Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

Yes, 8 home games is far more sustainable than 5. The costs of running a team don't drop dramatically with the shorter competition and the additional home games both in terms of gate takings and TV revenue go up substantially with the additional games.

You make it sound like the travel costs in Super Rugby are the biggest cost in the competition. They are far from it. Paying players and staff is well over 50% of the total expenditure for each team. That is the biggest cost.

Clearly it isn't a cheap cost to fly people round the world on a two week tour each season but it isn't also something that will totally transform the finances of the competition if you eliminate it.

If you increase the first part of the domestic season to 15 games, do you run out of time to play the international portion of the competition? Does playing the same sides 3 times each in the space of 15 weeks mean fans lose interest? Amount of content is important to every sporting competition but you'd need to consider whether more of the same content diminishes the value of that content too much. I don't know the answer to this.

I'm not contesting that wages are by far the biggest cost to teams. What I'm saying is that the cost of flying and accomodating squads of 30 plus players and support staff between Tokyo, South Africa, Australia, NZ and Argentina are reasonably significant and in terms of quantum, would probably wipeout the difference between 5 and 8 home games.

I note your last paragraph with a little surprise. You've been arguing that a 10 week competition is too short, but now seem to be saying that a 15 week season is too long?

Clearly other things need to change to accomodate whatever shape things eventually take.

But of course, the 6 team/10 week option is just one option. If I was in fact running things, I wouldn't be looking at just one option, I'd be looking at multiple options and going through each one to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Sadly, RA seem to only be considering one option, which is a continuation of Super Rugby as a intercontinental, multinational league which has not been replicated in any other sporting code.

Another option which I'd consider would be 10 team competition involving the NRC 8, plus Sunwolves (in our timezone) and a combined Polynesian team playing out of western Sydney.

An 18 week home and away competition, including a guarantee of 9 home games (above your threshold of 8), plus two weeks of finals. Broadly lasting the same length of time as Super Rugby, but everything played in our timezone. International travel costs cut significantly as Tokyo is a shorter flight and in our time zone, which would also mean that it wouldn't be necessary to stay there as long in the leadup.

The beauty of this is that it seems to satisfy all of your concerns (and those of Rebels3) concerning content and length of season.

I'd also be approaching Twiggy to see to what extent he would be willing to underwrite any such Australian rugby competition.

I'm confident that there's an answer out there which doesn't involve the status quo. I'll always put up positive suggestions and am prepared to consider other positive suggestions. Continuing to flog the dead horse that is super rugby isn't the answer, of that I'm certain.

 

[Quick Hands]

In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of 9 east coast teams, plus Perth. With 11 home games to help pay the bills and travel bills maybe 10% of current cost.

And I somehow fancy that I’d like to change Super Rugby, to a local domestic competition as the seasons come and go.

Or something like this even. (from my post to Braveheart above)

Another option which I'd consider would be 10 team competition involving the NRC 8, plus Sunwolves (in our timezone) and a combined Polynesian team playing out of western Sydney.

An 18 week home and away competition, including a guarantee of 9 home games (above your threshold of 8), plus two weeks of finals. Broadly lasting the same length of time as Super Rugby, but everything played in our timezone. International travel costs cut significantly as Tokyo is a shorter flight and in our time zone, which would also mean that it wouldn't be necessary to stay there as long in the leadup.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Iirc the "travel partners" (eg Qantas) for each of the nations cover the flights as part of their sponsorship deals at the moment, so while costs are high, it's not necessarily a direct cost.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Iirc the "travel partners" (eg Qantas) for each of the nations cover the flights as part of their sponsorship deals at the moment, so while costs are high, it's not necessarily a direct cost.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I assume it would mean that Qantas give part of their sponsorship in cash and part in kind? In which case RA are effectively spending the money, but it's deducted from the total amount that Qantas give?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yep exactly what I am talking about quick hands - it is about the structure and quality of the competition that creates fan appeal and not just the Individual teams in it.

I feel for the tahs as yes they are playing good rugby but in a competition format and structure past its use by date that has turned fans away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I note your last paragraph with a little surprise. You've been arguing that a 10 week competition is too short, but now seem to be saying that a 15 week season is too long?

This was on the basis that the domestic conference was a prelude to a Champions Cup style playoff series. 15 weeks is fine if you have enough time to also fit in the Champions Cup bit.

I assume it would mean that Qantas give part of their sponsorship in cash and part in kind? In which case RA are effectively spending the money, but it's deducted from the total amount that Qantas give?

The actual cost for Qantas to deliver the travel is far less than it would cost to purchase at arms length. Whilst the in-kind might be considered part of the gross dollar value of the sponsorship you couldn't assume that portion would be replaced by actual dollars if RA no longer needed to use as much travel.

 

[Quick Hands]

The actual cost for Qantas to deliver the travel is far less than it would cost to purchase at arms length. Whilst the in-kind might be considered part of the gross dollar value of the sponsorship you couldn't assume that portion would be replaced by actual dollars if RA no longer needed to use as much travel.

I know, this was my point. Qantas would be claiming the full value of cash and kind for tax or whatever purpose, but RA don't actually receive the full value in cash. I wouldn't expect Qantas to replace the flight value with cash - they would make that decision on a business case. RA would be no worse off though, they would get the exisiting cash amount and have their flights covered.

 

[Braveheart81]

I know, this was my point. Qantas would be claiming the full value of cash and kind for tax or whatever purpose, but RA don't actually receive the full value in cash. I wouldn't expect Qantas to replace the flight value with cash - they would make that decision on a business case. RA would be no worse off though, they would get the exisiting cash amount and have their flights covered.

Qantas can claim they support RA to the tune of $x but they can only claim a tax deduction for the money they spend providing those flights, not the retail value they didn't charge.

I agree RA would be no worse off in terms of sponsorship but a post ago you were claiming that teams losing three home games would be made up for financially by not having to go to Africa for two weeks.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yep exactly what I am talking about quick hands - it is about the structure and quality of the competition that creates fan appeal and not just the Individual teams in it.

I feel for the tahs as yes they are playing good rugby but in a competition format and structure past its use by date that has turned fans away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even as recently as 4 years ago, that quarter final would have drawn double the crowd.

In fact, the 2014 semi against the Brumbies in Sydney drew 38,000. While you wouldn't expect a game against the Highlanders to reach that level, 25,000 is the pass mark for last Saturday IMO.

It was the first super rugby game that I've watched all year, and while the effort was there and we did play some good rugby, parts of the game were below the standard of a 2014 Super Rugby match.

 

[Quick Hands]

Qantas can claim they support RA to the tune of $x but they can only claim a tax deduction for the money they spend providing those flights, not the retail value they didn't charge.

I agree RA would be no worse off in terms of sponsorship but a post ago you were claiming that teams losing three home games would be made up for financially by not having to go to Africa for two weeks.

Qantas don't pay the accomodation do they?

With the crowds that Super Rugby have been drawing, I don't actually think any Aussie Super Rugby franchise would be making much of a profit from 3 home games.

EDIT:No, I said this

I assume it would mean that Qantas give part of their sponsorship in cash and part in kind? In which case RA are effectively spending the money, but it's deducted from the total amount that Qantas give?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Qantas don't pay the accomodation do they?

That'd be "travel partner" IHG

https://sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/sanzar-extends-partnership-with-ihg/

SANZAR and InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) have extended their long-standing partnership for a further three years, covering the 2016-18 seasons. As part of the agreement, IHG is the Exclusive Hotel Partner throughout Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Japan during Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship.

 

[Quick Hands]

That'd be "travel partner" IHG

https://sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/sanzar-extends-partnership-with-ihg/

Do we know whether or not this covers the full cost of accomodation or just mates rates?

 

[Braveheart81]

Qantas don't pay the accomodation do they?

With the crowds that Super Rugby have been drawing, I don't actually think any Aussie Super Rugby franchise would be making much of a profit from 3 home games.

EDIT:No, I said this

I assume it would mean that Qantas give part of their sponsorship in cash and part in kind? In which case RA are effectively spending the money, but it's deducted from the total amount that Qantas give?

I'm not contesting that wages are by far the biggest cost to teams. What I'm saying is that the cost of flying and accomodating squads of 30 plus players and support staff between Tokyo, South Africa, Australia, NZ and Argentina are reasonably significant and in terms of quantum, would probably wipeout the difference between 5 and 8 home games.

A lot of what the Super Rugby teams generate from their home games is from memberships and stadium rebates regardless of how many people turn up.

Obviously they make more money if more people become members, buy tickets and turn up but the revenue from their home games is substantial.

 

[Strewthcobber]

A lot of what the Super Rugby teams generate from their home games is from memberships and stadium rebates regardless of how many people turn up.

Obviously they make more money if more people become members, buy tickets and turn up but the revenue from their home games is substantial.

Hire of the corporate facilities (which is by the season often as well) makes up a huge part of their matchday income these days as well

Do we know whether or not this covers the full cost of accomodation or just mates rates?

NO idea - but SANZAR takes care of accomodation rather than the individual nations/teams

 

[Quick Hands]

A lot of what the Super Rugby teams generate from their home games is from memberships and stadium rebates regardless of how many people turn up.

Obviously they make more money if more people become members, buy tickets and turn up but the revenue from their home games is substantial.

According to their own annual report, the Waratahs 2017 match day ticketing was $2,867,255 but in 2016 $3,787,835 even though revenue from membership went up from $269,655 to $320,735.

However much as it may suit you to try and nitpick fine details here and there in an apparent effort to obscure the big picture, there is no metric by which anyone can say that super rugby is succeeding. Even many of it's most ardent supporters won't say it. It's been in steady decline for a decade and has nosedived steeply in popularity in the past 3 years. If it was booming and moving Australian rugby forward, then this thread wouldn't exist, let alone have reached 619 pages.

I'd actually really enjoy reading positive suggestions from you about how to improve the game, rather than non-stop negativity on any suggestion from anyone. I can't recall you ever saying that anyone on these threads has had a good idea which might improve things. No matter what anyone says, you seem to have an answer as to why it won't work - many of your reasons as untested as those being put forward by others.

You are absolutely entitled to the view that super rugby is the best vehicle for Australian rugby. It's a view I strongly disagree with, but it's a legitimate view.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am trying to talk about fine details because this discussion requires specifics.

No one is saying that Super Rugby is succeeding in its current format and the decline has been quite rapid.

Assertions need to be tested. I have said I agreed with plenty of concepts.

I don't have any easy answers for the way forward because it is a bloody difficult problem to fix. What I have tried to do is have as deep a possible understanding about how current arrangements work, the financials of RA and the state unions and essentially try and read up on as much publicly available information as there is out there so I can be as well informed about the realities of the situation as possible.

 

[Tomikin]

The issue that arises with that is viability of the teams. I agree that we have to go closed conferences, and 6 teams to start is the most logical step, but if your team does not make the finals then your season is only 10 matches long, I would argue that is not sustainable for running a professional team, or for those teams to be able to sustain or even grow a sufficient fan base

Yes closed conferences with a champions league style competition as well is the best way forward, but you will need more guaranteed content for each team to make it viable.

Champions league cup and a plate league every team continues to play

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

I am trying to talk about fine details because this discussion requires specifics.

No one is saying that Super Rugby is succeeding in its current format and the decline has been quite rapid.

Assertions need to be tested. I have said I agreed with plenty of concepts.

I don't have any easy answers for the way forward because it is a bloody difficult problem to fix. What I have tried to do is have as deep a possible understanding about how current arrangements work, the financials of RA and the state unions and essentially try and read up on as much publicly available information as there is out there so I can be as well informed about the realities of the situation as possible.

The issue of travel and accommodation being covered in the current situation was a learning for me. It leaves me completely flabbergasted as to the negative cash flow to the franchises when these "unusual" (compared to other pro sports) costs are covered.

Very odd.

 

[Quick Hands]

I am trying to talk about fine details because this discussion requires specifics.

No one is saying that Super Rugby is succeeding in its current format and the decline has been quite rapid.

Assertions need to be tested. I have said I agreed with plenty of concepts.

I don't have any easy answers for the way forward because it is a bloody difficult problem to fix. What I have tried to do is have as deep a possible understanding about how current arrangements work, the financials of RA and the state unions and essentially try and read up on as much publicly available information as there is out there so I can be as well informed about the realities of the situation as possible.

Because none of us (I assume) work for RA and thus have access to all the necessary information, none of us can come up with a fully costed, fully detailed proposal which can answer every question. It's just not possible. All we can do is put forward suggestions in reasonably general terms. We can be specific to a degree, but to suggest that we are capable of getting into the fine details here is ludicrous.

 

[Quick Hands]

The issue of travel and accommodation being covered in the current situation was a learning for me. It leaves me completely flabbergasted as to the negative cash flow to the franchises when these "unusual" (compared to other pro sports) costs are covered.

Very odd.

But they're still costs to the competition and/or the competing teams. Nothing in life is free, for people (not you) to suggest otherwise is disengenuous.