Super what?

[kiap]

Believe me the weather in Japan in the rainy season June/July and the peak heat August are in no way comparable.

Who cares about August?

Or, for that matter, most of June/July, because if you take the Test window out and play away matches over the last few rounds, there won't be games played there at that time.

IF Super Rugby is played in Tokyo then it's most likely to be played in Chichibunomiya. Tokyo Dome is primarily used for Baseball, concerts etc. and has an official capacity of 55k but the actual capacity is some way below that.

Fair call.

Not that they would actually make it to a final, but the point is that there are covered arenas and options for these kind of problems.

 

[Quick Hands]

If the Japanese have a team, they will make it work. Failure and poor organisation aren't part of their makeup.

 

[boyo]

The super comp will also span the Japanese rainy season which should provide some extra fun watching players try to play in that.

The Waratahs will be fucked.

 

[Bardon]

Who cares about August?

Or, for that matter, most of June/July, because if you take the Test window out and play away matches over the last few rounds, there won't be games played there at that time.

I only mention August because you mentioned the peak temperature which is actually in August. I then made a comparison between the two to support your assertion that June and July would be manageable if not ideal.

On the rainy season I would imagine that teams will want to avoid it and probably will do what you suggest I was merely pointing out the funny image I had in my head of teams trying to play Super Rugby in Tokyo during a torrential downpour. More a car crash TV moment and certain not an objection to a Super Rugby team in Tokyo. When I move there permanently it would be great to see some of the SHs best players coming up on a regular basis.

On the stadiums Toyota would certainly be a more suitable venue for a Super Rugby final, if a Japanese franchise every reached one, or if Super Rugby move to the European model or rotating the finals host. Nagoya would be a bit of a trip from Tokyo and the stadium is soccer only at present.

But these are obstacles that can be over come and I agree with you that if Japan gets to host a Super Rugby final a suitable venue will be found.

 

[Bardon]

If the Japanese have a team, they will make it work. Failure and poor organisation aren't part of their makeup.

Organization certainly won't be a problem for Japan. Trying to convince Japanese sports fans who are baseball and soccer mad to give the sport a fare shake might be though. Certainly rugby is much further behind these and other sports than Aus rugby is behind AFL, NRL or the A-League.

But the beauty about Tokyo is that a minority sport can flourish is a city of 30 million without needing to be no. 1 or anywhere close to it.

The other big challenge will be developing the franchise and potentially adding other future franchises in a way that suits the needs of Japanese rugby and not just those of SANZAR.

It'll be very tough to begin with, but it's a very positive step for rugby in Japan and I'll certainly be looking to be a season ticket holder if it does come about. I might even persuade my girlfriend to be one too but I think baseball has her too deep in it's clutches for that. But hey if people didn't dream and reach for the impossible RU would still be an amateur sport.

 

[TOCC]

It'll be interesting to see how it is handled, whether it will be an arm of the JFRU or along the lines of other teams in the country and owned/operated by a corporation.

 

[RugbyReg]

50% of super rugby's income is from South Africa. It's really not that hard to work out what's going on and why?

The real surprise is; why are people surprised?

What do you mean it comes from South Africa? Their broadcaster?

 

[Quick Hands]

What do you mean it comes from South Africa? Their broadcaster?

Yes. I've lost the article which had the figures.

He warned that the South African broadcaster Super Sport was a significant contributor to the total broadcast package and SANZAR wouldn’t want to see its input disappear. Besides, he said, last year’s South African TV audience for Super Rugby matches not involving SA teams was 8.8 million — bigger than the entire Australian Super Rugby audience. While Australian and NZ viewers might be lukewarm about watching SA sides, it seems the reverse does not apply in the republic.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ls-for-patience/story-e6frg7o6-1226893934068#

 

[Quick Hands]

People hoping for a Trans-Tasman comp sans SAF, need to take a reality check.

It is well known that the ARU has been fomenting dissent in the Sanzar ranks, trying in particular to convince New Zealand to strengthen trans-Tasman rivalry and drop South Africa altogether from the new broadcasting rights deal when the current one expires at the end of 2015.
But the Mail & Guardian understands that Steve Tew, the chief executive of the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU), told his ARU counterparts at a recent Sanzar meeting in no uncertain terms that they would drop Australia before they dropped South Africa. “We measure ourselves against South Africa,” Tew allegedly said.

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-05-01-sanzars-expansive-game-plan

 

[TOCC]

You need to be careful when directly comparing ratings and using that as a basis for debating broadcast rights, ratings from each country don't directly correlate to the value of the broadcast rights, Australian broadcast rights are comparatively more lucrative then South Africa.

 

[mst]

You need to be careful when directly comparing ratings and using that as a basis for debating broadcast rights, ratings from each country don't directly correlate to the value of the broadcast rights, Australian broadcast rights are comparatively more lucrative then South Africa.

I agree with what your saying TOCC. I read articles that speculate about ratings, which parties should have first say as they contributed certain amounts and I cant help but think that at the end of the day this is business and there are no rules or loyalty contacts we are aware of, and we need to understand is if it ratings or dollars we are goings for or a combination of both. The AFL / NRL deals show that the dollars available for good product are on less ratings than SA Rugby has. And you also need to look at the big picture. Pay TV has provided money for Rugby when FTA was not a viable option. You could argue that it now restricts the value and growth of the product. You look at the AFL /NRL deals and they are driven by a combination of ratings, but the ratings of the targeted audience are the key to the sponsors - which with the AFL / NRL are in a far more competitive demographic (sports and fan wise) with less audience than SA Rugby. But it is of significant more value to sponsors thus the bigger dollar deals. Look at the French deal. It dwarfs ant SA deal and its purely domestic. Super Rugby provides SA international product weekly. So, should it not be worth more? At the end of the day its worth as much as someone is willing to pay. We just need to find the right someone.

 

[Quick Hands]

You need to be careful when directly comparing ratings and using that as a basis for debating broadcast rights, ratings from each country don't directly correlate to the value of the broadcast rights, Australian broadcast rights are comparatively more lucrative then South Africa.

Maybe, but it appears that money talks:

Put bluntly, both the Australian and New Zealand rugby unions are hopelessly, utterly dependent on the strength of rugby in South Africa. Both countries need their great rugby rival involved to keep their professional games afloat.
Why? As ARU boss Bill Pulver told Fairfax Media this week, "almost a quarter" of his organisation's revenue comes from the SANZAR broadcasting agreement and South African broadcaster Super Sport contribute "nearly 50 per cent" of that.
"It is an ill-founded idea to say we should walk away from that opportunity," Pulver said.
Not only ill-founded, but never ever an option, despite the most impassioned pleas for a more (Australian) fan-friendly format for the competition.
If Super Sport did not like the look of the competition, it would be dead in the water


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/super-rugbys-brave-new-world-20140502-zr3b8.html#ixzz30dUCbqb0

 

[liquor box]

As Margaret Thatcher so famously said, "TINA".


There is no alternative.


As others have pointed out, Seth Efrica provides the bulk of the funding, so it is reasonable that the competition has a skew towards them.


Maybe if our teams can start producing attractive, winning, rugby consistently, get some crowds and ratings figures up, next time around we will have a bit more leverage. Now we are very definitely a price taker, not a price maker.

It might be time to realise that we may not see any winners of Super Rugby from Australia for a long time. This is disappointing but if I still get a season of watching high quality rugby then I cant complain.

We all still watch rugby even if we cant win the title.

If this is what is required to keep our rugby on TV and at a decent level then I say go for it.

 

[Omar Comin']

Quick Hands, you're ignoring the fact that the Australian broadcasters spend many times more on sport than the South African broadcasters. Super Rugby has limited appeal and showcases limited games in Australia. You only have to look at the deals the NRL and AFL, and even the A League have achieved to see how much more potential there is in the Australian market for Australian based competitions.

Currently South African broadcasters pay more for super rugby than Australian broadcasters do - but super rugby is more attractive in SA because all the games are on at a reasonable time. This reality makes it seem like we have no choice but to lock ourselves into a structure that doesn't allow rugby to grow in Australia.

But who knows where rugby could be now if after the 2003 world cup we had left super rugby and created an A League style (top tier) competition. I suspect that sort of competition would by now be worth a lot more to the ARU than super rugby is to them. But we'll never know.

The real hope now is that the NRC can be a big success despite being 3rd tier.

 

[TOCC]

Edit

 

[Blue]

Quick Hands, you're ignoring the fact that the Australian broadcasters spend many times more on sport than the South African broadcasters.

Can you substantiate this? I think you are terribly wrong.

On Supersport they get every bloody league that moves in anything that can be classed sports. Just in rugby alone they can watch most of the European comps live. They have deidcated football channels with European leagues.

If I had to guess, Supersport's spends more. They don't just broadcast in SA, Their viewership goes into African and the Middle East and some of their content is available in Europe.

 

[Quick Hands]

Quick Hands, you're ignoring the fact that the Australian broadcasters spend many times more on sport than the South African broadcasters. Super Rugby has limited appeal and showcases limited games in Australia. You only have to look at the deals the NRL and AFL, and even the A League have achieved to see how much more potential there is in the Australian market for Australian based competitions.

Currently South African broadcasters pay more for super rugby than Australian broadcasters do - but super rugby is more attractive in SA because all the games are on at a reasonable time. This reality makes it seem like we have no choice but to lock ourselves into a structure that doesn't allow rugby to grow in Australia.

But who knows where rugby could be now if after the 2003 world cup we had left super rugby and created an A League style (top tier) competition. I suspect that sort of competition would by now be worth a lot more to the ARU than super rugby is to them. But we'll never know.

The real hope now is that the NRC can be a big success despite being 3rd tier.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just dealing with the reality. I agree that for Australia an Aus/NZ Super 10 is the best option for us, but the reality is NZ have said that they would drop Australia before they would drop South Africa, South Africa want in, the ARU say that they the receive around 25% of their income from the SANZAR broadcast agreement and of that, 50% comes from Super Sport SA.

Pulver says going without SAF is not an option, NZ say they won't participate without SAF and the competition itself wouldn't exist without the contribution from Super Sport SA, so I think no matter what logic is applied, the argument is over before it starts.

As you say, we need 3T to become roughly the equivalent of Currie Cup and ITM Cup. What Super Sport have said in one of the articles that I've read is that they get all the derbies they want in Currie Cup, what they get out of super rugby is international competition. People in SAF want to watch Aussie and NZ teams, people in NZ want to play SAF teams.

 

[Quick Hands]

Can you substantiate this? I think you are terribly wrong.

On Supersport they get every bloody league that moves in anything that can be classed sports. Just in rugby alone they can watch most of the European comps live. They have deidcated football channels with European leagues.

If I had to guess, Supersport's spends more. They don't just broadcast in SA, Their viewership goes into African and the Middle East and some of their content is available in Europe.

People in Australia need to realise that in the rugby world, we're well down the pecking order in terms of our ability to negotiate. Whether people like it or not, it's an international game and if NZ and SAF want something, we have to accept it.

 

[Omar Comin']

Can you substantiate this? I think you are terribly wrong.

On Supersport they get every bloody league that moves in anything that can be classed sports. Just in rugby alone they can watch most of the European comps live. They have deidcated football channels with European leagues.

If I had to guess, Supersport's spends more. They don't just broadcast in SA, Their viewership goes into African and the Middle East and some of their content is available in Europe.

The NRL and AFL both have $1 billion+ broadcast deals over 5 years. These are both much greater than the entire SANZAR deal (it is also more than the new Top 14 deal in France and the TV deal for English Rugby, and the TV deal for the European cup rugby combined). And both AFL and NRL really only rate in half the country (NRL in NSW and QLD, which is half the population, and the AFL everywhere else).

Has any South African broadcaster paid anything near that for sport?

 

[Blue]

The NRL and AFL both have $1 billion+ broadcast deals over 5 years. These are both much greater than the entire SANZAR deal (it is also more than the new Top 14 deal in France and the TV deal for English Rugby, and the TV deal for the European cup rugby combined). And both AFL and NRL really only rate in half the country (NRL in NSW and QLD, which is half the population, and the AFL everywhere else).

Has any South African broadcaster paid anything near that for sport?

I have no idea. Hence I asked.