Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
Melbourne Terrace
Darby Loudon (17)
Pulver looks like a idiot now after talking up Super Rugby on FTA all year but it's hardly surprising. From FTA TV's perspective, the structure of Super Rugby is hardly appealing with only 5 Australian teams and 10 others that people here don't care about and the majority of games in unfriendly time zones. That's before we bring in the poor ratings and limited appeal of the game.
He's done well however to get a total payout similar to the FFA's one from Fox Sports Australia and SBS but the games in a poor state when Fox are only willing to pay less than half what they pay for the A-League.
He's done well however to get a total payout similar to the FFA's one from Fox Sports Australia and SBS but the games in a poor state when Fox are only willing to pay less than half what they pay for the A-League.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Please do tell genius, what would have been a better course of action?
Sit around and say nobody wants to watch rugby?
He's out there pumping up the code. If you say things enough in the media people tend to believe it.
To really gain Media Attention, the Pulveriser needs to put it on his Linked In Profile.
Melbourne Terrace
Darby Loudon (17)
Be realistic about his options rather than pretending we're still in 2003 and give everyone yet another dose false hope? FTA was never going to be an option and it never will be, he should have at least acknowledged this and sought out alternatives such as a ARU run subscription streaming service.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
So in your opinion, a sports administrator should never, EVER talk about something that is aspirational and in no way EDIT:a foregone conclusion?
You throw the word "never" around a lot. Probably why you're not the CEO of the ARU, or anything else.
Melbourne Terrace
Darby Loudon (17)
No administrators should be positive and the main seller of their game but not unrealistic in their goals. But don't let that distract from your silly hyperbole.
Indeed i use the word "never" in relation to FTA and Super Rugby. Rugby is comfortably 4th behind AFL, NRL and Football and the ARU, who's sole plan is "People will like Rugby again when the wallabies win" will not get close to changing that. FTA networks have better things to do with their money and prime time spots than, in their view, waste it on a competition with limited appeal across Australia meaning Pulver was chasing a golden goose that never existed.
If you can't see why 7, 9 and 10 wanted nothing to do with Super Rugby and are unlikely to change from that position in the future then you are deluded and have nothing but petty insults.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
You're doing a pretty handy job of insulting yourself with all your carry on. I hardly need to chime in.
But I will
Wow. So I've got nothing but petty insults, but you're happy calling Pulver an idiot? Fucking ace work there.
I can see why the FTA guys don't in terms of the sports they're already invested in, and the losses they're making on them now or will head towards in the future - 9's sponsorship of NRL was 20% "free advertising" for example, which is giving air time away. The AFL market risks being in the same situation as NZ Rugby - maximised in a domestic market that grows in increments.
So he should have come out publicly and absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt, ruled it out and not got your little hopes up? You poor flower. Is your husband around to give you a hug?
Pulver stated they were exploring options. In fact it was known from about mid-season in Super Rugby that there was only one likely bidder in FTA land (7) and that was shaky. But if you run your business by publicly stating what you CAN'T do, you're hardly likely to endear yourselves to the share holders and sponsors.
At that same time, Pulver stated that streaming options were also on the table, and represented a step forward in a congested market.
He's also headed up the creation of the NRC. Suppose that wasn't done to your liking either.
The point is, he's trying to do something, which is his job. He can't make the Wallabies play better, he can only help build the base to provide more players to feed into the system.
Of course, its not an easy job, and I imagine he has better things to do than listen to some grumpy dickhead pointing the finger at everything they perceive is wrong. Simply because, more often than not, such people are the ones who think they know better, but are doing sweet fuck all to help rugby at any level.
My advice to those people (if any of them are reading) is: fuck off. You're an anchor and a shit bird, and you're in the way of progress.
But I will
Wow. So I've got nothing but petty insults, but you're happy calling Pulver an idiot? Fucking ace work there.
I can see why the FTA guys don't in terms of the sports they're already invested in, and the losses they're making on them now or will head towards in the future - 9's sponsorship of NRL was 20% "free advertising" for example, which is giving air time away. The AFL market risks being in the same situation as NZ Rugby - maximised in a domestic market that grows in increments.
So he should have come out publicly and absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt, ruled it out and not got your little hopes up? You poor flower. Is your husband around to give you a hug?
Pulver stated they were exploring options. In fact it was known from about mid-season in Super Rugby that there was only one likely bidder in FTA land (7) and that was shaky. But if you run your business by publicly stating what you CAN'T do, you're hardly likely to endear yourselves to the share holders and sponsors.
At that same time, Pulver stated that streaming options were also on the table, and represented a step forward in a congested market.
He's also headed up the creation of the NRC. Suppose that wasn't done to your liking either.
The point is, he's trying to do something, which is his job. He can't make the Wallabies play better, he can only help build the base to provide more players to feed into the system.
Of course, its not an easy job, and I imagine he has better things to do than listen to some grumpy dickhead pointing the finger at everything they perceive is wrong. Simply because, more often than not, such people are the ones who think they know better, but are doing sweet fuck all to help rugby at any level.
My advice to those people (if any of them are reading) is: fuck off. You're an anchor and a shit bird, and you're in the way of progress.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
After I bought a copy of today's AFR the article was posted on Rugby Heaven
Fox, Ten clinch $200m deal to screen rugby matches
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...by-matches-20141006-10qoxe.html#ixzz3FM7bg35n
Fox, Ten clinch $200m deal to screen rugby matches
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...by-matches-20141006-10qoxe.html#ixzz3FM7bg35n
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Pfitzy, this is the problem in a lot of peoples eyes. The strength of rugby in Australia shouldn't rely almost solely on how well the Wallabies are playing. At the moment it seems that everything in Australian rugby is geared towards building the player base or developing the players so that the Wallabies can do well.
Cricket and Soccer used to be the same. Now they're going from strength to strength because the Big Bash and A League have been developed into meaningful, entertaining club competitions. Their purpose is not to develop depth for the national team.
On the other hand the NRC is positioned as a third tier player development competition which will ultimately benefit the Wallabies in the future. Even Super Rugby is structured so that players get the ideal development and experience for test rugby. Neither are created with the fans in mind first and foremost.
The fact Super Rugby is worth so little to Fox compared to the A League is worrying. It's also troubling that they're not willing to pay any more for it, or there's no competitors willing to compete with them for it, given the last deal was negotiated during the GFC.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
And again, we get back to the philosophical difference: you (and "fans", apparently) want rugby to be there for you. By the arguments you make on TV rights and fan numbers threads, you don't appear to be supporting rugby.
Super Rugby is an international competition; the parameters are different to the A-League and Big Bash. So compromises have to be made. Its not a stretch to suggest it has limited appeal to people outside rugby, who can't conceive of a competition featuring teams in places they've never been.
But then, it never had an image problem in its first 10 years. Now as Generation Me comes through the system, the dynamic has changed.
And its funny how many EPL supporters (who are Generation Me) who have never been to the UK don't have these qualms when they religiously follow Liverpool/Man U/etc.
NRC is just starting. Blowing all your budget on a mass-marketing campaign without actually growing it off rugby base is not going to yield jack shit.
As I have said many times before: we can complain, or we can support. Pick one.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Because obviously having a different opinion to you and criticising the organisation, promotion and structure of a sport you love, and making suggestions about how you think it could be better, means you don't support the sport.
But yes, rugby at the professional level has to primarily be there for the fans. Without fans it doesn't exist.
It's not really to do with teams in places people have never been, it's about teams that are invisible to them, and that most matches involving these teams hold little interest or significance.
Nice straw man.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
The previous deal had a few issues with streaming rights:
1. International rights are owned by SANZAR, meaning that an international streaming pacakge from the ARU is close to impossible, and
2. The previous deal had Foxtel owning all digital rights in Australia.
Regarding this deal, I can see why the Super Rugby FTA deal was widely rejected - the only offer was 1 game per week simulcast with Foxtel.
1. International rights are owned by SANZAR, meaning that an international streaming pacakge from the ARU is close to impossible, and
2. The previous deal had Foxtel owning all digital rights in Australia.
Regarding this deal, I can see why the Super Rugby FTA deal was widely rejected - the only offer was 1 game per week simulcast with Foxtel.
Melbourne Terrace
Darby Loudon (17)
Taking issue with the poor structure and running of the game and choosing not to waste time or money on the results of these failures doesn't mean you don't support rugby.
Parse
Bill Watson (15)
I think you all over complicate things too much. Simply, the Australian public is not interested in watching Rugby Union unless there's some sort of high profile enticement thrown at an upcoming game. I can fully understand this as I love watching rugby and am fully aware that no one else likes watching what I like watching on TV.
Therefore there are only 2 solutions to the problem:
1. I go watch some other sport other then rugby (therefore giving it the kiss of death as no one watches what I watch)
2. Make sure rugby matches on TV have the proper enticement to get aussie audiences wanting to watch.
Number 1 is too hard a task to achieve so we really need to go with #2. Currently only things like Aus vs NZ and Qld vs NSW achieve high profile enticement and thus good ratings. So, since the new deal seems done and dusted, the ARU should take a number of those extra millions each year and throw that money at journalists and high profile members of the community.
Journalists should be "bought" so as to have them write dramatic, sensational stories about rugby players and teams on a weekly basis - it's not important if these stories are true, just as long as the stories appear each week.
Bribes to high profile people - certain society females to have affairs and public arguments with rugby players, various males of other factions bribed into derogatory and inflammatory comments on rugby players and teams.
With this sort of weekly press I am sure rugby ratings would be guaranteed to increase tenfold in a year or 2. The ARU just need to spend the money on the correct "promotion" of the game.
Therefore there are only 2 solutions to the problem:
1. I go watch some other sport other then rugby (therefore giving it the kiss of death as no one watches what I watch)
2. Make sure rugby matches on TV have the proper enticement to get aussie audiences wanting to watch.
Number 1 is too hard a task to achieve so we really need to go with #2. Currently only things like Aus vs NZ and Qld vs NSW achieve high profile enticement and thus good ratings. So, since the new deal seems done and dusted, the ARU should take a number of those extra millions each year and throw that money at journalists and high profile members of the community.
Journalists should be "bought" so as to have them write dramatic, sensational stories about rugby players and teams on a weekly basis - it's not important if these stories are true, just as long as the stories appear each week.
Bribes to high profile people - certain society females to have affairs and public arguments with rugby players, various males of other factions bribed into derogatory and inflammatory comments on rugby players and teams.
With this sort of weekly press I am sure rugby ratings would be guaranteed to increase tenfold in a year or 2. The ARU just need to spend the money on the correct "promotion" of the game.
Sir Arthur Higgins
Alan Cameron (40)
Seems to be some bad reporting by Fairfax. I understand that the rights were $25m a year and are going to $40m a year which is a massive increase albeit from a low base. The only disappointing thing is that FTA didn't bid tho they are showing the wallabies which seems to be all anyone cares about widely. So if it's not on FTA, that sucks, but beyond that who cares how the money is split. ARU now has over 50% more tv revenue. That is a great result.
