Where to for Super Rugby?

[Derpus]

People arent going to pay that amount in one hit. The model is pay by the month for other sports like NBL Orr pretty much any streaming. You can charge maybe $20/mth max (Kayo is $25), but probably really be about $15. Wallabies tests are on FTA so you lose a chunk of subscribers there. If you get $90 per household per year you would be doing very well. I think this is really a sub $5m proposition.

You'd only get rusted-ons paying for sub International content at the moment. I'd happily for $15 a month for all things rugby but not many will.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

No idea - I take it you're advocating self-broadcasting? If so I'm on board.

Yes if feasible. There'd have to be several things investigated and ironed out. Cost of operating the platform being the most notable. The other would be what potential subscribers would willing to pay and what they are worth to advertisers per head.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

SARU committing to SANZAAR doesn't necessarily mean they have to commit to Super Rugby. More the RC. Which is where the true value in the alliance lies. As for the report. That has to be a misquote as if there were only 5 places for SA teams it would bring the number of teams to 17 not 18.

Rapport's article is paywalled & in Afrikaans but the headline reads "Pro18 wink nou vir vyf SA spanne" which Google translates as "Pro18 now shops for five SA teams" so I don't think it's a misquote, rather an indication that the 18th team is coming from somewhere other than SA.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

People arent going to pay that amount in one hit. The model is pay by the month for other sports like NBL Orr pretty much any streaming. You can charge maybe $20/mth max (Kayo is $25), but probably really be about $15. Wallabies tests are on FTA so you lose a chunk of subscribers there. If you get $90 per household per year you would be doing very well. I think this is really a sub $5m proposition.

That's why you would conduct research into how broad your potential market.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Rapport's article is paywalled & in Afrikaans but the headline reads "Pro18 wink nou vir vyf SA spanne" which Google translates as "Pro18 now shops for five SA teams" so I don't think it's a misquote, rather an indication that the 18th team is coming from somewhere other than SA.

While I think it would be the perfect option for the Jaguares if Super Rugby as we know it ends I'm not sure how likely that is. Apart from that outside of Scotland or Italy I don't know where another team could come from. Unless the Russian posters over on the T2 Rugby forum speculation about Zenit St Petersburg looking to invest in Rugby and targeting something like the Pro14 was actually closer to the make than I assumed when I saw it.

 

[Omar Comin']

People arent going to pay that amount in one hit. The model is pay by the month for other sports like NBL Orr pretty much any streaming. You can charge maybe $20/mth max (Kayo is $25), but probably really be about $15. Wallabies tests are on FTA so you lose a chunk of subscribers there. If you get $90 per household per year you would be doing very well. I think this is really a sub $5m proposition.

I think a better model is to have some different options, including discounts for an annual subscription. For example, the NBA League pass does the following: NBA League Pass Premium: $249.99/yr. or $39.99/mo. NBA League Pass: $199.99/yr. or $28.99/month. NBA Team Pass: $119.99/yr. or $17.99/mo. That's in USD.

If it's a sub $5 million proposition then rugby is in even more trouble than we thought as Fox only makes money through subscriptions and advertising too.

 

[stoff]

I think a better model is to have some different options, including discounts for an annual subscription. For example, the NBA League pass does the following: NBA League Pass Premium: $249.99/yr. or $39.99/mo. NBA League Pass: $199.99/yr. or $28.99/month. NBA Team Pass: $119.99/yr. or $17.99/mo. That's in USD.

If it's a sub $5 million proposition then rugby is in even more trouble than we thought as Fox only makes money through subscriptions and advertising too.

Fox has the advantage of combining it's marketing and advertising operations for all content. Craig Hutchinson (SEN owner) keeps stating he has never had more listeners, but can't monetise it due to the advertising market having collapsed. That is for AFL talk in Melbourne.

I was just reading an article https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soc...or-netflix-style-service-20200531-p54y2i.html where soccer don't think initial revenue of $13.6m would cover their startup costs and they would look to rego fees or state unions to chip in. We are top to bottom broke, so no help for us there, and it sounds like we have already spent the WR (World Rugby) money to balance the books. We are in alot of trouble.

 

[Quick Hands]

Nope... three times:

2001
2002
2014


And in 2015 the Waratahs and Brumbies both made the semi-finals.

Australia was more successful with five teams than in the Super 14 era.

I stand corrected.

 

[Omar Comin']

Fox has the advantage of combining it's marketing and advertising operations for all content. Craig Hutchinson (SEN owner) keeps stating he has never had more listeners, but can't monetise it due to the advertising market having collapsed. That is for AFL talk in Melbourne.

I was just reading an article https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soc...or-netflix-style-service-20200531-p54y2i.html where soccer don't think initial revenue of $13.6m would cover their startup costs and they would look to rego fees or state unions to chip in. We are top to bottom broke, so no help for us there, and it sounds like we have already spent the WR (World Rugby) money to balance the books. We are in alot of trouble.

The SEN story is not a good sign. But a rugby streaming service would be more of a niche audience with a disproportionate number of high net worth/high income households. Do you think a small number of major broadcast sponsors would be able to generate significant revenues?

If the startup costs are that high and there's no other funding available then it's probably not doable in the short term. But things could change quickly if we are confirmed to host the 2027 world cup.

 

[KOB1987]

Apologies for the duplication, I just posted this on the broadcast thread but it's pertinent here too.

With respect to the future, if we do go down the TT path you would have to think that whatever the previous Super format was worth to Fox, the TT only version would have to be worth more. Surely. The payments to NZ & Aus that is. Viewership from down under will be at least twice whatever it was going to be.

 

[Rebels3]

Apologies for the duplication, I just posted this on the broadcast thread but it's pertinent here too.

With respect to the future, if we do go down the TT path you would have to think that whatever the previous Super format was worth to Fox, the TT only version would have to be worth more. Surely. The payments to NZ & Aus that is. Viewership from down under will be at least twice whatever it was going to be.

Plus reduction in travel costs and for broadcasters more content that can be put on at times that revenue from advertisers could be generated from their end.

If RA can chop $3-5m at head office, States $500k-$1m each, Super takes a 10-15% decline in salaries ($2.5-3m) and wallaby payments also 10-15% ($1-1.5m) less. Add reduced travel costs, maybe more game days (extra revenue for clubs) you could take a significant cut in broadcast.

I believe this is what they will angle for, if that’s the case or not is yet to be seen.

If they got a similar deal now under a TT comp they would be in a very good position, but all indications are that kind of money isn’t going to be offered.

 

[KOB1987]

Plus reduction in travel costs and for broadcasters more content that can be put on at times that revenue from advertisers could be generated from their end.

If RA can chop $3-5m at head office, States $500k-$1m each, Super takes a 10-15% decline in salaries ($2.5-3m) and wallaby payments also 10-15% ($1-1.5m) less. Add reduced travel costs, maybe more game days (extra revenue for clubs) you could take a significant cut in broadcast.

I believe this is what they will angle for, if that’s the case or not is yet to be seen.

If they got a similar deal now under a TT comp they would be in a very good position, but all indications are that kind of money isn’t going to be offered.

I think it's hard to work out what the indications actually are. At this stage we don't even know what the format of the comp is, so broadcasters don't know what they are bidding on. For all we know the $10-18m which was bandied about last week might just be for the Super AU comp and the Bledisloes. If that's what it is for it's not too bad given the circumstances.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Apologies for the duplication, I just posted this on the broadcast thread but it's pertinent here too.

With respect to the future, if we do go down the TT path you would have to think that whatever the previous Super format was worth to Fox, the TT only version would have to be worth more. Surely. The payments to NZ & Aus that is. Viewership from down under will be at least twice whatever it was going to be.

I certainly hope so. This has been discussed many times on the forum previously but the Super Rugby averages are dragged down significantly by games both against SA and Arg teams. Both here and overseas. Which drags down the overall value of the competition down. In fact, I suspect the $10-18m figure is based of the overall average viewership as it currently stands including all of the SA/Arg games. Combined with the suggested 14 team single round robin competition that puts the offer (assuming it's more the $18m and not the $10m) at something like $1.3m a round.

Without those the average jumps up to somewhere between 50-60K. Practically doubling. A TT competition featuring 10-12 team playing a double round robin of between 18-22 games would be able to justify more investment in terms of broadcasting.

 

[Derpus]

How good would a TT comp with the Sunwolves (with actual Japanese players), Force and the Drua be. I'd watch that shit.

 

[Rebels3]

I think it's hard to work out what the indications actually are. At this stage we don't even know what the format of the comp is, so broadcasters don't know what they are bidding on. For all we know the $10-18m which was bandied about last week might just be for the Super AU comp and the Bledisloes. If that's what it is for it's not too bad given the circumstances.

I haven’t thought of it like that, that does make a lot of sense. Maybe the crappy offer was their way of saying we need something else if you want investment.

 

[KOB1987]

Would be nice to see if WR (World Rugby) would be willing to push their Drua investment into our Super Rugby comp this year to see the Drua be the 6th team and therefore providing that 6th team for a 3rd game a week of content.

Would be nice indeed.

I’ve convinced myself that the $10-18m is related to this season only. 4 Bledisloes would have to be worth at least $20m, so $10m to us, and the remaining $0-8m dependant on whether or not we have a super AU comp at all, and then whether it’s 2 or 3 games a week. So with no Sunwolves, yes the Drua would be a handy inclusion. Only thing is I don’t think the govt would include them in our bubble.

 

[Derpus]

Would be nice indeed.

I’ve convinced myself that the $10-18m is related to this season only. 4 Bledisloes would have to be worth at least $20m, so $10m to us, and the remaining $0-8m dependant on whether or not we have a super AU comp at all, and then whether it’s 2 or 3 games a week. So with no Sunwolves, yes the Drua would be a handy inclusion. Only thing is I don’t think the govt would include them in our bubble.

I thought the pacific islands were largely 'Rona free?

 

[KOB1987]

I thought the pacific islands were largely 'Rona free?

They are but I still don’t think they would be allowed in without the 14 days quarantine. And I doubt they have been training!

I think Samoa and Tonga have had 0 cases, but Fiji has had a few. I haven’t checked that for recency though.

 

[stoff]

The SEN story is not a good sign. But a rugby streaming service would be more of a niche audience with a disproportionate number of high net worth/high income households. Do you think a small number of major broadcast sponsors would be able to generate significant revenues?

If the startup costs are that high and there's no other funding available then it's probably not doable in the short term. But things could change quickly if we are confirmed to host the 2027 world cup.

That's literally the million dollar question. The RWC piece is interesting as it could bring a CVC type bid in to play. You can probably pick up the remnants of Super Rugby for nothing or close to it, but could you make it pay? With an RWC boost in interest maybe you could. An aligned world calendar would also help. Super Rugby is a steaming big liability for RA. Does it pay its way in NZ?

 

[KOB1987]

Had to laugh at this cheap shot fucknuckle Wally Mason chucked in at the bottom of today’s article.