Exit from Super Rugby?

[I like to watch]

Hoping this is not s serious post.

I'd love to see the teams in Singapore, Shangai and Hong Kong will compete even with a Shute Shield team.

Even if they were competitive,how would they survive economically?
I can understand the premise that HK could support a side,but the rest of Asia?
I don't think so.

 

[Braveheart81]

They should always be the pinnacle in the sense of being the top echelon of the sport, but I don't think they should always be the number 1 (and pretty much only) revenue driver. Pinning the hopes of an entire sport on the success of one team in a country as large as Australia isn't a great long term strategy. It's also really impossible for the Wallabies to engage with fans (and particularly kids) at the community level.

Imagine if we had 8 or 10 Australian based teams/clubs/franchises at the top of our domestic rugby (whether that was in a kind of top level NRC, a trans tasman comp or an Asia-Pacific league). Imagine they averaged 20k fans a game and played in a comp that went over about 20 weeks where every match was played at ideal times for Australian viewers. Where we could create big events around special occasions (for example, ANZAC day and Easter). Where at least a couple of matches each week were played on FTA and the rest were live on Foxtel and through new subscription based digital offerings. Where the top teams qualified for a shorter Heineken Cup style tournament to play against teams from South Africa and elsewhere.

That sort of structure could really improve the finances of Australian rugby and broaden the revenue base. The Wallabies would then become our champion, rather than our entire army in the eternal sporting war against the other codes. I think this is the medium term vision the ARU should have.

Is that really so unrealistic? You might say we don't have the player depth for that many teams.but it's irrelevant because rugby is a global game and we could fill up teams with as many imports as needed to maintain quality.

The question would then be is our market big enough for 8 or 10 teams that could draw 15-20k week to week? I certainly think so. One (perhaps even 2) more in Sydney, one more in Brisbane, one in the Hunter region. Other options would include Adelaide, Gold Coast and the Central Coast. As I've said before, there's plenty of high net worth people in Australia that love rugby. Open up the sport to them. Get them bidding to start and run teams.

You may as well suggest that Super Rugby sign a new deal for a billion dollars.

Your suggestions all sound great but they're so far removed from reality.

We've currently got 5 Super Rugby teams who are averaging about 15k fans per game you think we can double that to 8-10 teams and get bigger crowds?

Where do the funds come from to make this a reality? The oft cited Big Bash League cost a huge amount of money to set up and isn't lavishing Cricket Australia in profits. Cricket Australia had a deficit of $34.6 million in the 2013 financial year. Cricket Australia is still hugely reliant on playing a series against India pretty much every year to help fund the cost of the players.

You are assuming NZ will want to join us in this new competition even though they already have a competition involving more of their domestic teams. The sentiment out of NZ and SA is that they want more international games and less derbies, not the other way around.

There are plenty of high net worth people in Australia but where is the sentiment towards private investment in sport? There are several high profile disasters and not much else. There isn't exactly a queue of people lining up to buy rugby teams.

I don't think Super Rugby is perfect and know that it is going to continue to change over time, but this premise that the ARU can just ditch it, start up a new competition and watch the money pour in is ridiculous. The ARU doesn't have the money to invest heavily in a new competition and wait for it to build up over a couple of years to secure a reasonable TV deal.

 

[Ignoto]

Under what option are the Wallabies not likely to be the pinnacle of the product rugby has to offer?

Problem is, unless the FTA channels are throwing big money at the ARU, their cash cow is the Super Rugby. From 2011-2015 the ARU only got $20million from Fox for all Wallabies games (excluding Spring tour) + $3 for the Lions. But they almost got 3 x that for all the Super games in that period and that's without the Rebels being part of the super competition until the final years of the contract.

Comparing this to the Africans, they got almost $50 million for each of the Springbok and Super games from Supersport.

With the ARU wanting to expand into FTA territory, who's going to pick up that slack? Ten? They're sure as shit broke so I doubt they're the gravy train we want. Seven is more concerned with AFL and Nine loves it's league.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Braveheart you are spot on.

The Australian market has shown that support for regular games for sports on rectangular fields is an anomaly to achieve averages greater than 15,000 for crowds.

I certainly believe that our future is in the NRC, but to expect it to become the financial saviour any time soon is foolish. Currently the ARU needs Super Rugby. Hopefully the implementation of the NRC is the step towards one day eliminating this reliance.

I believe it is as for TV viewers, the driver for TV Rights deals and ultimate financial health, they seem to prefer domestic competitions. This would eliminate dud product.

I also believe though, a domestic comp will for the foreseeable future struggle to attract crowds that Super Rugby achieves. This is both due to the division of Super Rugby areas into multiple teams in QLD and NSW, and also the lack of international flavour. The majority don't really seem to care for it a great deal like we do, however the people that attend aren't really the majority and this international flavour I think may slightly assist in this. Certainly helps teams like the Rebels when a Kiwi team plays and the Force when an SA team plays due to the number of expats in the area.

 

[Omar Comin']

We've currently got 5 Super Rugby teams who are averaging about 15k fans per game you think we can double that to 8-10 teams and get bigger crowds?

They've averaged over 20k overall before, the Tahs used to average over 30k and the Reds are around that now. The Force have averaged over 20k in the past too. All our teams average better crowds against Australian and NZ teams than South African teams as well. I'm not saying this would happen instantly, but I don't think it's an unrealistic point to aim at.

Where do the funds come from to make this a reality? The oft cited Big Bash League cost a huge amount of money to set up and isn't lavishing Cricket Australia in profits. Cricket Australia had a deficit of $34.6 million in the 2013 financial year. Cricket Australia is still hugely reliant on playing a series against India pretty much every year to help fund the cost of the players.

Read this article on the big bash. It's been a huge success for Australian Cricket: http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/cricket_doubles_big_bash_investment_Q4sr7BGOGTWqMiwO8BcqBO ... and keep in mind this article was written before the last season, which beat all expectations, especially in terms of tv ratings.

The money to fund the starting of new teams would have to come largely from private investment.

You are assuming NZ will want to join us in this new competition even though they already have a competition involving more of their domestic teams. The sentiment out of NZ and SA is that they want more international games and less derbies, not the other way around.

I'm not assuming that. If NZ joined a trans tasman comp we wouldn't need 8-10 teams in 2016 - though I still think we should work towards that in order to compete with the other codes. I do believe NZ would ultimately join with us if we splintered off because the concept of a NZ/SA competition is ridiculous. They'd have 2 games per week in their time zone and over half the competition would be played in the middle of the night. My suggestion of an 8-10 team competition is an alternative for if they did decide to go along with such lunacy. If we're going to make an ultimatum we need to have a plan B.

There are plenty of high net worth people in Australia but where is the sentiment towards private investment in sport? There are several high profile disasters and not much else. There isn't exactly a queue of people lining up to buy rugby teams.

There's a lot of private investment in Australian sport. Sometimes it's been successful (South Sydney Rabbitohs), sometimes not (Clive Palmers Gold Coast A League team). The key would be to have an open tender process and select the best, most financially secure bids. We don't really know what interest there is from private investors because the ARU treats rugby as such a closed shop. I bet there'd be at least enough to start 3 new teams in 2016. Some of that interest may come from overseas as well.

The ARU doesn't have the money to invest heavily in a new competition and wait for it to build up over a couple of years to secure a reasonable TV deal.

But it wouldn't be some radical new competition and the ARU wouldn't have to invest anything. Even if we went off completely on our own with say an 8 team competition, 5 of those teams already exist - they already play each other home and away. We know roughly what the tv viewership is like when they play each other. And that tv viewership is actually better than what the A League gets. It's just we produce so much less content so we get so much less money. We provide more content and it will undoubtedly be more valuable to broadcasters. The comp would get a decent broadcast deal before it started.

Currently, Australian rugby as a whole loses money on Super Rugby. It's a big reason why we're in such a mess. If Super Rugby was some great financial success for us then doing something new wouldn't be necessary. But it is. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Omar Comin']

I certainly believe that our future is in the NRC, but to expect it to become the financial saviour any time soon is foolish. Currently the ARU needs Super Rugby. Hopefully the implementation of the NRC is the step towards one day eliminating this reliance.

There is a BIG difference between a short 3rd tier NRC tournament that doesn't involve the most marketable players and a longer top domestic tier tournament that does.

Something designated as '3rd tier' and as a 'player development pathway' has no chance of competing with even the A League.

But if we looked to create the strongest league possible in our market, and it was the top tier under test rugby then that's what might.

The report commissioned by RUPA, and the words from the unnamed Australian CEO in the article that started this thread suggests Australia doesn't need super rugby.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Ok. Let's just imagine we scrap and replace Super Rugby. Day dot we replace the 5 teams and spread the talent across 10. We also spread the support across 10 initially. It's taken the Reds about 4-5 years to get to a point where they have built support when people will still go and support when we aren't the top Australian team.

Does Australian rugby have 5 years to let this happen to these new 10 teams?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It's tradition that draws fans in.

In rugby, the tradition lies in things such as the Bledisloe Cup and the RWC all of which involve the Wallabies.

The traditions in rugby league have nothing to do with the Kangaroos.

The BBL and A-League would suggest that tradition isn't necessarily all that important in attracting new fans. It's the product (I hate referring to it in that manner) that draws in fans and interest.

 

[Omar Comin']

Ok. Let's just imagine we scrap and replace Super Rugby. Day dot we replace the 5 teams and spread the talent across 10. We also spread the support across 10 initially. It's taken the Reds about 4-5 years to get to a point where they have built support when people will still go and support when we aren't the top Australian team.

Does Australian rugby have 5 years to let this happen to these new 10 teams?

You obviously haven't read what I've said. I've never suggested replacing the current 5 teams. That would make zero sense.

And you wouldn't be spreading the talent across 10 teams. Not too much anyway. As I've said, new teams would have to import a lot of new players - foreigners and aussies abroad as well as signing the best non contracted players from the NRC - which will have been running for a couple of years by 2016.

The Reds would stay as they are, as would the 4 other teams we already have. But the Waratahs could definitely use a cross-town rival. Maybe the Reds would thrive with one too. Who knows. I'd be open minded about where the other 3-5 teams should come from. Would depend on the bids.

 

[Braveheart81]

They've averaged over 20k overall before, the Tahs used to average over 30k and the Reds are around that now. The Force have averaged over 20k in the past too. All our teams average better crowds against Australian and NZ teams than South African teams as well. I'm not saying this would happen instantly, but I don't think it's an unrealistic point to aim at.

And now they're not achieving this. Rugby was in a better financial state when these sort of crowds were being achieved but that isn't the case now.

It should certainly be a goal to get crowd numbers back towards those figures but having any reliance on it whatsoever in embarking on a new competition would be lunacy. If anything, we're going to see Reds crowds drop off over the next two years if their season continues along the road it is currently on and they don't improve next year. They certainly didn't average 30k per home game prior to winning in 2011.

Read this article on the big bash. It's been a huge success for Australian Cricket: http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/cricket_doubles_big_bash_investment_Q4sr7BGOGTWqMiwO8BcqBO . and keep in mind this article was written before the last season, which beat all expectations, especially in terms of tv ratings.

Read some more articles about the Big Bash. The suggestion that it is making a slight profit for the season is ignoring the $20m that Cricket Australia invested in the first couple of years. They readily accept that it will be a long time before they see a return on that.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...fourfold-growth/story-e6frg7rx-1226803593482#

The money to fund the starting of new teams would have to come largely from private investment.

There's a lot of private investment in Australian sport. Sometimes it's been successful (South Sydney Rabbitohs), sometimes not (Clive Palmers Gold Coast A League team). The key would be to have an open tender process and select the best, most financially secure bids. We don't really know what interest there is from private investors because the ARU treats rugby as such a closed shop. I bet there'd be at least enough to start 3 new teams in 2016. Some of that interest may come from overseas as well.

Rugby has had private investment. Harold Mitchell owned the Rebels and largely financed getting them off the ground but has now sold out because he was losing money hand over fist. The NRC has provided the opportunity for private investment but the only bid with anything of the sort was the Sydney Stars bid that combined Sydney Uni with Balmain (Warren Livingstone).

Assuming these people will just come out of the woodwork when the time arises is surely folly. We've seen very little of it already.

Look at Tinkler's investments in sport in Newcastle. They are hanging on by a thread and not improved the fortunes of those teams whatsoever. There have been weeks where players and staff don't get paid because there is no money in the bank.

But it wouldn't be some radical new competition and the ARU wouldn't have to invest anything. Even if we went off completely on our own with say an 8 team competition, 5 of those teams already exist - they already play each other home and away. We know roughly what the tv viewership is like when they play each other. And that tv viewership is actually better than what the A League gets. It's just we produce so much less content so we get so much less money. We provide more content and it will undoubtedly be more valuable to broadcasters. The comp would get a decent broadcast deal before it started.

Currently, Australian rugby as a whole loses money on Super Rugby. It's a big reason why we're in such a mess. If Super Rugby was some great financial success for us then doing something new wouldn't be necessary. But it is. The writing is on the wall.

What do you mean they wouldn't have to invest anything? The Super Rugby teams rely on the distribution of the SANZAR broadcasting revenue from the ARU to pay their players.

Then you've got new teams you're talking about that need to be funded.

Relatively, Super Rugby might lose money, but it's all tied in to the whole SANZAR deal. Super Rugby provides the backbone for the Tri Nations and now the Rugby Championship and means that the players are already there and paid their salaries from which to draw the national team. Wallabies get additional payments to play test rugby but on the whole, your top tier of professional players are in situ ready for the test side to be selected.

The ARU doesn't have tens of millions of dollars of reserves in the war chest to launch a new 2nd tier competition. They are trying to launch a 3rd tier competition on the smell of an oily rag because those are the resources available to them.

Your suggestions involve several massive leaps of faith which are all essential for what you're suggesting to get off the ground. If one of those things don't happen, what happens then?

 

[Braveheart81]

The BBL and A-League would suggest that tradition isn't necessarily all that important in attracting new fans. It's the product (I hate referring to it in that manner) that draws in fans and interest.

The BBL product is good and it capitalises on the holiday period to get families to games etc. Crowds dropped off considerably in year 2 but rose again in year 3. Cricket in Australia experiences a resurgence every domestic Ashes series, particularly when we dominate. I'd guess that was the biggest reason for the increased interest in 2013-14. I'd guess that crowds and TV viewers will drop off a bit next season.

The A-League has a couple of bumper games where they get big crowds, but largely teams struggle to draw punters. The average A-League crowd is 13k. Three years ago it was under 8.5k per game.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Omar, the issue isn't finding new players. It's finding new fans. Currently there really are not enough to sustain 5 teams. Adding more will only dilute this in the short term.

Long term investments are a luxury only afforded to parties who aren't close to broke in the short term.

 

[Pfitzy]

Wallabies need to rise higher - they're the apex.

The only way to make the apex higher is a wider base.

The wider base is the NRC - its not Super Rugby, and has not been club rugby since professionalism began.

 

[Braveheart81]

Wallabies need to rise higher - they're the apex.

The only way to make the apex higher is a wider base.

The wider base is the NRC - its not Super Rugby, and has not been club rugby since professionalism began.

This is it in a nutshell.

The NRC is an achieveable target that will hopefully attract some new supporters, grow into a competition that generates a profit rather than runs at a loss and help strengthen the two tiers above it over time. The primary goal is to lift the standard of players just outside Super Rugby and the bottom half of the contracted Super Rugby players.

The NRC will be what allows Australia to be involved in a Super Rugby expansion from 2016.

The ARU needs the rest of rugby in Australia to push the Wallabies higher because they are what makes most of the revenue. The Wallabies being more successful both on the field and financially will help increase the fanbase to follow the lower tiers.

It's all one big circle that requires each link in the chain to do its part in order to improve the other links.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't want to create a huge quote pyramid Braveheart so just in response to a few key points.

You mention the Rebels - that is the only time Australian rugby really sought out private investment. And they got it. There were at least a couple of different consortiums for that license as well. The reason they are losing money hand over fist is because the financial model of Super rugby in Australia at the moment isn't working. The teams don't play enough games and they don't get enough money from the central SANZAR broadcasting deal.

Increasing revenue is the only solution because to cut costs significantly would mean cutting player salary's significantly. And then Australian rugby would be in a quick downward spiral towards become a feeder for foreign clubs (owned by private investors).

The current SANZAR broadcast deal provides the ARU $25 million per year. That's including Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship. From what I've read the greater component of that deal is for the RC. No one is suggesting Australia leave the RC, so lets put that aside.

Of that $25 million the ARU receives, what portion is for Super Rugby? $10 million? Maybe 12?

So about $2 - 2.5 million per Super rugby team. This obviously doesn't come close to covering the Super Rugby teams wage bill. The fact is it is the Wallabies that are paying the Super Rugby bills. This is rubbish. We need a competition that can stand on its own two feet.

Do you really not think we could get substantially more than $2 million per team for an Australian competition that provided double the local content? Where we could control the entire thing and every game would be played at ideal times...Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday afternoon / night. And keep in mind the costs for each team would be a lot lower than they are in Super Rugby.

The A League has shown us the way. It rates worse than rugby yet gets $40 million a year AND gets a game each week on FTA. Why? Because of a much greater quantity of content. And it's not even that much!

If Australian rugby doesn't have the confidence and ambition to match the A League then we may as well give it up now. Of the SANZAR nations, Australia is by far the largest economy. It dwarfs the other two. It has by far the most potential for growth and we are entirely capable of going off on our own if it came down to it.

 

[wamberal]

Wallabies need to rise higher - they're the apex.

The only way to make the apex higher is a wider base.

The wider base is the NRC - its not Super Rugby, and has not been club rugby since professionalism began.

We are in a chicken and egg situation. The best way for rugby to grow in popularity is for the Wallabies to start beating the All Blacks. That won't happen, consistently, unless and until we start playing more competitive rugby, and the NRC will certainly be a key component of that (just as the ARC was, in its short life).

Will the NRC become popular, that is the $64,000 question? Again, chicken and egg. If it quickly becomes popular, FTA will get interested I imagine, and certainly Fox Sports will increase its patronage.

The current crop of players and administrators (and officials) are carrying a huge responsibility for the future of the game. If the NRC flops, we flop.

 

[Braveheart81]

The current SANZAR broadcast deal provides the ARU $25 million per year. That's including Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship. From what I've read the greater component of that deal is for the RC. No one is suggesting Australia leave the RC, so lets put that aside.

Of that $25 million the ARU receives, what portion is for Super Rugby? $10 million? Maybe 12?

So about $2 - 2.5 million per Super rugby team. This obviously doesn't come close to covering the Super Rugby teams wage bill. The fact is it is the Wallabies that are paying the Super Rugby bills. This is rubbish. We need a competition that can stand on its own two feet.

Do you really not think we could get substantially more than $2 million per team for an Australian competition that provided double the local content? Where we could control the entire thing and every game would be played at ideal times.Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday afternoon / night. And keep in mind the costs for each team would be a lot lower than they are in Super Rugby.

The A League has shown us the way. It rates worse than rugby yet gets $40 million a year AND gets a game each week on FTA. Why? Because of a much greater quantity of content. And it's not even that much!

If Australian rugby doesn't have the confidence and ambition to match the A League then we may as well give it up now. Of the SANZAR nations, Australia is by far the largest economy. It dwarfs the other two. It has by far the most potential for growth and we are entirely capable of going off on our own if it came down to it.

If the TV deals were aligned I'd almost guarantee that SANZAR's deal would be bigger for the ARU than the FFA deal for the A-League.

The A-League deal commenced in the 2013-14 season whereas ours ends next year. You will find that whatever happens, the next Super Rugby deal will increase substantially just as every other TV deal in every other sport has done.

The A-League provides 5 games per week. Super Rugby provides 4-5 games in this time zone every single week as well.

World Soccer is set up whereby club soccer forms a lot more of the season than internationals, especially when compared to rugby union. This is not going to change for either sport.

The ARU needs to have as a priority to get a game a week on FTA in the new TV deal (which they have said they will be pushing for) which has the two fold benefit of increasing revenue and increasing exposure to fans.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Can't see how comparing something like the BBL to what is needed (or wanted) in rugby in Australia. BBL is a short competition that goes on the model that we saturate the airwaves over a few weeks by having games on weeknights in the Summer where its all flash and big lights.

I would suggest that whilst crowds were very good, and people brought gear, they were cricket fans rather than Stars, Heat etc fans. Like braveheart said, its a night out with mates or the family to see what is a simple game.

Rugby wants something more sustainable and substantial. It has a massive task ahead because FTA isn't likely to take a punt on it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The BBL product is good and it capitalises on the holiday period to get families to games etc. Crowds dropped off considerably in year 2 but rose again in year 3. Cricket in Australia experiences a resurgence every domestic Ashes series, particularly when we dominate. I'd guess that was the biggest reason for the increased interest in 2013-14. I'd guess that crowds and TV viewers will drop off a bit next season.

The A-League has a couple of bumper games where they get big crowds, but largely teams struggle to draw punters. The average A-League crowd is 13k. Three years ago it was under 8.5k per game.

Which demonstrates the growth in the league.Sure it's not huge but when you consider its ranking in terms of worldwide Soccer leagues its not that bad.

It still demonstrates that you can build new leagues with new entities in today's sporting market. Tradition isn't the defining factor. It's nice, it provides a history but for many its about the quality of sport played not how long the team/competition has existed.

As for the BBL, I think the growth of its crowds and viewership can be attributed largely to not necessarily the Ashes series but it's arrival on a platform where everyone can access it. The product in which it presents is strong and provides a high entertainment value. That would have more to do with drawing in fans then the Ashes. I know people who lament Test Cricket who happily watch the BBL.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

This is it in a nutshell.

The NRC is an achieveable target that will hopefully attract some new supporters, grow into a competition that generates a profit rather than runs at a loss and help strengthen the two tiers above it over time. The primary goal is to lift the standard of players just outside Super Rugby and the bottom half of the contracted Super Rugby players.

The NRC will be what allows Australia to be involved in a Super Rugby expansion from 2016.

The ARU needs the rest of rugby in Australia to push the Wallabies higher because they are what makes most of the revenue. The Wallabies being more successful both on the field and financially will help increase the fanbase to follow the lower tiers.

It's all one big circle that requires each link in the chain to do its part in order to improve the other links.

If the NRC serves one of its primary purposes and helps elevate the standard of all play above it then, great. Using the Wallabies as the primary driver of growth could present reasonable returns.

However, most people will only ever see 6 games a year with under that model. Most won't tune into the games played in SA and ARG. Certainly none of the EOYT games. Perhaps the NZ based Bledisloe but that's it. It's not sustainable and it too reliant on just one team. It's been the primary strategy for the past 25 years and look where we are now.

Yes, there has been a legacy of mismanagement but with more than a decade of failure in respects to win a Beldisloe (which seems to be the driver of the popularity of the game for the casual fan) we have witnessed a steep decline of the game in regards to interest and coverage. It's been quite overt in its fall.

Rugby needs to either get Super Rugby on FTA via a TT conference or a full professional NRC to broaden its exposure and interest outside of just the Wallabies.