• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

molman

Peter Johnson (47)
EDIT: Sorry, miss read your post as a revenue breakdown, not a viewership breakdown.

All good. You are right to point out the other factors such as exchange rate, the potential value of each viewer to the broadcaster and/or SANZAAR as a source of revenue. As zer0 referred to in his post above, there are a range of factors to the various funding streams and slices of the pie the different unions have contributed. It will be interesting if Sky can derive their $100 mil + costs per year of value out of their investment in NZ Rugby. I'd still contend that it doesn't make longterm strategic sense to leave RA out in the cold.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
All good. You are right to point out the other factors such as exchange rate, the potential value of each viewer to the broadcaster and/or SANZAAR as a source of revenue. As zer0 referred to in his post above, there are a range of factors to the various funding streams and slices of the pie the different unions have contributed. It will be interesting if Sky can derive their $100 mil + costs per year of value out of their investment in NZ Rugby. I'd still contend that it doesn't make longterm strategic sense to leave RA out in the cold.

They don't want to leave RA in the cold, but nor do they want to diminish the value of their 5 teams. The NZ strategy is that they want 5 teams because it concentrates their talent enough to provide strong teams while at the same time provides enough room to introduce young talent into the structure. They want 2 Aust teams because that's all they think that we could provide to maintain a consistent level of standard with their 5. I suspect that they might negotiate for a 3rd team if that was accompanied by Twiggy dollars.

NZRU have an excellent track record of long term strategic planning - which is why for example they've never tried to increase their own Super Rugby involvement to 6 teams. That would upset the balance described above. From my observations Super Rugby has always been a means to an end for NZRU rather than an end in itself. i.e its prime purpose is to provide the best prepared high quality talent to the ABs, not winning the competition. It's why for example despite early domination of Super Rugby they changed the way they did things after RWC 2007 - not to win more Super Rugby titles but to put in place a structure which gave the ABs the maximum chance to win RWCs.

Anything which NZRU commit themselves to will be done only after a thorough strategic analysis of what is best for NZ rugby as opposed to what is best for SH rugby.
 

Bandar

Bob Loudon (25)
Anything which NZRU commit themselves to will be done only after a thorough strategic analysis of what is best for NZ rugby as opposed to what is best for SH rugby.

I think this sentence is meant to read

"Anything which NZRU commit themselves to will be done only after a thorough strategic analysis of what is best for the All Blacks as opposed to what is best for SH rugby."
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Australian rugby teams needs to get with the times and make their match day squad announcements much earlier then they are. NRL & AFL both have deadlines they have to announce their preliminary squad by, NRL announce theirs by Tuesday I believe and then they’re trimmed 24 hrs prior and again just before kickoff.

What allows is for media to take an interest in the upcoming match and allow some news content to be generated about the lineup. Rugby Union just sits in the dark Mon-Thu until the next squad announcement is made.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Perhaps New Zealand could legitimately consider even a 6 team domestic competition. Home and away for 10 games per team is only 1 less than Super 12 was. If they don't want to mess too much with their current balance of teams the 6th side could be made up of say 50% Pacific Islanders. Add on the North vs South Island game (or even a series) and potentially some matches against Japanese or Australian teams in a champions league or FA Cup style tournament and that may suit them.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Interesting that the local radio news out here today is covering GeeRob's story. Rugby barely gets any air time at all out here beyond the Wallabies, so my gut feel is that RA is pushing this story into the media. The crux of the story was that 'Rugby Australia is preparing to launch a Big Bash Style domestic rugby competition after NZ said they only want 2 Australian sides in a Trans Tasman comp, Rugby Australia saying that if that model is to proceed all 5 Australian franchises will need to be included'.

That led me to wonder exactly what is meant by the term 'Big Bash style competition' and I thought it has to have something to do with the structure of the competition rather than merely where the teams are based. After a bit of Googling I found this article from 2010, interesting reading:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22446957/investors-offered-33-stake-big-bash-teams
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
That led me to wonder exactly what is meant by the term 'Big Bash style competition' ...

I think the big bash reference is largely to do with foreign player allowances, allowing each side to bring in x number of marquee internationals (currently 6 per side in big bash).
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Perhaps New Zealand could legitimately consider even a 6 team domestic competition. Home and away for 10 games per team is only 1 less than Super 12 was. If they don't want to mess too much with their current balance of teams the 6th side could be made up of say 50% Pacific Islanders. Add on the North vs South Island game (or even a series) and potentially some matches against Japanese or Australian teams in a champions league or FA Cup style tournament and that may suit them.

NZRU has already said Super Rugby Aotearoa was not sustainable at all.
 

molman

Peter Johnson (47)
I think the big bash reference is largely to do with foreign player allowances, allowing each side to bring in x number of marquee internationals (currently 6 per side in big bash).

Considering most o/s competitions have embraced the reality of foreign players I think that if it is managed correctly (ie. ensuring enough local players in key roles ala' the Irish central player management) then I think it has merit. I can imagine that there must be a number of European/Japanese/Argentinean/South African and even Kiwi players who wouldn't mind plying their trade in Australia if they can earn a reasonable income.
 

KiwiM

Nev Cottrell (35)
Well well well...

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6826734/nz-boss-quiet-on-super-rugby-replacement/?cs=14276

NZR chief executive Mark Robinson hit out at Australian media reports that his board were split over two possible preferred models - an open-border split of five NZ and five Australian franchises; or an eight-team competition featuring five from NZ, two from Australia and one from the Pacific.

Robinson said the board had yet to even see a copy of the independent Kiwi-driven "Aratipu Report" recommendations which will be unveiled publicly next week.

A report in the Sydney Morning Herald said Rugby Australia was poised to reject any proposal featuring three or less Australian teams.

Robinson said he had spoken to RA chief executive Rob Clarke earlier on Thursday and received no steer on his preference for 2021 and beyond.

"There's nothing we're hearing about what they would and wouldn't be open to at this stage," Robinson said.
"I'm not aware of what Australia are particularly focused on in that area."

Robinson said suggestions his board were split was "absolute nonsense" along with suggestions the Sanzaar joint venture was on the verge of being dismantled.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Interesting - but regardless if RA’s position is 5 teams plus open borders for trans Tasman and to look at alternative big bash domestic comp if nz reject this - at least RA finally might be looking after oz rugby’s own long term interests.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Considering most o/s competitions have embraced the reality of foreign players I think that if it is managed correctly (ie. ensuring enough local players in key roles ala' the Irish central player management) then I think it has merit. I can imagine that there must be a number of European/Japanese/Argentinean/South African and even Kiwi players who wouldn't mind plying their trade in Australia if they can earn a reasonable income.
No I take big bash as also focussing more on whole of fan experience like rapid rugby and big bash - this would be very forward thinking and good forward thinking
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
While I’m inclined to say Fuck NZ and go it alone, I don’t think now is the right time to do that. Firstly, there just isn’t enough time to establish a pro domestic comp in between now and the start of the season - a lot of research needs to go into the proposed teams, they need to be funded, etc. Secondly, RA needs test rugby to generate revenue and there is going to be fuck all of that over the the next 12-18 months. So we wouldn’t be able to pay the players.

If NZ are going to play hard ball and insist on 2 teams I’d say run with it for next year. There are a few reasons for this. 1) RA has stated it’s intention is to focus on keeping the top 30 or so players, and a similar amount of developing players. In going with 2 teams they can keep 70-80 across two pro squads. 2). NZR will see pretty quickly that 5 NZ franchises are going to get rogered by 2 Aussie ones and will soon have a change of mind. 3). They’ll also realise how important Australian money is for their survival. 4) This comp would mostly be in lieu of test rugby for next year. 5) Having 2 Australian teams performing strongly could reignite interest in the sport ahead of a possible domestic comp.

The two teams will have to be Qld and NSW, this has to happen to keep the interest of 90% of the fan base, merging sides would just be too confusing and would do more harm than good. The Brumbies, Force and Rebels would just have to be parked for the year.

Meanwhile, remaining players would return to club rugby and possibly the proposed national club comp, while in the background a pro domestic comp is being formulated and built.



Note this a Covid recovery for next year only, not a long term proposal. The only way I can see a domestic comp being financially viable from next year is to build it from the existing 5 franchises, but this will be completely reliant on private equity, the broadcast dollars just won’t generate enough to keep the players, and if we lose the players no one will watch it. It will quickly go into a death spiral.

What is this not enough time to establish a pro domestic competition when we now have one with super rugby AU - just add one more team for next year and a base to build on...
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
What is this not enough time to establish a pro domestic competition when we now have one with super rugby AU - just add one more team for next year and a base to build on.

Yes I make mention of that in my last paragraph - the broadcast deal will be tiny so to retain our players it would be reliant on private equity.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
lol so 1 more team goes from 'not sustainable' to financially viable? Yeah nah


The All Blacks drive the vast majority of the NZRU's revenue. What they do beneath it can run at a substantial loss and still be sustainable. The new deal with Sky (of which Super Rugby is only 1 piece alongside the All Blacks and ITM Cup) is also far in excess of what Fox Sports will pay in Australia. So how much extra value do they get from having Australian teams? There probably is some, but a domestic competition would reduce travel related costs substantially even compared to a Trans Tasman tournament. I wouldn't be so sure a NZ domestic competition is unsustainable.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
How much extra do you think it costs to travel to Sydney (from Auckland) than to Christchurch? It's fuck all. The costs of travelling to Aus is not something holding this back. The extra revenue from Foxsports, sponsorship access to Aus market, overall sponsorship is significant if you include Aus. If there's nothing to gain by adding another country's market in why does the NRL keep the Warriors around?

I wouldn't be so sure a NZ domestic competition is unsustainable.

This is their words, not mine. We already know the Mitre10 runs a substantial loss too.

Also AIG are dropping out after 2021 so yeah their ABs brand revenue will drop significantly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top