment/criticsm from Dan (and I think) R3 is fair. There would be a quality drop and this would have an impact through to the WBs. I don't however think it would be a substantive drop in the comp itself - more important to have a system that tries to guarantee a more-or-less level playing field.

Such a comp can easy reach out to Asia and Pacifica - if the commercial feasibility stacks. Introducing international games needs to pay for itself, travel and management included. And if the Kiwis realised it was better than what they are left with there would be a distinct jump in quality - again, as long as a more or less level playing field was ensured. Kiwis either increase team numbers or the players are accepted for international duty from across the comp. If not the Kiwis would be a negative impact on the comp. Leave them out.

Well before this stage we have a comp much more easily amalgamated with Twiggy than Super, which is a belated attempt to combine resources.

Regarding my Fox subscription I cancelled after the Reds last game last season. I might pick up Kayo going forward or I may simply live on the game reports and going to home games. Rugby subscription I suspect has been whittling away for years so that now even the rusted on wonder about it.

 

[Rebels3]

But the SA timeslots is what brings in the money from the international audiences in the UK/Europe, even though it's largely based on the interest in the NZ and Aus teams playing in that timezone.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see why all the parties want to stick together.

Maybe I am wrong on this, but I thought the higher ratings in Europe were generated by NZ games on at breakfast times in Europe and the SA time games rank poorly because it clashes with the domestic offerings in Europe already.

Let’s be honest the value is in NZ and not Aus or SA.

 

[hoggy]

Rebel3 "12 Aus teams is never going to happen and nor should it."



Look I agree with the majority of your post, but the first sentence to me highlights a mental thinking that afflicts Australian rugby to much. NRL/AFL all the codes have comps with varying levels of teams from 10 to 20, yet rugby we're so stuck on this must have Wallaby quality level of teams to sustain fan support.

I would argue this is one of the prime reasons we aren't capable of getting out of the mess the code is in here, just the mention of say 8 teams, and its all doom and gloom, yet competing competitions all over the world all happily existing with 10-30 teams.


I'm not trying to argue the economics or competition quality, but until we get out of this, nothing can ever change mentality (dis-regarding the vested interests) then nothing will, the first thing is for the game to want to change, you can't run if you first don't learn to walk.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Rebel3 "12 Aus teams is never going to happen and nor should it."



Look I agree with the majority of your post, but the first sentence to me highlights a mental thinking that afflicts Australian rugby to much. NRL/AFL all the codes have comps with varying levels of teams from 10 to 20, yet rugby we're so stuck on this must have Wallaby quality level of teams to sustain fan support.

I would argue this is one of the prime reasons we aren't capable of getting out of the mess the code is in here, just the mention of say 8 teams, and its all doom and gloom, yet competing competitions all over the world all happily existing with 10-30 teams.


I'm not trying to argue the economics or competition quality, but until we get out of this, nothing can ever change mentality (dis-regarding the vested interests) then nothing will, the first thing is for the game to want to change, you can't run if you first don't learn to walk.

The thing is. The NRC proves we could do it. And provide a product of interest. But we're so scared of reaching out as a code that we maintain this overly conservative nature that has essentially doomed us to being overly reliant on the national team.

 

[Rebels3]

It’s more around the fact there isn’t interest enough to sustain 12 teams. If 12 teams were introduced they need to be fully functional professional outfits, which require training bases, facilities, administration staff, venues, etc. I can’t think of 12 locations where that is possible. You also need brands to leverage off. Having 12 teams would mean the end of the only other brands that people in the country recognize outside of the Wallabies brand in the Reds and Waratahs. Unless 12 different private owners are prepared to come in buy land in a location that’s accessible to the public, build stadiums of 5-6000 and be prepared to bank roll it for a minimum 10 years at massive losses it simply won’t happen, anything less and you’re seen as a local park competition without the facilities for high performance so won’t attract any serious athletes. The only other options available would be the usual government run and funded stadiums and facilities in multi sport facilities and massive stadiums which is unsustainable when you’d have 12 different hands on the 1 pie.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It’s more around the fact there isn’t interest enough to sustain 12 teams. If 12 teams were introduced they need to be fully functional professional outfits, which require training bases, facilities, administration staff, venues, etc. I can’t think of 12 locations where that is possible. You also need brands to leverage off. Having 12 teams would mean the end of the only other brands that people in the country recognize outside of the Wallabies brand in the Reds and Waratahs. Unless 12 different private owners are prepared to come in buy land in a location that’s accessible to the public, build stadiums of 5-6000 and be prepared to bank roll it for a minimum 10 years at massive losses it simply won’t happen, anything less and you’re seen as a local park competition without the facilities for high performance so won’t attract any serious athletes. The only other options available would be the usual government run and funded stadiums and facilities in multi sport facilities and massive stadiums which is unsustainable when you’d have 12 different hands on the 1 pie.

Suggestions we could sustain a 12 team pro domestic competition in view of league and afl dominance vs current interest in union is ridiculous. We need others involved like nz, Fiji, Japan etc

 

[hoggy]

Suggestions we could sustain a 12 team pro domestic competition in view of league and afl dominance vs current interest in union is ridiculous. We need others involved like nz, Fiji, Japan etc

Nobody said 12 teams, what about start with 6 teams we already have 5, so no possibility we couldn't just add one more with private investment, maybe structure the finances differently, see what possibility with a 2 round competition maybe champion league games with NZ/SA & the pacific. But you prove my point, it never will happen because the first thought was, no way ridiculous thinking, the fan-base can't see past a Wallaby test.

 

[Joe King]

Hypothetically speaking, what would be the negatives and (possible) positives if rugby in Aus went the way of the soccer, and put in place a domestic rugby structure like the other codes have, and picked Wallabies from overseas?

I know it would change things for good, but would we die happy?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Nobody said 12 teams, what about start with 6 teams we already have 5, so no possibility we couldn't just add one more with private investment, maybe structure the finances differently, see what possibility with a 2 round competition maybe champion league games with NZ/SA & the pacific. But you prove my point, it never will happen because the first thought was, no way ridiculous thinking, the fan-base can't see past a Wallaby test.

You include Fiji and a 2nd PI squad and we'd have a nice little league going on. We could as you suggest structure the finances a little differently to make it work.

 

[Lorenzo]

Theres literally no money for any of that.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Theres literally no money for any of that.

Really? Because 6 of the teams already exist. Arguably 7 if you wanted to count Samoa in GRR.

 

[Lorenzo]

And they are kept alive though broadcasting revenue that largely wouldn't exist under your proposal.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

And they are kept alive though broadcasting revenue that largely wouldn't exist under your proposal.

How much of the broadcast revenue we currently receive do you think comes from Super Rugby? When you look at the ratings for Aus derbies in Super Rugby they suggest that we'd be able to table a product at least as popular as the A-League was when they secured $68m a season. Potentially even more so.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

We need to figure something out because the concept of a British and Irish league has popped up again with CVC apparently the ones pushing it. If this were to come about I'd dare say they'd look to jettison the Sth Africans (and potentially the Italians) from the mix and we'll be back to square one again.

 

[Lorenzo]

How much of the broadcast revenue we currently receive do you think comes from Super Rugby? When you look at the ratings for Aus derbies in Super Rugby they suggest that we'd be able to table a product at least as popular as the A-League was when they secured $68m a season. Potentially even more so.

If you think RA can get even 20% of that for a domestic rugby comp, I suggest you get in touch with both RA and whoever you think is going to pay it, because I can guarantee they will take your call.

 

[hoggy]

How much of the broadcast revenue we currently receive do you think comes from Super Rugby? When you look at the ratings for Aus derbies in Super Rugby they suggest that we'd be able to table a product at least as popular as the A-League was when they secured $68m a season. Potentially even more so.

You need people in charge willing to pursue that possibility or have the drive to look at some of the options available, you only have to look at the Twiggy saga to realize how much of a closed shop the whole thing is.

Its a change in mindset that is required, Foxtel don't care they already have exclusive rights to whatever is presented so they'll slop up Super rugby for as long as they have subscribers.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I don't think Hoggy in current market we could even support an exclusive 6 team domestic oz competition....just not enough interest to make it a viable commercial product.....

I think if we did something like this back say 2003 or even 6-7 years ago when interest was much higher it could have worked but I think damage so great that going to take a lot to win fans back and hence i just can't see commercial broadcasters etc willing to take it on and make it hence commercially viable.

I have come to the conclusion as long as NZ play ball we need NZ (and proably more so as Japan with own pro league made Japanese involvement in a competition we are involved in less likely).

I use to think probably otherwise but I think cold hard reality has set in for me.

Get an attractive competition in Asia that is time zone friendly and more innovative and recover lost ground maybe in another decade we could then look at our own domestic pro competition but at this point looks a pipedream.

 

[cyclopath]

Maybe I am wrong on this, but I thought the higher ratings in Europe were generated by NZ games on at breakfast times in Europe and the SA time games rank poorly because it clashes with the domestic offerings in Europe already.

Let’s be honest the value is in NZ and not Aus or SA.

You are correct.