Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[dru]

RA should definitely have been keeping the State Unions in the loop on negotiations. Perhaps they did, and The Australian is being a trouble maker. But at the point that, in poor form imo, Fox publicly declared withdrawal, the States should have been aware that other avenues (Optus) were on the table and were looking promising (or possible).

 

[Dan54]

I would believe nothing too much when the partner of one of the parties involved in discussion starts making claims, I suspect a little stirring is going on somehow.

 

[wamberal]

RA should definitely have been keeping the State Unions in the loop on negotiations. Perhaps they did, and The Australian is being a trouble maker. But at the point that, in poor form imo, Fox publicly declared withdrawal, the States should have been aware that other avenues (Optus) were on the table and were looking promising (or possible).

No good negotiator, on either side, would publicise anything that anybody should believe, until the deal is done.

 

[Slim 293]

and for Victorians, our state union owns our franchise, and we dont know how or how much we will be able to pay our players beyond 2020 - how can we fix contracts past that date? Incredible.

Oh dear, what’s the current exchange on the Rand?

 

[Derpus]

Without reading most of the shit going on my wild assumption is that Fox (Murdoch) cracked the shits with optus taking another slice of his pie and is throwing a tantrum and pulling out his (already beaten) bid.

Everyone knows the only value Fox provides is sport, so even if Rugby is relatively small it would still constitute a big blow.

Plus it means optus is only one major code away from having a genuine sports streaming service (thereby providing a genuine competitor to kayo).

I think this shenanigans has little to do with Rugby and a lot to do with broadcast turf wars.

 

[kiap]

RA should definitely have been keeping the State Unions in the loop on negotiations. Perhaps they did, and The Australian is being a trouble maker. But at the point that, in poor form imo, Fox publicly declared withdrawal, the States should have been aware that other avenues (Optus) were on the table and were looking promising (or possible).

Yeah. As much as RA are fumbling fools (and I want to see a clean out - starting with Clyne, this morning) my trust in The Australian is lower than low on this. It's a NewsCorp mouthpiece putting out its line on the NewsCorp majority-owned FoxSports not getting its way.

This story isn't coming from the rugby writers either - it's their 'media editor' and weekend Sky News business bloke.

Having said that, he's largely correct on many points. Super Rugby is an unviable loss-leader which has grown steadily more worthless year on year. A fair chunk of that is down to being locked away on Fox itself - but the Supe is a fundamentally flawed product regardless.

Rolling out the same old shit again will continue to drag oz rugby down further - whether on Optus or Foxtel.

 

[hoggy]

Yeah. As much as RA are fumbling fools (and I want to see a clean out - starting with Clyne, this morning) my trust in The Australian is lower than low on this. It's a NewsCorp mouthpiece putting out its line on the NewsCorp majority-owned FoxSports not getting its way.

This story isn't coming from the rugby writers either - it's their 'media editor' and weekend Sky News business bloke.

Having said that, he's largely correct on many points. Super Rugby is an unviable loss-leader which has grown steadily more worthless year on year. A fair chunk of that is down to being locked away on Fox itself - but the Supe is a fundamentally flawed product regardless.

Rolling out the same old shit again will continue to drag oz rugby down further - whether on Optus or Foxtel.

Exactly, it is the failure to address Super rugby that is the issue. This is primarily what Fox pay for. Tests are still FTA, but the Bread & Butter is Super rugby, but it went off a long time ago, the reality is if the game goes to Optus it will actually quantify the rugby audience. That may come as a big shock to the RA.

But to your point (rolling out the same shit for another 4 years) what does that achieve, where is the vision to address the domestic market place for rugby in this country. Because come 2025 they may find there isn't one.

 

[Braveheart81]

Exactly, it is the failure to address Super rugby that is the issue. This is primarily what Fox pay for. Tests are still FTA, but the Bread & Butter is Super rugby

I disagree with this completely. The broadcaster is primarily paying for access to the test matches. This is where the value lies.

It doesn't matter to them that the Wallaby matches are on FTA. They are getting far higher viewership for those matches than any Super Rugby games. The matches not involving the Wallabies are also significantly valuable because they are not on FTA and there are plenty of NZ/SA fans living in Australia who want to see them (plus Australians).

 

[Derpus]

I disagree with this completely. The broadcaster is primarily paying for access to the test matches. This is where the value lies.

It doesn't matter to them that the Wallaby matches are on FTA. They are getting far higher viewership for those matches than any Super Rugby games. The matches not involving the Wallabies are also significantly valuable because they are not on FTA and there are plenty of NZ/SA fans living in Australia who want to see them (plus Australians).

Last 5 or so years the NZ - SA rugby champ games have generally provided by far the best rugby viewing.

 

[hoggy]

I disagree with this completely. The broadcaster is primarily paying for access to the test matches. This is where the value lies.

It doesn't matter to them that the Wallaby matches are on FTA. They are getting far higher viewership for those matches than any Super Rugby games. The matches not involving the Wallabies are also significantly valuable because they are not on FTA and there are plenty of NZ/SA fans living in Australia who want to see them (plus Australians).

Yes Test match rugby is premium, but part of that is due to the sacrifices to the game made at a domestic level how much of that value is at the cost of the domestic game, and you simply cannot run a code purely through the exploits of one team.

Why have the RA not been inundated with lucrative offers to screen Test match rugby. Without greater domestic growth in your audience, who's gonna watch those Test matches, which imo is what we are seeing now, simply a decline in available audience.

In fact if test match rugby is the answer then why even bother with Super rugby, ditch it and select your players from overseas clubs. Can you have one without the other, how long can Test match rugby sustain its value when you have effectively turned it into a pseudo domestic competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes Test match rugby is premium, but part of that is due to the sacrifices to the game made at a domestic level how much of that value is at the cost of the domestic game, and you simply cannot run a code purely through the exploits of one team.

Why have the RA not been inundated with lucrative offers to screen Test match rugby. Without greater domestic growth in your audience, who's gonna watch those Test matches, which imo is what we are seeing now, simply a decline in available audience.

In fact if test match rugby is the answer then why even bother with Super rugby, ditch it and select your players from overseas clubs. Can you have one without the other, how long can Test match rugby sustain its value when you have effectively turned it into a pseudo domestic competition.

You're shifting the argument here.

Super Rugby has many issues and changes are required. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of what the broadcaster is paying for is access to the test matches.

Australia, NZ, South Africa all realise that they need a strong base of local professional players to give them the best chance at an international level. None of these countries are doing well financially out of Super Rugby (or South Africa from their two Pro 14 teams).

 

[kiap]

I disagree with this completely.

I'm going to be cheeky here and put some words in your mouth:

• You don't disagree with it completely.
• Yes, the only rugby property of value is tests matches (we've all known this, and the article repeats it) … but …
• The failure to address Super rugby is - in fact - the issue. It's a big one.

Why are you saying this?

Because even test rugby viewing numbers are steadily trending down - and that's for tests which are in watchable times, half of them aren't. Rugby viewers are shuffling out the door. They're not buying too many game-day tickets either.

What's behind it - well, it's more than one thing - but even at a base level for rugby it's increasingly becoming a question of invisibility.

The game, any code, needs a market stall set out there week on week to sustain itself in the public eye. It is Super Rugby that needs to be doing that but unfortunately for Australia it's failing badly. This keeps feeding back in to the continued shrinkage of rugby.

Optus will reverse that trend, though, amirite...

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm going to be cheeky here and put some words in your mouth:

• You don't disagree with it completely.
• Yes, the only rugby property of value is tests matches (we've all known this, and the article repeats it) … but …
• The failure to address Super rugby is - in fact - the issue. It's a big one.

Why are you saying this?


Because even test rugby viewing numbers are steadily trending down - and that's for tests which are in watchable times, half of them aren't. Rugby viewers are shuffling out the door. They're not buying too many game-day tickets either.

What's behind it - well, it's more than one thing - but even at a base level for rugby it's increasingly becoming a question of invisibility.

The game, any code, needs a market stall set out there week on week to sustain itself. It is Super Rugby that needs to be doing that but unfortunately for Australia it's failing badly. This feeds back into the continued shrinkage of rugby.

Optus will reverse that trend though, amirite.

Tell me I'm wrong.

I don't disagree with the bit about needing to address Super Rugby. The competition needs a huge revamp (to the extent of being pretty much unrecognisable from the current competition).

I was purely discussing the broadcast value in terms of Super Rugby vs test matches for the broadcaster (and to the unions selling those rights).

I don't think Optus will reverse that trend. I think it would be even less visible.

I still don't think Super Rugby (or the competition that replaces it) will really change much. You could have several of those matches live on FTA (on secondary channels) each week and it would make very little difference to the overall ratings. The viewership will remain a subset of test matches.

 

[kiap]

I don't disagree with the bit about needing to address Super Rugby. The competition needs a huge revamp (to the extent of being pretty much unrecognisable from the current competition).

I was purely discussing the broadcast value in terms of Super Rugby vs test matches for the broadcaster (and to the unions selling those rights).

I don't think Optus will reverse that trend. I think it would be even less visible.

I still don't think Super Rugby (or the competition that replaces it) will really change much. You could have several of those matches live on FTA (on secondary channels) each week and it would make very little difference to the overall ratings. The viewership will remain a subset of test matches.

Yeah, I agree on those points as you state them.

The thing about getting regular, easy-access, watchable rugby out there isn't so much about getting a jump in ratings - not in the short-term, anyway. It's a cost to be borne, at least for now.

But, just like investing in kids and non-private schools playing the game, it's arguably become an existential necessity.

 

[Braveheart81]

The thing about getting regular, easy-access, watchable rugby out there isn't so much about getting a jump in ratings - not in the short-term, anyway. It's a cost to be borne, at least for now.

But, just like investing in kids and non-private schools playing the game, it's arguably become an existential necessity.

I think this is the trade-off. What gives you a better chance of investing in kids and increasing player numbers? Having a more valuable broadcast agreement to generate revenue for the code to spend on these things or having greater visibility on FTA?

My take is that having the secondary tier of rugby on FTA does bugger all for anyone. I think our position with Super Rugby very much mirrors the A League here and having it on FTA or Foxtel makes SFA difference to who and how many people actually watch it. It is a tiny audience of diehards.

 

[hoggy]

You're shifting the argument here.

Super Rugby has many issues and changes are required. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of what the broadcaster is paying for is access to the test matches.

Australia, NZ, South Africa all realise that they need a strong base of local professional players to give them the best chance at an international level. None of these countries are doing well financially out of Super Rugby (or South Africa from their two Pro 14 teams).

Sorry I don't mean to be shifting the argument, but my point is as you state, sooner or later Aus/SA/NZ are going to need to be doing better out of Super rugby (or whatever replaces it) financially and for market growth.

But the structural issues relating to its slave relationship to Test match rugby means that it cannot adjust or evolve to achieve that, yes the broadcasters pay for Test matches, but for how much longer, its a catch 22 but i can't see how the current set-up is sustainable.

 

[Braveheart81]

Sorry I don't mean to be shifting the argument, but my point is as you state, sooner or later Aus/SA/NZ are going to need to be doing better out of Super rugby (or whatever replaces it) financially and for market growth.

But the structural issues relating to its slave relationship to Test match rugby means that it cannot adjust or evolve to achieve that, yes the broadcasters pay for Test matches, but for how much longer, its a catch 22 but i can't see how the current set-up is sustainable.

Test rugby will continue as it is for the foreseeable future.

The future for the tier(s) below that is whether we have a competition that just runs when there isn't test rugby like we currently have and then a lesser competition whilst there is test rugby or whether you can have a longer competition running through both that has large enough squads to deal with the absence of the test players (like in Europe).

 

[kiap]

I think our position with Super Rugby very much mirrors the A League here and having it on FTA or Foxtel makes SFA difference to who and how many people actually watch it. It is a tiny audience of diehards.

Ah, but I didn't mention FTA.

Yes, if up to me, there would be at least one regular game per week on FTA.

But even with that (or without it, and all games on pay tv) super rugby is still problematic. A small number of games per week and a small proportion involving aus teams - if you follow one of those teams, there's no regular schedule. One third of the tournament may as well not exist. It's a worse prospect than the A-League.

Having a more valuable broadcast agreement to generate revenue for the code

How has this worked out over the past decade?

(or even the past two, if you like) … Improved on those key areas or fallen?

Small but steady progress or an accelerating decline?

 

[Lorenzo]

I've no solution, but super rugby really does suck from the perspective of attracting a dedicated consistent following. The last decade has seen it go from 14 to 15 to 18 to 15 teams. The structure has changed as many times. There was a break in the season for some tests. Games at all hours of the night. Terrible australian performances.

You d struggle to design a comp that was harder to follow if you set out to do so.

 

[Derpus]

Thats what happens when you have a competition (or anything) run by a committee