Back to the future.

[Brumby Runner]

WOB, not playing SA regularly hasn't hindered England's rise to near the top, though it might contribute to them setting a new world record for successive test wins by a first level side.

If SA continue their current slide down the rankings, the rivalry might not have quite the same impact and benefit to NZ as in the past.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^ note that I said something about NZR believing in the necessity of the SA connection RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY . I'd dump SA in a heartbeat & go Trans-Tasman with whatever add-ons can be arranged Champions League styles IF it were viable. I just dont think it's viable & more importantly nor does Steve Tew & the board he reports to.

 

[Sauron]

Seems to me, that if we keep going down the path that we're on (and I take that to mean in Super Rugby, with 5 teams or 4), that at some point the NZRU will have to decide whether they're better served by playing South Africans in the Soup with pro rugby eventually becoming unsustainable in Australia, or a trans-tasman comp.

 

[Joe King]

Not sure if this is exactly what RUPA are proposing, but I reckon it could work out pretty good for Australia.

Oz and NZ teams together (10 teams)
Sunwolves and Jaguares into the SA conference (8 teams)

SA conference to start a week early and play home and away (14 games)

Oz and NZ teams to start a week later and play a single round (9 games) + an extra round against teams within their own conference (4 games) = 13 games.

(Another way of saying this from an Australian perspective is each Oz team would play home and away against all the other Oz teams + play all the NZ teams once).

BYE week before finals.

Finals: the top team from the Oz conference + the top team from the NZ conference + the two next best teams overall (4 teams) get ranked 1-4, and play off against the top 4 teams from the SA conference (1v4, 2v3, 3v2, 4v1) over 3 weeks to determine the Super Rugby Champion.

All up = 17/18 weeks including a bye (which would fit nicely into the window before the inbounds if they are moved back to July).



The advantages for Oz are that all the games of the regular season are timezone friendly and against meaningful opposition. Teams could potentially play at home every 2nd week.

This structure also recognises the value of the local derbies.

One benefit for NZ is that if their teams are truly dominant, they can have up to 3 teams make the finals. Also, if this sits well with Ozzie rugby fans and helps to grow rugby in Australia, then it could be financially beneficial for NZ as well.

This structure also minimises the overall cost of travel and the toll it takes on players.

Further, this structure recognises that SA would prefer to start the season a week earlier while Oz (and maybe NZ) would prefer to start it a week later.

While SA might feel they have too many local derbies, they also have two other international markets to build into - in Japan and Argentina.


It’s not perfect, but it might just be the best model overall given that SANZAAR are keen to compromise. Of course, the NZRU would need to change their policy of wanting to play SA teams during the regular season. ATM, a couple of SA teams don't play NZ teams until the finals anyway.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not sure if this is exactly what RUPA are proposing, but I reckon it could work out pretty good for Australia.

Oz and NZ teams together (10 teams)
Sunwolves and Jaguares into the SA conference (8 teams)

SA conference to start a week early and play home and away (14 games)

Oz and NZ teams to start a week later and play a single round (9 games) + an extra round against teams within their own conference (4 games) = 13 games.

(Another way of saying this from an Australian perspective is each Oz team would play home and away against all the other Oz teams + play all the NZ teams once).

BYE week before finals.

Finals: the top team from the Oz conference + the top team from the NZ conference + the two next best teams overall (4 teams) get ranked 1-4, and play off against the top 4 teams from the SA conference (1v4, 2v3, 3v2, 4v1) over 3 weeks to determine the Super Rugby Champion.

All up = 17/18 weeks including a bye (which would fit nicely into the window before the inbounds if they are moved back to July).



The advantages for Oz are that all the games of the regular season are timezone friendly and against meaningful opposition. Teams could potentially play at home every 2nd week.

This structure also recognises the value of the local derbies.

One benefit for NZ is that if their teams are truly dominant, they can have up to 3 teams make the finals. Also, if this sits well with Ozzie rugby fans and helps to grow rugby in Australia, then it could be financially beneficial for NZ as well.

This structure also minimises the overall cost of travel and the toll it takes on players.

Further, this structure recognises that SA would prefer to start the season a week earlier while Oz (and maybe NZ) would prefer to start it a week later.

While SA might feel they have too many local derbies, they also have two other international markets to build into - in Japan and Argentina.


It’s not perfect, but it might just be the best model overall given that SANZAAR are keen to compromise. Of course, the NZRU would need to change their policy of wanting to play SA teams during the regular season. ATM, a couple of SA teams don't play NZ teams until the finals anyway.

I'd build in that a little. Allow for the Wild Knights to enter Super Rugby and find a way to make a 2nd Argentine squad work. Have then enter the SA conference to bring it to 10 teams as well. This way we would have two ten team conferences. Play home and away for 18 rounds within each conference with the top 4 from each progressing to the finals. A simple 1 v 4, 2 v 3 finals set up with Aus/NZ 1 playing SA 4 etc. Depending on who qualifies for the final, if both from the one conference then the higher ranked team gets the final if one from each then the final will again go to the highest ranked franchise.

Another set up could be again admit both the Wild Knights and a 2nd Argentine squad but have the two Japanese squads play in the Aus/NZ conference and the Arg. franchises in the SA conference. In the Aus/NZ conference split teams into two pools of 6. The Aus pool and the NZ pool both with one Japanese team each. Play each other one right through and then each of the teams in your pool again for a total of 16 games.

The SA conference would run a simple 14 round H/A structure that would both start a week after the Aus/NZ conference and finish a week before. Finals then could be run in one of two ways. Each conference has there own finals series (6 teams in the Aus/NZ and 4 in the SA/Arg) to determine a winner to play in the Championship final rotated between each conference year on year or each conference enters four teams from each and run the finals as above.

 

[mst]

^^^^^^^^^^ note that I said something about NZR believing in the necessity of the SA connection RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY . I'd dump SA in a heartbeat & go Trans-Tasman with whatever add-ons can be arranged Champions League styles IF it were viable. I just dont think it's viable & more importantly nor does Steve Tew & the board he reports to.

I am still of the belief that NZRU and Co see SA timezone as a portal to the European and Americas markets. Like a TV ad you need to be seen to be relevant and the Kiwi Super Rugby sides provide this. It keeps the ABs "brand" in the minds of other markets and it helps then market the ABs. Look at the invites and dollars they get playing Ireland in Chicago, and the fact that they are pushing for extra money for playing test matches in Europe.

Its similar to why SA want to play NZ teams as it creates interest and good competition to market off.

Australia would be taking a similar approach (focusing on marketing opportunities and earning revenue) if there game were sufficiently mature and of a decent strength. But the key deficiency with Australia atm is the lower standard of game to market off.

That can only be solved by having a better domestic set up to strengthen their teams performances. However Australia naively think (want) everyone else to facilitate this for them while in fact they really don't fully comprehend that the key issue are exclusive to Aussie rugby and wont be solved even with a new format.

The perfect example is while people bang on in this thread wanting to create new formats with NZ at the expense of the current Super Rugby. It wont fix Aussie teams continuing to be flogged (format does not change on field performances). That in turn wont bring a bigger audience or more interest. The fact that FOXTEL has openly and publicly stated they would love to broadcasts more domestic product which would allow for improvement of the standard or Rugby in Australia and provide additional revenue (both are big issues) once established is fundamentally being ignored.

So, from NZ's side, how long would a lopsided competition against Australian teams last and what benefits would it bring NZ rugby?

 

[zer0]

Touring South Africa with the franchises is also deemed useful preparation for the RC and EOYT as the players A) become used to living out of their suitcases; and B) receive exposure to vastly different climates. Hansen himself said so a few years ago.

Also allowing AB's to be selected from anywhere in Super Rugby will not happen. It runs contrary to every NZRU strategy.

 

[Omar Comin']

So, from NZ's side, how long would a lopsided competition against Australian teams last and what benefits would it bring NZ rugby?

The fans would get more games to watch at a decent time, players would travel less and costs would reduce. It'd also provide much better chances to grow commercially in the rich Australian sporting market, which NZ would benefit from. As I've pointed out before there would be ways to even out the teams a bit more if that were prioritised.

Sauron made the best point earlier. The current format is likely to be unsustainable for Australian rugby. So what's NZ's best option, let that happen or do something to change it?

Also I really doubt that having NZ super rugby teams play two regular season matches in South Africa each year has any impact on the value of the All Blacks playing Ireland in the USA, or on the All Blacks brand anywhere really.

 

[Sauron]

I haven't read through the thread, so not sure if this has been mentioned; but the decreasing quality of both the South African Super Rugby sides and the Springboks surely reduces their on-field utility to NZR.

What is more harmful to NZR? The possibility of their closest tier one nation going bankrupt, or the loss of games against the South Africans (which are offering less and less in rugby terms)? I think the hand of NZR will be forced in the next few years.

 

[Rebels3]

The NZRU financial independence is whether they like it or not, linked to the Australian game far more than linked to the South African game, the fact is tho that the NZRU see benefit from a rugby perspective through South Africa.

Unions are propped up by TV dollars more than anything, cannibalizing the Australian market would mean less content at time slots that can be sold off to advertising agencies for peak dollars. Therefore a smaller pie would be offered from Sky. Not having Australia in Super Rugby would be a massive win for the NRL as they would dominate television audiences (in NZ) purely on the fact they offer a product at a time accessible to everyone.

The NPC is also proof that the game in NZ is not financially viable on its own, just like any competition here by ourselves isn't viable on our own. Its a great rugby nursery but it isn't even near the ball park to retain any level of elite professionalism in NZ.

I'm going to deal my hand out there and predict that in 10 years time an Aus/NZ competition will happen, either in the form of a domestic conference in a reformulated Super Rugby (not the shitty one delt with now) or an independent Trans-Tasman competition. The power brokers at Sky and Fox would kill for a greater control over content, fixtures, times, to maximise their investment. The money they could generate through being able to place games on Sunday's, Monday nights, ANZAC day clashes would be a game changer for them both. But because NZRU is rightfully looking after their brand which is reliant on being world renowned as the 'worlds best', they are capitalising on this like any business does, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. However with the improvement of teams up north and their growing financial muscle the tide will turn where they will have to offer something other than being the 'worlds best' because that wont be forever, the increased globalisation of rugby will see the days of teams being unbeatable against others over, similar to football just on a smaller scale.

 

[KevinO]

I am still of the belief that NZRU and Co see SA timezone as a portal to the European and Americas markets. Like a TV ad you need to be seen to be relevant and the Kiwi Super Rugby sides provide this.

Disagree, having spent enough time living in Europe the SA games clash with all the local UK/IRE games so they don't get watched anyway. The European sports market is so flooded at that time of day that you will struggle to find anyone who want's to watch SA rugby.

 

[mst]

The fans would get more games to watch at a decent time, players would travel less and costs would reduce.

So would the revenue, level of competition, market exposure......

Every other key competitor in our domestic market is looking to markets elsewhere to grow revenue as the market domestically is lean, yet you suggest that Rugby should do the opposite?

How much cost reduction do you think there will be? Player wages and admin cost wont reduce, and travel cost might be a cut a little but not in proportion to the revenue reduction.

How much revenue would be available in a reduced marketplace? Rugby would be the smallest fish in the sporting pond and the FFA would even dwarf us.

So how will the ARU fund rugby with less revenue?

You seriously want to plate up and serve the cut price version of the same dish as the NRL and FFA in the same market and see who prevails?

 

[mst]

Disagree, having spent enough time living in Europe the SA games clash with all the local UK/IRE games so they don't get watched anyway. The European sports market is so flooded at that time of day that you will struggle to find anyone who want's to watch SA rugby.

Yes, I though that initially but the European Super Rugby rights have sold really well, thus the the TV revenue increase.

"The agreement was boosted by a large input from Britain's BSkyB for broadcast rights to Super Rugby as well as a stronger US dollar - the currency in which the deals were done."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...by-tv-rights-australia-deal-worth-293-million

http://www.superxv.com/super-rugby/super-rugby-broadcasters/

 

[wamberal]

The local Keewee derbies are some of the best rugby on show anywhere in the world. They deserve a big audience, no surprise if they get one.

 

[Omar Comin']

So would the revenue, level of competition, market exposure..

Every other key competitor in our domestic market is looking to markets elsewhere to grow revenue as the market domestically is lean, yet you suggest that Rugby should do the opposite?

How much cost reduction do you think there will be? Player wages and admin cost wont reduce, and travel cost might be a cut a little but not in proportion to the revenue reduction.

How much revenue would be available in a reduced marketplace? Rugby would be the smallest fish in the sporting pond and the FFA would even dwarf us.

So how will the ARU fund rugby with less revenue?

You seriously want to plate up and serve the cut price version of the same dish as the NRL and FFA in the same market and see who prevails?

First of all neither of us know what the reduction in travel costs would be in relation to the reduction in revenues, but John O'Neill said a few days ago that when they looked at it in 2009 they basically cancelled each other out (NZ ultimately stuck with SA for perceived player development reasons, as they did again in 2015). In some areas there'd be gains in revenue because our teams would have more prime time exposure in our market, thus would be more attractive to sponsors and local broadcasters. We'd have much greater control of scheduling.

Second, I don't think it's accurate to say the domestic market is lean when there isn't a club rugby union tournament on the planet that makes anywhere near the broadcast revenue of the AFL or the NRL. The Top 14 which is the closest isn't at all close.

And I am not someone who only wants to look domestically! I'm simply of the belief that we should be focused on our time zone. I'm all for an Asia-Pacific Super Rugby tournament or regular season conference. This could include teams from Japan, Hong Kong, Fiji, maybe one day China. And I'm for expansion of the tournament as a whole (assuming an inter-continental playoff or champions league or knockout cup). I just want Australian and New Zealand teams to be playing matches at ideal times for Australian and New Zealand audiences and enough matches that all our franchises can thrive.

 

[TOCC]

Agree, its not simply a case of shrinking for the sake of shrinking, ultimately Australian rugby needs to rationalise and align itself better to markets in its own timezones.

Waratahs have disappeared for 2 weeks to South Africa, for the next fortnight there is no local team for Australias largest market to support. Thats not ideal. Australian Rugby cant afford to lose teams for weeks at a time, it stalls any momentum the competition or team has gathered with building the fan base.

Broadcasters baulk at Australian Rugby because it cant guarantee a product, theres no consistency in the draw in terms of prime time Fri or Sat fixtures, it lacks the product to appeal to a FFA broadcaster. Foxtel aren't as concerned, they are equally happy to just have the additional live sports content. But, Foxtel limits Australian Rugbys exposure to the wider market, FTA broadcasting is the holy grail in terms of building exposure and bringing in additional sponsors. But it cant happen under the current Super Rugby structure.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agree, its not simply a case of shrinking for the sake of shrinking, ultimately Australian rugby needs to rationalise and align itself better to markets in its own timezones.

Waratahs have disappeared for 2 weeks to South Africa, for the next fortnight there is no local team for Australias largest market to support. Thats not ideal. Australian Rugby cant afford to lose teams for weeks at a time, it stalls any momentum the competition or team has gathered with building the fan base.

Broadcasters baulk at Australian Rugby because it cant guarantee a product, theres no consistency in the draw in terms of prime time Fri or Sat fixtures, it lacks the product to appeal to a FFA broadcaster. Foxtel aren't as concerned, they are equally happy to just have the additional live sports content. But, Foxtel limits Australian Rugbys exposure to the wider market, FTA broadcasting is the holy grail in terms of building exposure and bringing in additional sponsors. But it cant happen under the current Super Rugby structure.

Yep. I tend to believe that while it is still a very underdeveloped market Asia post 2019 is an opportunity too good not really look to engage with. Particularly with the level of investment coming from the likes of Alisports in China.

 

[mst]

Agree, its not simply a case of shrinking for the sake of shrinking, ultimately Australian rugby needs to rationalise and align itself better to markets in its own timezones.

Waratahs have disappeared for 2 weeks to South Africa, for the next fortnight there is no local team for Australias largest market to support. Thats not ideal. Australian Rugby cant afford to lose teams for weeks at a time, it stalls any momentum the competition or team has gathered with building the fan base.

Broadcasters baulk at Australian Rugby because it cant guarantee a product, theres no consistency in the draw in terms of prime time Fri or Sat fixtures, it lacks the product to appeal to a FFA broadcaster. Foxtel aren't as concerned, they are equally happy to just have the additional live sports content. But, Foxtel limits Australian Rugbys exposure to the wider market, FTA broadcasting is the holy grail in terms of building exposure and bringing in additional sponsors. But it cant happen under the current Super Rugby structure.

But Super Rugby was never designed or intended to be what you are explaining above. What you are describing is a standalone domestic product that other countries in SANZAAR already have.

There are two different product being diluted in to a single argument for convenience and its what many are saying people are missing. You can have both like SA, NZ and Japan already have that raise their base revenue,

A quick look at the SA teams that are identified as in trouble and you see that its not the domestic components in trouble, its the Super Rugby franchise parts. That can walk away from Super Rugby unaffected. We conversely have hedged our bets on Super Rugby and now we are in trouble with no plan B. You pull the Reds out of Super Rugby who play the bill for the QRU?

If you go back and read some previous post its clearly explained that now SA teams have travel parody (as in time on the road) with Australian teams we now have an issue with the competition?

The simple question is if there is a market in Australia like your claiming why are the ARU or private equity not jumping at it?

Foxtel have made it public what they want. Super Rugby and on top of the NRC they are interested in additional domestic content.

So the TV side has walk up start with Foxtel - so where is the content? There is your real issue; not anything to do with Super Rugby at all.

Super Rugby is a separate issue that an easy target even though it provides us with the revenue to keep our game professional.

The FTA argument has some relevance, but until we have a product to sell on FTA so its a moot point.

 

[TOCC]

But Super Rugby was never designed or intended to be what you are explaining above. What you are describing is a standalone domestic product that other countries in SANZAAR already have.

There are two different product being diluted in to a single argument for convenience and its what many are saying people are missing. You can have both like SA, NZ and Japan already have that raise their base revenue,

A quick look at the SA teams that are identified as in trouble and you see that its not the domestic components in trouble, its the Super Rugby franchise parts. That can walk away from Super Rugby unaffected. We conversely have hedged our bets on Super Rugby and now we are in trouble with no plan B. You pull the Reds out of Super Rugby who play the bill for the QRU?

If you go back and read some previous post its clearly explained that now SA teams have travel parody (as in time on the road) with Australian teams we now have an issue with the competition?

The simple question is if there is a market in Australia like your claiming why are the ARU or private equity not jumping at it?

Foxtel have made it public what they want. Super Rugby and on top of the NRC they are interested in additional domestic content.

So the TV side has walk up start with Foxtel - so where is the content? There is your real issue; not anything to do with Super Rugby at all.

Super Rugby is a separate issue that an easy target even though it provides us with the revenue to keep our game professional.

The FTA argument has some relevance, but until we have a product to sell on FTA so its a moot point.

Super Rugby was designed for a different era, it served its purpose but that time has passed..

Until Australia Rugby gets more content in the Australian Timezone it will continue to fade.. we aren't the 4th code anymore, Netball, BBL and WAFL have all jumped Rugby..

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Super Rugby was designed for a different era, it served its purpose but that time has passed..

Until Australia Rugby gets more content in the Australian Timezone it will continue to fade.. we aren't the 4th code anymore, Netball, BBL and WAFL have all jumped Rugby..

Netball and Cricket have been immensely popular for a long time. Nothing new there. The AFLW is interesting and legitimately a new competitor.