Where to for Super Rugby?

[Strewthcobber]

Maybe I didn't make my point clear, player power will always rule. But who's paying the bills, lets look at England and Australia.
Saracens compared to the Waratahs. yes theirs all sorts of TV money and deals, but essentially a private owner is paying for those Saracen wages and costs, over here the RA are essentially funding the Waratahs wages and costs.

Regardless of scale, until that issue is addressed then rugby here is going backwards at a steady rate.

It's a terrific point. Nigel Wray has lent Saracens around $100m to date and absorbs multi-million dollars of losses each year.

 

[Dan54]

This is key. We keep seeing TT here as the “great white Hope” but it can’t happen without NZ and should they ever re-consider the proposal would hardly be geared around Oz requirements. It is fools gold.

Yep, I was being a facetious , but rugby in Aus was a basket case in the 70s and 80s until NZ started playing Qld etc, and while I agree it would be great IF Aus could have a stand alone comp, it probably can't as the game would be completely bankrupt by the time any comp is meaningful enough to pay it's way. And hanging your hat on NZ doesn't have that much appeal in NZ, because of the same thing most have against SA, for NZ Aussie's time is not any better than SA is for Aus really. When I move back home I might get on the net and bang on about dropping Aus, as I don't think they add anything for a rugby fan, but I think as of now I will stick with status quo until a realistic better comp comes along!

 

[Omar Comin']

...I agree it would be great IF Aus could have a stand alone comp, it probably can't as the game would be completely bankrupt by the time any comp is meaningful enough to pay it's way.

Depends how committed Andrew Forrest is. We know he has already had interest from individuals or groups looking to field teams in Western Sydney and Newcastle. If RA were to get off the Super Rugby train and do some kind of deal with him we could have an Asia-Pacific championship with 6 or 7 Australian based teams plus Fiji, Samoa, Hong Kong, Singapore and potentially the Sunwolves.

 

[hoggy]

Yep, I was being a facetious , but rugby in Aus was a basket case in the 70s and 80s until NZ started playing Qld etc, and while I agree it would be great IF Aus could have a stand alone comp, it probably can't as the game would be completely bankrupt by the time any comp is meaningful enough to pay it's way. And hanging your hat on NZ doesn't have that much appeal in NZ, because of the same thing most have against SA, for NZ Aussie's time is not any better than SA is for Aus really. When I move back home I might get on the net and bang on about dropping Aus, as I don't think they add anything for a rugby fan, but I think as of now I will stick with status quo until a realistic better comp comes along!

Why does any comp here have to be bankrupt if from the beginning, economies of scale are introduced, and remember we are pretty much bankrupt now. and the definition of meaningful, some would argue that is exactly Super rugby's issue.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why does any comp here have to be bankrupt if from the beginning, economies of scale are introduced, and remember we are pretty much bankrupt now. and the definition of meaningful, some would argue that is exactly Super rugby's issue.

How exactly would an economy of scale work here? Your biggest cost is running a professional sporting team which doesn't decrease by having more teams as a lot of it is driven off wages.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Depends how committed Andrew Forrest is. We know he has already had interest from individuals or groups looking to field teams in Western Sydney and Newcastle. If RA were to get off the Super Rugby train and do some kind of deal with him we could have an Asia-Pacific championship with 6 or 7 Australian based teams plus Fiji, Samoa, Hong Kong, Singapore and potentially the Sunwolves.

GRR may be an option we should be looking at more seriously. But it will require a great deal of pride to be swallowed and likely some head rolling for it to happen. And it will also likely need the franchises to push the issue as the GRR model in terms of administration is different from that of Super Rugby. Each participating team gets a seat on the board of GRR and a vote. Not the multiples the State Unions have now.

 

[hoggy]

How exactly would an economy of scale work here? Your biggest cost is running a professional sporting team which doesn't decrease by having more teams as a lot of it is driven off wages.

You would have to accept that you can't compete with those wages first, salary caps, private investors, ensure the comp is investor friendly, start small and grow, put in place the building blocks in common with other successful sporting leagues.

The wallabies would be run as a separate entity, players paid match day fees, no contracts, the RA simply doesn't have the money.

Yes we have to accept many of the top players will play overseas, but what is the alternative, if we keep matching those wages it can only come from the existing fan base or borrow it, the money simply isn't there so(another deal with the devil).

My point is the game here has to go back to the drawing board, we can't just try to tinker with the existing structure, its broken and sending the game bankrupt.

But in saying that we have to accept certain economic realities that come with that. Because if we insist on competing with the Saracens of this world, how do we do that.
Its like me buying a house that i cannot afford and never will, how does that end.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You would have to accept that you can't compete with those wages first, salary caps, private investors, ensure the comp is investor friendly, start small and grow, put in place the building blocks in common with other successful sporting leagues.

The wallabies would be run as a separate entity, players paid match day fees, no contracts, the RA simply doesn't have the money.

Yes we have to accept many of the top players will play overseas, but what is the alternative, if we keep matching those wages it can only come from the existing fan base or borrow it, the money simply isn't there so(another deal with the devil).

My point is the game here has to go back to the drawing board, we can't just try to tinker with the existing structure, its broken and sending the game bankrupt.

But in saying that we have to accept certain economic realities that come with that. Because if we insist on competing with the Saracens of this world, how do we do that.
Its like me buying a house that i cannot afford and never will, how does that end.

We may need to accept that we'll be a primary talent source for a while with our best chasing the bigger $ up north while looking to establish a more cost effective structure domestically. Something akin to what the A-League. If we were able to get 8-10 teams up and running working off caps of $2.5m a season but with more manageable costs we can still have a reasonable base of professionals to build from.

 

[Braveheart81]

You would have to accept that you can't compete with those wages first, salary caps, private investors, ensure the comp is investor friendly, start small and grow, put in place the building blocks in common with other successful sporting leagues.

The wallabies would be run as a separate entity, players paid match day fees, no contracts, the RA simply doesn't have the money.

Yes we have to accept many of the top players will play overseas, but what is the alternative, if we keep matching those wages it can only come from the existing fan base and the money simply isn't there or borrow it (another deal with the devil).

My point is the game here has to go back to the drawing board, we can't just try to tinker with the existing structure, its broken and sending the game bankrupt.

But in saying that we have to accept certain economic realities that come with that. Because if we insist on competing with the Saracens of this world, how do we do that.
Its like me buying a house that i cannot afford and never will, how does that end.

I disagree with the premise that RA doesn't have the money to pay the Wallabies. They've been doing it for 25 years. The only real time the financial position looked good was directly after the 2003 RWC.

The financial position now is certainly superior to many points over the last 25 years.

I'm also unsure how the start small and grow bit works. If you don't have a compelling product from the beginning I'm unsure how it gains traction over any reasonable time frame.

It's a huge challenge no doubt. I genuinely think you need owners willing to lose several million dollars per year per team indefinitely to be able to have anything like the sort of scale that could grow into something more.

 

[Braveheart81]

We may need to accept that we'll be a primary talent source for a while with our best chasing the bigger $ up north while looking to establish a more cost effective structure domestically. Something akin to what the A-League. If we were able to get 8-10 teams up and running working off caps of $2.5m a season but with more manageable costs we can still have a reasonable base of professionals to build from.

I reckon that sort of salary cap is a fair way too low.

That's at a point where the majority of players can't afford to do that unless it is going to lead them to a more lucrative contract elsewhere.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I reckon that sort of salary cap is a fair way too low.

That's at a point where the majority of players can't afford to do that unless it is going to lead them to a more lucrative contract elsewhere.

I'm using it more as a starting point. More of a minimum figure that would make it viable. Ideally it would be more up toward $4m which if you managed 8-10 teams would significantly grow the domestic salary pool from it's current $20-22m to $32-40m.

 

[hoggy]

I disagree with the premise that RA doesn't have the money to pay the Wallabies. They've been doing it for 25 years. The only real time the financial position looked good was directly after the 2003 RWC.

The financial position now is certainly superior to many points over the last 25 years.

I'm also unsure how the start small and grow bit works. If you don't have a compelling product from the beginning I'm unsure how it gains traction over any reasonable time frame.

It's a huge challenge no doubt. I genuinely think you need owners willing to lose several million dollars per year per team indefinitely to be able to have anything like the sort of scale that could grow into something more.

I never said the wallabies can't afford to pay the Players, my point is they can't do that and at the same time fund the level below that(super rugby and everything else).
In fact I would argue the RA would be far better of just looking after the Wallabies and supporting the grassroots.

And start small & compelling product.
We start like any other football code league.
Compelling product, we have rugby, just like any other country that supports the game.

 

[Omar Comin']

GRR may be an option we should be looking at more seriously. But it will require a great deal of pride to be swallowed and likely some head rolling for it to happen. And it will also likely need the franchises to push the issue as the GRR model in terms of administration is different from that of Super Rugby. Each participating team gets a seat on the board of GRR and a vote. Not the multiples the State Unions have now.

Yeah this is why I think it more likely that RA could at some point consolidate to just 2 Super Rugby teams that it funds directly (primarily from Wallabies generated revenue), and leave GRR or some other national competition to be run independently through the entire season with a larger number of Australian teams.

The Super Rugby season would be so short that Wallabies players would never play too many games. And the guys who don't make the Wallabies squad after the short Super Rugby season could be loaned to the GRR or national comp (or an overseas comp).

 

[Braveheart81]

I never said the wallabies can't afford to pay the Players, my point is they can't do that and at the same time fund the level below that(super rugby and everything else).
In fact I would argue the RA would be far better of just looking after the Wallabies and supporting the grassroots.

And start small & compelling product.
We start like any other football code league.
Compelling product, we have rugby, just like any other country that supports the game.

I think RA and every other top tier nation sees it as essential to have a domestic professional player pool that is substantially larger than just the test players to make it work at the top level. You won't compete if your preparation time is substantially less than your main rivals due to most of your team playing on the other side of the world and only being released in the test windows.

I 100% agree that it is in RA's best interests to privatise that liability. A massive part of RA's problem with Super Rugby is that even when there was some private ownership of the teams (the Rebels), RA effectively was on the hook for any shortfalls because an essential element of their contract to receive their share of revenue was to provide those teams for the competition.

I agree rugby is a compelling product but it is only a compelling product to rugby fans. If you want to attract casual fans it has to be more than that. If the standard of competition isn't high enough it won't attract our rugby fans. There is a lot of quality rugby accessible now on TV. I think a comparison to the A League here is relevant. That competition has failed to capture a lot of Australian soccer fans. Unless the live sport aspect is a compelling part of a fan's interest, they're going to struggle to attract attention away from people who can watch foreign leagues of a much higher standard. That is clearly shown in TV viewing numbers.

Change is needed and I think it is inevitable now compared with any point in the past. I just think many people are underestimating the amount of funding a new competition would need and the base level it would need to start at to have any chance of long term success.

I want rugby to succeed in Australia. I'm passionate about it and spend a lot of time thinking about these things and spending money attending games. My criticism is always aimed at being constructive and hopefully realistic. It is not because I think Super Rugby is great or even the best option moving forward and that I don't want change.

I just don't accept that we should go down a path that has a very real risk of sending the game in the country broke within a year on the basis that people think it will eventually happen if we don't is ever a bet worth taking.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think RA and every other top tier nation sees it as essential to have a domestic professional player pool that is substantially larger than just the test players to make it work at the top level. You won't compete if your preparation time is substantially less than your main rivals due to most of your team playing on the other side of the world and only being released in the test windows.

I 100% agree that it is in RA's best interests to privatise that liability. A massive part of RA's problem with Super Rugby is that even when there was some private ownership of the teams (the Rebels), RA effectively was on the hook for any shortfalls because an essential element of their contract to receive their share of revenue was to provide those teams for the competition.

I agree rugby is a compelling product but it is only a compelling product to rugby fans. If you want to attract casual fans it has to be more than that. If the standard of competition isn't high enough it won't attract our rugby fans. There is a lot of quality rugby accessible now on TV. I think a comparison to the A League here is relevant. That competition has failed to capture a lot of Australian soccer fans. Unless the live sport aspect is a compelling part of a fan's interest, they're going to struggle to attract attention away from people who can watch foreign leagues of a much higher standard. That is clearly shown in TV viewing numbers.

Change is needed and I think it is inevitable now compared with any point in the past. I just think many people are underestimating the amount of funding a new competition would need and the base level it would need to start at to have any chance of long term success.

I want rugby to succeed in Australia. I'm passionate about it and spend a lot of time thinking about these things and spending money attending games. My criticism is always aimed at being constructive and hopefully realistic. It is not because I think Super Rugby is great or even the best option moving forward and that I don't want change.

I just don't accept that we should go down a path that has a very real risk of sending the game in the country broke within a year on the basis that people think it will eventually happen if we don't is ever a bet worth taking.

With their recent expansion bids the FFA required bids to have a minimum of $13m to cover the operating costs of the league for the first four seasons. Which I imagine is everything beyond players/coaching salary. This is for a competition that runs over 27 rounds at present and likely something similar into the future.

So, that's likely a reasonable example to work off. Teams would require a minimum of $3.25m a year to cover operations not including talent and coaching. Then's there's player salaries which would be dependent on a cap but let's say $4m a season. Part of that could be found in a fee arrangement between the competition and RA as a means of accessing talent for the Wallabies. The other from sponsorship and ideally a level of TV money. In all, we're probably looking at roughly $10-12m a season for each club. Minimum.

 

[Dctarget]

I have no options to suggest myself, but I'm curious about the smaller countries doing so well. I understand the likes of France, NZ, England and SA all being strong, they have either big playing pools, a big economy or a mixture of both. But how does Scotland who only has two professional teams match Aus? How does Argentina get so close? Fkn Wales?!

 

[Samson]

If a national competition is to succeed it must have continuity and tribalism. Capital city locations must have a minimum of two teams to guarantee at least one local match every week. Regional centres such as Newcastle would only accommodate one team
with a game every second week.

Obviously tribalism has to be developed as any national comp will have to develop a following, hence the need for continuity week by week.

All in favour of private equity but know this will have many problems. Australia does not have the closeness of locations nor the population of the UK and mainland Europe. There is also the recent history of RA and Twiggy. Not very encouraging for investors with less clout than Forrest.

The structure Quick Hands suggested with say a ten team home and away followed by a four State home and away prior to selecting Wallabies for end of year tour much like the old days. worth trying.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I have no options to suggest myself, but I'm curious about the smaller countries doing so well. I understand the likes of France, NZ, England and SA all being strong, they have either big playing pools, a big economy or a mixture of both. But how does Scotland who only has two professional teams match Aus? How does Argentina get so close? Fkn Wales?!

Wales have over $180 million and Scotland have over $100m (AUD) income each year and over 100 pro-players on the books.

Being in the six-nations and in the GMT timezone has a lot of advantages.

They also don't have pro-level competition for players from AFL, rugby league and basketball, or much from cricket

 

[Dctarget]

Wales have over $180 million and Scotland have over $100m (AUD) income each year and over 100 pro-players on the books.

What's our income at?

 

[Strewthcobber]

What's our income at?

About $120m. Less than that in world cup years.