• 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.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Super rugby was supposed to take over the world in early 2000's, with American & Asian conferences and money growing on trees, yet here we are in 2020.
So what happened, rugby is a great game so I would argue the most important thing moving forward is understanding why we are here so as to ensure we simply are not on repeat cycle.

If I could suggest that one of the reasons is that nobody in any position of power in RA seems to have stopped and considered that the very concept of Super Rugby is such an outlier in terms of the way professional sport is organised around the world.

Whether we look in Australia and see how NRL, AFL, Netball, soccer, Big Bash cricket, basketball or even a small sport like water polo we can see a common principle of team names an competition structure.

We go overseas and we see the same type principles and structure of things at work; EPL, Budesliga, Top 14, Premier Rugby, etc.

Super Rugby was unique in that it was/is based on state or provincial bodies entering teams across multiple continents and time zones. It worked for a while because it was unique and because rugby had just turned professional and there was nothing else. Over time the structural issues began to impact on success and we are where we are now. There are many who don't seem to be willing to even consider that the whole premise of the competition is the problem and that time zones and travel merely magnified the problems rather than being the main problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Ok so crowds are back with the 1 per 4 square metre rule. How many people would that mean could go to a game at say Parra stadium. Don’t forget to include corporate/private dining areas.

If Fox decide not to broadcast it, can it be financed from ticket sales?
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Ok so crowds are back with the 1 per 4 square metre rule. How many people would that mean could go to a game at say Parra stadium. Don’t forget to include corporate/private dining areas.

If Fox decide not to broadcast it, can it be financed from ticket sales?

It you get the same sort of crowds as previously I seriously doubt achieving a 1n per 4 m rule is a problem. Just need to open more decks.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
It you get the same sort of crowds as previously I seriously doubt achieving a 1n per 4 m rule is a problem. Just need to open more decks.
For sure. However everyone is starved for sport and local derbies do bring the best crowds. That’s all we’re going to have. Say there are 10k at a game. Average $30 per ticket. $300k = $150k each team. Spread across 30 players that’s $5k per player per week towards player salaries over the life of the tournament. Merchandise sales on top of that.

This is a worst case scenario as it assumes no broadcast revenue. I note that even NZ haven’t got a broadcast deal for their lite comp.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
[quote="KOB1987, post: 1139537, member: 8027"I note that even NZ haven’t got a broadcast deal for their lite comp.[/quote]


NZR should therefore be suing skyTV for advertising their coverage of Super Rugby Aoteoroa in the absence of a broadcast deal. Which they're not so I'm gunna go out on a limb here & suggest that there is, in fact, a broadcast deal in place.

 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
It would be an interesting survey, although my suspicion is that there is a higher level of support on G&GR for a Super Rugby type tournament on state based teams than there is elsewhere.

To my mind anything from now which uses state-based entities will end up being a Sheffield Shield type competition in which there is a lot of talent getting paid reasonably well and feeding into the national team, but very little interest from fans which in turns means a lack of interest from broadcasters.

On the other hand a domestic competition with teams based on cities or regions has a far better chance of capturing long-term support and interest from local fans and thus broadcasters.

I fear that any Trans-Tasman type Super Rugby tournament will just have us all back here in 5-10 years time having the same discussion. There may be an initial sugar hit of interest, but I'm strongly of the view that it's not sustainable in Australia as it's not the model that Australian fans will engage with.

No other sport in Australia uses this model for national franchise/club pro competitions. The Sheffield Shield is the only example that I can think of which comes close and from a fan engagement and broadcaster interest perspective it's irrelevant. I would point out here that when CA brought in the Big Bash, they made a deliberate and strategic decision NOT to go with state-based teams.

I'm starting to come round to your thinking. More Aus teams means more spots for local talent.

Granted, the pay rates will be less but still more opportunity and spots for more players. In the end, that got to be better for Aus Rugby.

I still wouldn't mind some provincial games, or rep games. Maybe a knockout comp to really shorten it
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
[quote="KOB1987, post: 1139537, member: 8027"I note that even NZ haven’t got a broadcast deal for their lite comp.


NZR should therefore be suing skyTV for advertising their coverage of Super Rugby Aoteoroa in the absence of a broadcast deal. Which they're not so I'm gunna go out on a limb here & suggest that there is, in fact, a broadcast deal in place.

[/quote]
I’m not sure how to quote cross threads, I was going off what Rebels3 said on the broadcast thread earlier:




“For those playing at home, apparently Fox doesn’t have the rights to NZ super comp starting next week, but are in discussions with them to show it”
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I'm starting to come round to your thinking. More Aus teams means more spots for local talent.

Granted, the pay rates will be less but still more opportunity and spots for more players. In the end, that got to be better for Aus Rugby.

I still wouldn't mind some provincial games, or rep games. Maybe a knockout comp to really shorten it

I think that's where we're going to end up. It's just a question of whether it's 2021 or 2031.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
^ not sure you get from Fox not having rights to show SRA to NZ not having a broadcast deal in place for SRA but ok, as you were.

I'm willing to bet that every SRA game will be televised. In fact I couldn't think of a safer bet than betting that rugby will get on TV in Aotearoa. Even if that requires Jacinda Ardern taking her phone to the games and streaming them it will happen. Trust me on that. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Ok so crowds are back with the 1 per 4 square metre rule. How many people would that mean could go to a game at say Parra stadium. Don’t forget to include corporate/private dining areas.

If Fox decide not to broadcast it, can it be financed from ticket sales?

According to the stadium website it has a capacity of 30,000. Let's say for argument that you sell 25% of seats that's about 7,500 punters. The corporates would be in separate rooms so they wouldn't come into it.

That's pretty much a capacity Waratah crowd these days anyway.;)
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'm willing to bet that every SRA game will be televised. In fact I couldn't think of a safer bet than betting that rugby will get on TV in Aotearoa. Even if that requires Jacinda Ardern taking her phone to the games and streaming them it will happen. Trust me on that. :)

Nah, Jacinda will sub-con that shit to Clarke who is after all the actual (pre-Covid) tv star & by all accounts an absolute footy freak.

Yeah I’m saying I misinterpreted it

No harm no foul, mate.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Everyone's favourite kiwi preparing to stream SRA to her faithful people.

jacinda_0.jpg
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
According to the stadium website it has a capacity of 30,000. Let's say for argument that you sell 25% of seats that's about 7,500 punters. The corporates would be in separate rooms so they wouldn't come into it.

That's pretty much a capacity Waratah crowd these days anyway.;)
It appears its actually ONLY the catering areas that will be utilised for now, I.e. no one in the stands. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but not much of anything in past 3 months has. I’d say by the time the Aussie Super Rugby edition kicks off there will be people in the stands though.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
You beat me to it. It’s C grade really.

Yes C grade, yet Super rugby spent 15 years telling everyone about the rivers of gold in Asia. Twiggy may very well be part of the future moving forward funding wise, but to presume he should happily fund the future Super B competition so everyone can happily go along there merry way, well if i was him my response would start with F.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Yes C grade, yet Super rugby spent 15 years telling everyone about the rivers of gold in Asia. Twiggy may very well be part of the future moving forward funding wise, but to presume he should happily fund the future Super B competition so everyone can happily go along there merry way, well if i was him my response would start with F.
Yeah ok, context. I personally wasn’t suggesting he should fund RA. I get what you are saying and largely agree with you. However if Forrest’s passion is the force and he wants to keep funding them and the comp they play in then yes that’s going to be the second tier. If his ambition is to get the Force and even the entire GRR League into the top tier then that is an entirely different prospect. But he is welcome to try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top