Rugby TV Ratings 2016

[Braveheart81]

If only the ARU had a Frank Lowy willing to make significant financial contributions to the game here.

The FFA's media deal also is singular to Australia and they can effectively make whatever decision they want.

The ARU doesn't get to decide on their own what TV deal is accepted in Australia. It is up to SANZAAR because the revenue is shared.

What would rugby look like in Australia if we had even less competitive Super Rugby teams because we couldn't afford to keep our best players in the country. How would that affect the health of the game here?

 

[half]

Wamberal

You come across to me a very level headed poster capable of looking at things especially other codes and putting it into some kind of balance.

I just read an article from the Fin Review and its an interview with Stephen Lowy the chairman of FFA. Reading between the lines he appears to be saying FFA will take a massive cut in the revenue deal for guaranteed exposure on a commercial FTA.

This is the link. http://www.afr.com/business/sport/f...r-coverage-a-must-for-aleague-20160428-gohdw4

Is it to late in your opinion for the ARU to do the same at the next media deal or do you see it as to late and using your words today to much of a niche sport in Australia today. Or maybe we don't need to do it Fox is OK.

If only the ARU had a Frank Lowy willing to make significant financial contributions to the game here.

The FFA's media deal also is singular to Australia and they can effectively make whatever decision they want.

The ARU doesn't get to decide on their own what TV deal is accepted in Australia. It is up to SANZAAR because the revenue is shared.

What would rugby look like in Australia if we had even less competitive Super Rugby teams because we couldn't afford to keep our best players in the country. How would that affect the health of the game here?

Braveheart

You make an excellent point in that

The FFA's media deal also is singular to Australia

I guess I see this differently to most on this site and think we could sell an Australian Rugby competition to the media for far less money than the Super Rugby deal.

But I am becoming increasingly concerned because as Wamberal says we are becoming a niche sport and FFA seem very willing to take much less revenue to get on 7 or 9 or 10 to grow into the future I do wonder if they use us as the example not to follow.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The NBL has had plenty of free to air coverage over the years since the mid-90s. That hasn't stopped them becoming less and less popular, or made the league sustainable. Free to air isn't a panacea


That's not to say a free to air deal wouldn't be good.

 

[half]

Good point on the Basketball. WE can be on both i.e Fox and and one game FTA per week.

I saw the Netball is attempting to develop a 10 national domestic competition and break away from the five Australian sides and 5 NZ sides.

My gut feeling is if Netball can sell a 10 team competition to the media then there is no reason Rugby can't as well.

Being fair the amount paid is not that much and competition for players is less. However I think we could get more than Netball.

Might stop now I am getting a tad to carried away I am I think the only Rugby person in Australia who believes ditching Super Rugby & NZ is the way to go. Keep the TRi Nation through.

 

[wamberal]

Wamberal

You come across to me a very level headed poster capable of looking at things especially other codes and putting it into some kind of balance.

I just read an article from the Fin Review and its an interview with Stephen Lowy the chairman of FFA. Reading between the lines he appears to be saying FFA will take a massive cut in the revenue deal for guaranteed exposure on a commercial FTA.

This is the link. http://www.afr.com/business/sport/f...r-coverage-a-must-for-aleague-20160428-gohdw4

Is it to late in your opinion for the ARU to do the same at the next media deal or do you see it as to late and using your words today to much of a niche sport in Australia today. Or maybe we don't need to do it Fox is OK.

Sorry for the late response. There are some big differences between our situation and that of FFA. For starters, they have a domestic competition with enough local teams to guarantee locally based games in agreed timeslots.


We do not have an equivalent domestic product. The NRC is probably the closest product, but it is a very new competition played between totally new entities with no traditional supporters. Suoer Rugby is our cash cow (together of course with domestic internationals) and those tier one and two competitions will take precedence. Super Rugby will never be live on FTA in Australia for reasons which have been canvassed here many times - not enough product of course is another factor.


If Fox ever takes over TEN there might be a slight chance that Fox would allow the occasional game to be shown live to build up wider interest in our game.



We are caught between a rock and a hard place. The only realistic chance that the NRC could become viable for FTA is if it involves most of our best players, which is not going to happen with Super Rugby's financial importance. Even then it would take quite a few years for the teams to build up identities and followings. Time that we do not have.


If I were the CEO of the ARU I would appoint a lobbyist whose job would be to get on World Rugby's back and stay there - working to tighten up on the international recruitment of players (not to stop it totally, but to impose limits and also transfer fees), and to do whatever can be done to make our game easier for new followers to understand and enjoy.

 

[RebelYell]

Out of curiosity, do we do know the stats for either Waratahs vs Stormers or Jaguares vs Kings?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Out of curiosity, do we do know the stats for either Waratahs vs Stormers or Jaguares vs Kings?

Typically the non-kiwi/Aussie hosted games don't rate highly enough to make the free daily top-20 reports, so are a lot harder to find.

 

[barbarian]

Might stop now I am getting a tad to carried away I am I think the only Rugby person in Australia who believes ditching Super Rugby & NZ is the way to go. Keep the TRi Nation through.

You're not. We all see the issues with Super Rugby in its current form. If you were starting from a blank canvas this certianly wouldn't be what you would choose to do.

But I think most of us understand the realities of the current situation. NZ don't want a Trans-Tasman comp. We are locked into the current deal for another 5 years. So it just ain't happening.

I'm also not sure why we are holding up the FFA as the model for getting the game going. They are whoring themselves out to FTA channels and NO-ONE wants them. Even SBS are desperate to get rid of them. Their figures on FTA this year have been in the absolute toilet.

Until very recently the national team didn't have a jersey sponsor.

Things are far from rosy in the football world, and they have a billionaire benefactor running the game.
.

 

[wamberal]

The round-ballers do get some pretty good crowds, particularly for the local derbies.

 

[Braveheart81]

I saw the Netball is attempting to develop a 10 national domestic competition and break away from the five Australian sides and 5 NZ sides.

My gut feeling is if Netball can sell a 10 team competition to the media then there is no reason Rugby can't as well.

Being fair the amount paid is not that much and competition for players is less. However I think we could get more than Netball.

Netball is in a position where the players are still very underpaid and don't have any better options. It's not like an Australian league is competing for players with lucrative foreign markets.

Netball is also a huge participation sport in Australia.

Might stop now I am getting a tad to carried away I am I think the only Rugby person in Australia who believes ditching Super Rugby & NZ is the way to go. Keep the TRi Nation through.

Is this even realistically possible? NZ and South Africa could call our bluff and just say no if we said we wanted to withdraw from Super Rugby when the current TV deal finishes. How is it in their interests to let us play lucrative test matches and get the spoils from that part of a TV deal without also helping provide the bulk of the content in Super Rugby.

How do you fund an additional 5 teams in Australia?

What happens to the standard of rugby in Australia if we double the number of teams we have playing and stop playing against the best opposition?

Withdrawing from Super Rugby and trying to base our whole season around a larger national competition seems like the best way to go bankrupt within 2 years.

 

[barbarian]

The round-ballers do get some pretty good crowds, particularly for the local derbies.

Outside the derbies though the figures are low, and not improving. Sydney FC have been in the range of 8-13k, and clubs like Central Coast and Newcastle are even worse.
.

 

[wamberal]

Outside the derbies though the figures are low, and not improving. Sydney FC have been in the range of 8-13k, and clubs like Central Coast and Newcastle are even worse.
.

Yep. But I suspect the tide of history is more on their side than ours. Demographic changes in particular.

 

[kiap]

Things are far from rosy in the football world, and they have a billionaire benefactor running the game.
.

Lowy? How much of his own skin in the game does he actually have?

IIRC, Frank Lowy was always fairly canny with that sort of thing (whilst still pulling the reins). He had government money doing some of the work, too.

And now Stephen Lowy, the son, is in the official chair.

Okay, the senior Lowy was an investor in Sydney FC, but I think that's all moved under the control of a rich Russian dude now (Traktovenko) who has gone some way to stemming their cash haemorrhage. Various other teams have overseas ownership (e.g. Melbourne City) - and I think that's their model; private ownership.

While I wouldn't say their game is rosy, reckon it could be on a better path than rugby.

 

[barbarian]

Yep. But I suspect the tide of history is more on their side than ours. Demographic changes in particular.

People have been saying that for 30 years. 'Soccer is coming, watch out'. 'It's going to take over, because it's the World Game'.

And yet the game is, more or less, in the same place it was 15 years ago. I'd actually argue it's worse off now than it was a decade ago.

The A-League has stagnated, and was belted by the Big Bash this year. Crowds are down, as are TV ratings. The Socceroos have won the Asian Cup but still struggle to fill stadiums for WQ qualifiers. They are playing Greece in June and I reckon they will be lucky to get over 40k.

I actually don't think they are a huge competitor to rugby due to season timings. The A-League had it's final yesterday, and in reality our season has barely started. We aren't losing crowds to the A-League, or media attention.

At a participation level they are a juggernaut, but they always have been.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's kind of baffling that there isn't more interest in Australia in private ownership of rugby teams as a lifestyle asset.

There's plenty of wealth and rugby has always had that association but when it comes to people stumping up cash to fund a team, the interest is sparse.

 

[RebelYell]

Typically the non-kiwi/Aussie hosted games don't rate highly enough to make the free daily top-20 reports, so are a lot harder to find.

Thanks for getting back to me, appreciated.

 

[wamberal]

It's kind of baffling that there isn't more interest in Australia in private ownership of rugby teams as a lifestyle asset.

There's plenty of wealth and rugby has always had that association but when it comes to people stumping up cash to fund a team, the interest is sparse.

Harold Mitchell funded the Rebels, but not for long.

 

[Braveheart81]

Harold Mitchell funded the Rebels, but not for long.

Yes but one guy worth a few hundred million who wasn't willing to do it for the long haul is hardly enough.

It also seemed like he wanted out when he couldn't see a path to profit.

When you think of how many wealthy Australians spend millions of dollars a year on racehorse stud operations it seems crazy we can't get more interest in rugby teams.

 

[wamberal]

We have never had much luck in this respect. Probably a bit of a hangover from the amateur days, plus a lot of GPS old boys seem to be more interested in their old school heritage than the professional game.


If oniy we couid get The Kings School Old Boys association to sponsor a team in Western Sydney. I mean a Soup team, by the way. Those buggers are loaded, check out the resources that the school enjoys. Everything but a racecourse.

 

[barbarian]

The School has those assets, not the Old Boys. And those assets were given to Kings in the 1800s, it's not like they purchased them last month.

The problem as I see it is team ownership is a bad business decision. It always has been, and it always will be. You need to attract sporting philanthropists rather than businessmen.

I have a feeling that most of rugby's white-collar, cashed up barons are too smart and too business-minded to ever sink millions of their hard-earned into a Super team. There just isn't the passion that you find in football, or the prestige you have in the NBA/NFL.
.