Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

Yeh I have a feeling RA knows it has to keep domestic competition and seek to grow it. But I equally see it can’t afford not to do a champions league with nz and japan. This then replaces TT, with Fiji and drua added to I presume nz conference (sadly...as prefer Fiji play in our domestic conference).

Champions league has to be done with nz and Japan as that gives us more money and content. As I don’t think we are ready to expand to 8 team domestic competition and also I don’t think we want all our eggs in one basket.

Difference between Japan/ oz and nz teams may be an issue as much as was an issue with recent TT but hopefully with commercial dollars Japan adds nzru is more flexible to make it work and avoid lopsided contests ie cup and plate format maybe. Not sure round robin would hence work but equally a cup and plate competition may also create issues unless funding shared. I guess the domestic conferences from prior season would determine who is in cup and plate competitions.

I would have thought still too hard to do champions league next year so maybe another TT. Anyhow I will have to trust RA to do all their due diligence and discussions with nzru and Japan national body to determine options and best path forward.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^^^^^^

Its worst than the post above. The 100 million part of the deal is for only three and a half years or say 30 million per year when added to the 40 million per year for the A & W leagues thats 70 million per year and we outrate them. REports are also saying they could add some overseas sales as well.

This is a tweet detailing the deal and the extend of the broadcast is at the bottom.

REMEMBER yes REMEMBER we were on TEN and were TENs favorite

The season is twice as long as Super Rugby. Which is where they draw more revenue.

 

[half]

The season is twice as long as Super Rugby. Which is where they draw more revenue.

HHHMMMMMM AAAARRRRRggggrrrr yes you are right, BTW its got a name its called a National Domestic Competition.

We outrate em
We have bigger crowds.
Soccer is going down faster than a hooker at the cross.

They get 70 million we get 30 million.

When will the penny drop. Its not about soccer V rugby its about a structure.

A governing body develops a competition, the same governing body does a copy and paste from an existing model.

Lets say a US franchise model.

Private investors fund teams, the governing body does the media deal and takes a cut tro help run national teams and training and development programs.

If soccer can get 300 million we should get 500 million plus.

How more obvious is it.

Look at this tweet, first the matches and then the news item. That should have been rugby we just did not provide the content needed

media=twiter]1404669442512941061[/media]

Our site seems not to wanta copy the tweet so the tweet is by Vince Rugari

 

[half]

A recap be it a quick recap of years on this site.

The minster of war & finance otherwise known, as She Who must be obeyed, or the wife is a hard core rusted on soccer fan and we go to Mariner games. The minister played soccer until recently and by sheer chance two Matildas joined her side both over 45.

I met one of my biggest clients at a Mariners game an he has a small media company that’s provides news and sporting links to all the TV and many radio networks.

Two of my kids played soccer with the oldest playing rugby. I sat on a district rugby team committee for a number of years.
I support the Woodies. Used to live on the Epping / Eastwood broader but have for 15 t=years lived on the Central Coast.

My practice specialises in trend and data analysis as well as taxation. Yes, I am an accountant.

I have been calling for a national domestic competition since the late 90’s, recently or actually about five to six years ago realised that RA had neither the capital nor the intellect to fix rugby. My solution for about 5 or 6 years has been to copy and paste a US franchise model preferably the MLS as IMO it’s the best.

Today soccer in spite of beyond poor ratings, and crowds and in a down wood spiral has pulled off a 70 million per year media deal aside from showing the games will have FTA discussion panels and pre and post-game shows.

All this on the TEN network which was rugbies.

How did we let this happen??????? Actually it was easy we refused to accept we must stand on our own feet. Its that simple, we clung to the coat tails of NZ rugby and SA.

We wanted others to do the heavy lifting and failed the most basic of fundamentals in protecting the player base especially at junior level.

To me it is so so so so so so so so so so so so so so obvious, let private investors run and develop a national domestic competition, and let RA run and develop national teams and national training programs. You can’t wear two hats.

 

[Slim 293]

Hoggy, and to others let me start this by saying.

Soccer soccer soccer A-League
Soccer gets bigger soccer than the A-League.
Soccer has a longer soccer than the A-Laegue.

Soccer is what having a soccer soccer soccer provides

Now for the soccer part given the above soccer and soccer, soccer in soccer are soccer.

Ten has signed a soccer soccer deal with soccer.

Soccer soccer soccer 5 years for the A & W league

Soccer soccer for their soccer and soccer FFA Cup.

Plus TEN will run pre game soccer and on TEN have at least one soccer discussion show.

Today I read with even more sadness the answer may lie in the third rebirth of the soccer soccer soccer soccer and I look to the soccer and say why soccer did you give us soccer admins.

 

[half]

Slim clap clap clap, its Ok mate I hardly post on here anymore and with posts like your's will post even less and that will make you happy I am sure..

Maybe one day you will understand its about structure and analysing what others do. Stay in your little bias world and shrink...

Maybe one day you will actually look at those US franchise models, and maybe you will even understand that sometimes you need to look at what works and what fails.

Then maybe you will understand its about the structure, and yes we have stuck to ours and its working really well...

 

[Adam84]

We outrate em
We have bigger crowds.
Soccer is going down faster than a hooker at the cross.

They get 70 million we get 30 million.

When will the penny drop. Its not about soccer V rugby its about a structure.

Yes A-League has over 300 games a season, Super Rugby has 65 games a season. Broadcasters pay for content.

Nine are paying rugby on average 250% more per match broadcast(Super Rugby & Test) then what Ten are paying soccer.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yes A-League has over 300 games a season, Super Rugby has 65 games a season. Broadcasters pay for content.

Nine are paying rugby on average 400% more per match broadcast(Super Rugby & Test) then what Ten are paying soccer.

Yep. $30m across 65 games is $461k a game. Compared to $50m across 300 at $166k.

 

[Rebels3]

The deal also isn’t $70m it’s $40m a season with a further $30m from the host broadcaster to invest in the game, such as development of tv shows, paying an advertising agency for marketing, etc. they also sold 2.5% of the business to cbs. Add then their is almost triple the amount of stakeholders that will have to be fed. It’s delusional to think this is a vastly superior deal to the one rugby has. The deal has been announced as if Stan/ch9 also added the costs of running rugby Heaven and game day etc. built into it.

It’s not a bad deal but it’s not a great one either, kinda the same level that rugby managed to get. It’s good they got something to guarantee survival but this will not mean players will get paid more, etc.

 

[half]

Yep. $30m across 65 games is $461k a game. Compared to $50m across 300 at $166k.

Thanks for making my point and agreeing with me, i.e. if we had a local domestic competition we would get heaps more money. Its kinda how it works eg content times games which I also pointed out in my post when I said rugby would get 500 million.

The deal also isn’t $70m it’s $40m a season with a further $30m from the host broadcaster to invest in the game, such as development of tv shows, paying an advertising agency for marketing, etc. they also sold 2.5% of the business to cbs. Add then their is almost triple the amount of stakeholders that will have to be fed. It’s delusional to think this is a vastly superior deal to the one rugby has. The deal has been announced as if Stan/ch9 also added the costs of running rugby Heaven and game day etc. built into it.

It’s not a bad deal but it’s not a great one either, kinda the same level that rugby managed to get. It’s good they got something to guarantee survival but this will not mean players will get paid more, etc.

Sorry its a 300 million dollar deal, with I am sure heaps of contras in there so its not all cash.

200 million for the A & W league for 5 years, thats 40 million.

100 million for internationals and FFA Cup for 3.5 years, thats about 30 million.

I never said it was a great deal.

I said rugby rates way more and the rugby deal is just under half, the difference is content provided as explained by WCR.

Its the most in your face example of developing a structure and what works world over is a National Domestic Competition.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Awesome, a national domestic comp, so we can give as few shits as people do about the A-League.

 

[eastman]

Awesome, a national domestic comp, so we can give as few shits as people do about the A-League.

Can you imagine how poor the quality of games/ players would be if we had to fill 8-10 teams?

Who would want to watch it?

 

[eastman]

Thanks for making my point and agreeing with me, i.e. if we had a local domestic competition we would get heaps more money. Its kinda how it works eg content times games which I also pointed out in my post when I said rugby would get 500 million.



Sorry its a 300 million dollar deal, with I am sure heaps of contras in there so its not all cash.

200 million for the A & W league for 5 years, thats 40 million.

100 million for internationals and FFA Cup for 3.5 years, thats about 30 million.

I never said it was a great deal.

I said rugby rates way more and the rugby deal is just under half, the difference is content provided as explained by WCR.

Its the most in your face example of developing a structure and what works world over is a National Domestic Competition.

Following this logic, you do understand that teams in this new 'National Domestic Competition' would have a significantly smaller salary cap than the existing structure? It's 'heaps more money' spent over 'heaps more teams'.

Australia already struggles to retain its best players - effectively reducing the salary cap per player is another great way to lose even more.

 

[half]

^^^^^^^

Mater seriously, extra games with an increased broadcast coverage will increase sponsorships, crowd revenue will increase, juniors normally increase to help with future players.

Just look around the world, Amerasian Gridiron, Basketball, Baseball, EPL, Indian Cricket Premier League. The worlds major sports play in National Domestic Competitions.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Following this logic, you do understand that teams in this new 'National Domestic Competition' would have a significantly smaller salary cap than the existing structure? It's 'heaps more money' spent over 'heaps more teams'.

Australia already struggles to retain its best players - effectively reducing the salary cap per player is another great way to lose even more.

8 team domestic competition vs TT competition producing lopsided results and lack of contests no one gives a shit about as well. Look there is no easy answer and hence probably favour of mix of both (ie say domestic comp with 5 to 6 teams) and champions league. Yeh I hear 8 teams reduce player quality but if even contests maybe could be something to build from if you accept continuing with TT will inevitably lead us down the same path.

I think that is why we want a foot in both camps ie domestic super rugby au + TT / champions league and continue to tweak both where if both work / complement keep both and if one fails and other succeeds you obviously keep the successful one or if both fail you start again.

I think anyone is kidding themselves there is a clear path to go down that all stakeholders will agree to, won’t bust the bank etc. at this point I would say at least we had a super rugby competition that was moderately successful and a TT competition that was a flop. Can the TT be tweaked to be successful and will the domestic competition be able to be sustained and/ or expanded to achieve better outcome then the latter? All valid questions which of course can’t answer with 100% confidence. But certainly we should be looking at proven models to derisk at least. I will leave others to debate what are proven and valid models applicable to oz market.

 

[Adam84]

^^^^^^^

Mater seriously, extra games with an increased broadcast coverage will increase sponsorships, crowd revenue will increase, juniors normally increase to help with future players.
.

More isn’t always better if you don’t have the productivity output required

 

[Quick Hands]

Can you imagine how poor the quality of games/ players would be if we had to fill 8-10 teams?

Who would want to watch it?

But is anyone other than the rusted on uber-fanatics watching what is on now?

See Super Rugby crowds in the attached. https://www.austadiums.com/sport/comp/super-rugby/results

The Reds and Force crowds are ok, but not much evidence of resounding support elsewhere. The poorly performing Canberra Raiders RL team are outdrawing the well-performed Brumbies.

Waratahs crowds are so appalling that NSWRU won't even release them - which suggests that they are less than 5,000. You can't run a professional sporting team in a city of 5 million getting a handful of tragics trooping out to the game. Even worse when you consider that probably 30-50% of the handful there are Kiwi expats.

It would seem that the quality of the players isn't the main driver - it's the fact that the Australian teams are in a 'competition' in which they aren't close to being competitive.

Even in NZ the crowds for Super Rugby TT are down 25% from SRA NZ domestic version.


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...super-rugby-trans-tasman-20210528-p57vyp.html

 

[Rebel man]

But is anyone other than the rusted on uber-fanatics watching what is on now?

See Super Rugby crowds in the attached. https://www.austadiums.com/sport/comp/super-rugby/results

The Reds and Force crowds are ok, but not much evidence of resounding support elsewhere. The poorly performing Canberra Raiders RL team are outdrawing the well-performed Brumbies.

Waratahs crowds are so appalling that NSWRU won't even release them - which suggests that they are less than 5,000. You can't run a professional sporting team in a city of 5 million getting a handful of tragics trooping out to the game. Even worse when you consider that probably 30-50% of the handful there are Kiwi expats.

It would seem that the quality of the players isn't the main driver - it's the fact that the Australian teams are in a 'competition' in which they aren't close to being competitive.

Even in NZ the crowds for Super Rugby TT are down 25% from SRA NZ domestic version.


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...super-rugby-trans-tasman-20210528-p57vyp.html

Why do you think that is? Of course crowds are down. Most people still aren’t travelling internationally so you will get no away support for the teams

 

[Quick Hands]

Why do you think that is? Of course crowds are down. Most people still aren’t travelling internationally so you will get no away support for the teams

I strongly doubt that a significant number of people ever travelled internationally to watch Super Rugby teams. There are a significant number of Kiwis living in Australia who historically went to Super Rugby games in the past. Strange that other sports have seen a resurgence in crowds since restrictions have been lifted but rugby doesn't seem to have been able to do so. The Waratahs used to attract over 30,000 but now get less than 5,000 - there's no government restrictions on attending sport in Sydney. People just don't want to watch it.

 

[Rebel man]

I strongly doubt that a significant number of people ever travelled internationally to watch Super Rugby teams. There are a significant number of Kiwis living in Australia who historically went to Super Rugby games in the past. Strange that other sports have seen a resurgence in crowds since restrictions have been lifted but rugby doesn't seem to have been able to do so. The Waratahs used to attract over 30,000 but now get less than 5,000 - there's no government restrictions on attending sport in Sydney. People just don't want to watch it.

No but when you have Chiefs v Blues you will have support for both sides in the crowd making the attendance higher

As someone who attended every Rebels home game along with a lot of AFL games this year the Vic Government have made it bloody difficult to go. I found the process with the Rebels was better than the AFL