• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

S18 on its way

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boomer

Boomer

Alfred Walker (16)
Sir Arthur Higgins said:
How does it hurt it that much ? Force players are still australian (mostly!) and they are still playing super rugby against South Africa and Argentina regularly as well as either all the kiwi or Aus sides.
It's not ideal but it's
Not as though they are dropping down to a lower league. Provided a chance for a third Aussie team in the finals as well.

Perth gets the benefit of watching all the kiwi and Aus games plus the SA conference games are suddenly more attractive.
Click to expand...



How would that affect attendance/TV viewership in Perth if the team is playing in SA/Southern Europe one week in two?

Also doesn't help the ARU build the market in Perth, which was a key factor in establishing the team.
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
Boomer said:
How would that affect attendance/TV viewership in Perth if the team is playing in SA/Southern Europe one week in two?

Also doesn't help the ARU build the market in Perth, which was a key factor in establishing the team.
Click to expand...
If the Force vs. SA teams are played at about 1:30pm in SA those games will be shown at prime time 7:30pm in Perth as oppose to 3:30pm NZ or 5:30pm East coast games.

I would guess it would actually improve Perth ratings.
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
p.Tah said:
If the Force vs. SA teams are played at about 1:30pm in SA those games will be shown at prime time 7:30pm in Perth as oppose to 3:30pm NZ or 5:30pm East coast games.

I would guess it would actually improve Perth ratings.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that replacing Force v Aus teams matches played at 7:30pm AEST (prime time) with Force v SA teams played at 5:30pm AEST will improve ratings?
 
Sir Arthur Higgins

Sir Arthur Higgins

Alan Cameron (40)
If one as conference day game was at 2:30pm that's 8:30pm Perth time and would be after all of the nz Aus games that day. It doesn't mean that Perth suddenly has no access to the other games. They still can watch reds v tags but suddenly stormers v Argentina in Cape Town is on at prime time in Perth and has a lot more meaning. Effectively you get one or two extra high rating games in Perth a week
 
Boomer

Boomer

Alfred Walker (16)
Sir Arthur Higgins said:
If one as conference day game was at 2:30pm that's 8:30pm Perth time and would be after all of the nz Aus games that day. It doesn't mean that Perth suddenly has no access to the other games. They still can watch reds v tags but suddenly stormers v Argentina in Cape Town is on at prime time in Perth and has a lot more meaning. Effectively you get one or two extra high rating games in Perth a week
Click to expand...


I don't doubt you're keen to improve the rickety state of rugby across Australia, but I can't see how gifting the Force to SA and ARG rugby would help.

That gives the ARU less power to negotiate against the NZRU/SARU/ARG RU, weakens any player/code development that may have gone on in Perth, and will do little to convince Fox to cough up the magical $40-m broadcast fee Pulver wants.
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
kiap said:
Are you seriously suggesting that replacing Force v Aus teams matches played at 7:30pm AEST (prime time) with Force v SA teams played at 5:30pm AEST will improve ratings?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying a game at 9:30pm AEST which is 7:30pm in Perth, which is 1:30pm SA time would improve ratings in Perth
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
I guess we have to ask ourselves why Iain Payten put these suggestions forward? Is it his usual style to write an article of this nature? I'm not sure, but what i do know is his employer is NEWS Ltd, who own 50% of Foxtel one of the broadcasters who will bid for the TV rights. I would guess that they are not happy with the proposed structure and are putting out feelers for a model they would prefer.
 
Sir Arthur Higgins

Sir Arthur Higgins

Alan Cameron (40)
kiap said:
Why would the Stormers or Argentina give two hoots about Perth and play a game at Lunchtime in Cape Town and Breakfast time in Buenos Aries?

And I'm saying that as someone in Perth.
Click to expand...


it is an arbitrary example. it could be bulls v sharks. the point is that with the force in the SA conference, one game a week could be timed to be televised in or near prime time in perth. with force in this conference, suddenly it has more meaning and draws more interest. instead of a midnight (perth time) game drawing 30k in aus, it's prime time in perth and watchable on the east coast - viewership is up for these SA based games.
i don't understand how it affects player development at all. the force are still in australia, still recruit from WA and the rest of australia and elsewhere and still have their games televised throughout australia and still play against the top teams in SA, Arg, and NZ/AUS. they are still playing super rugby, they just play more games against south african opposition than Australian opposition.

for instance, it could be in the agreement that all force games in SA are played no later than 2pm kick off so they can be televised in Aus.

if SA based games, or more of them, are scheduled for prime time in perth and a watchable time in sydney etc, then Fox sports is getting better viewership which means they are able to pay more.

i think the answer is two of paytens points - force in SA conference and more SA day games.
 
Sir Arthur Higgins

Sir Arthur Higgins

Alan Cameron (40)
by no means is this ideal, but given the proposed structure i think it is the best solution. it would also mean, given force form this year, we could very easily have 3 australian teams in the finals. particularly how weak the SA conference will be for the next few years post introduction of the kings.
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
A super rugby team in Asia? No money and no interest from sponsors. Well that fucks up that idea then!

Asia is not ready to host a Super Rugby franchise, the head of the ARFU told Reuters, with no union or sponsor in a position to underwrite the $100 million five-year cost of hosting the Southern Hemisphere competition's 18th team.

Asian Rugby Football Union president and Hong Kong Rugby Union chairman Trevor Gregory ruled out his city from bidding to join the league, which is run by South Africa, Australia and New Zealand and announced plans earlier this month to expand to 18 teams.
Click to expand...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/rugby-super-asia-idUKL3N0O82AZ20140522
 
Omar Comin'

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
I wouldn't want to play in a South African conference if I was an Asian based union or franchise either.

It'd be better for Asia to start it's own home and away 6 team elite competition that could, in a few years be added to super rugby as a conference. Say Hong Kong, Asia-Pacific Dragons (Singapore), Seoul, Tokyo, Osaka and Yokohama. Or something like that.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sir Arthur Higgins

Sir Arthur Higgins

Alan Cameron (40)
I reckon a second Argentina team is the best bet.
Another SA team is ridiculous. Kenya and Namibia couldn't afford
It and no one would want to live in Nairobi or Windhoek.
Spain japan or arg are all that makes sense unless a
Sheik fully commits to a team
 
Blue

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
boyo said:
They already "London South Africa".
Click to expand...
Yup. They sure are. South African investment and lots of players as well as coaches.

UK clubs are open to private investment so it's a free market but I guess you don't know what that is as they don't really write about it in the SMH.

Why would Sarries ever leave Europe? It's a bigger pond. However, a new team under their umbrella seems like an interesting prospect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top