Where to for Super Rugby?

[Adam84]

Domestic market needs to underpin any tournament with the foreign revenue just been a bonus, no competition in the world survives just on foreign revenue. All tournaments of significant size are built on the foundations of having a strong domestic market, reason we are where we are now is because of a weak domestic market and prioritising foreign dollars to survive.

 

[Braveheart81]

Domestic market needs to underpin any tournament with the foreign revenue just been a bonus, no competition in the world survives just on foreign revenue. All tournaments of significant size are built on the foundations of having a strong domestic market, reason we are where we are now is because of a weak domestic market and prioritising foreign dollars to survive.

Again though, we haven't prioritised foreign dollars.

We've tried to be part of a product that was attractive to broadcasters. Clearly Super Rugby has died so we need to find what's next but part of that has to be a reasonable amount of content.

If it's solely a domestic product, we could maybe have 8 teams but they would be pretty weak and that would give us 14 rounds x 4 games plus a couple of weeks of finals.

More likely we'd have less teams than that with 2 or 3 games a week running for 12 weeks including finals. That is not a lot to sell.

 

[Adam84]

Again though, we haven't prioritised foreign dollars.

We've tried to be part of a product that was attractive to broadcasters. Clearly Super Rugby has died so we need to find what's next but part of that has to be a reasonable amount of content.

If it's solely a domestic product, we could maybe have 8 teams but they would be pretty weak and that would give us 14 rounds x 4 games plus a couple of weeks of finals.

More likely we'd have less teams than that with 2 or 3 games a week running for 12 weeks including finals. That is not a lot to sell.

Yes, a product attractive to foreign broadcasters, it has been a shit product for the Australian market for years. There have been countless Friday or Saturday nights where there has been no Super Rugby presence on AEST prime time tv, because the draw didn’t allow it. We have lost teams to overseas for weeks at a time right in the middle of the season, leaving a vacuum of content which other codes have filled.

Force games were scheduled for 9:30 AEST because it allowed foreign broadcasters to bridge the gap in content between when east coast games finished and South African games started. How often do you see Freo or West Coast play at 9:30pm?!? What time have the NRL staged their Perth exhibition matches?!?!

Don’t tell me Super Rugby hasn’t prioritised foreign dollars, it 100% has been.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes, a product attractive to foreign broadcasters, it has been a shit product for the Australian market for years. There have been countless Friday or Saturday nights where there has been no Super Rugby presence on AEST prime time tv, because the draw didn’t allow it. We have lost teams to overseas for weeks at a time right in the middle of the season, leaving a vacuum of content which other codes have filled.

Force games were scheduled for 9:30 AEST because it allowed foreign broadcasters to bridge the gap in content between when east coast games finished and South African games started. How often do you see Freo or West Coast play at 9:30pm?!? What time have the NRL staged their Perth exhibition matches?!?!

Don’t tell me Super Rugby hasn’t prioritised foreign dollars, it 100% has been.

It's also a product that had 7-9 games a week depending on the year.

The absence of games on a Friday or Saturday night was certainly an issue. Sometimes that was because a team had moved a game to a Sunday but occasionally it wasn't. Most of the Western Force games were after an East Coast home game. It was always rare that There wasn't a 7:30 game before a 9:30 Force game.

I still don't agree that this was all about being attractive to foreign broadcasters rather than Australian ones. I think the length of competition and volume of games was always more attractive to an Australian broadcaster than a smaller, shorter competition that at least ensured a Friday and Saturday night prime time game.

 

[dru]

We've tried to be part of a product that was attractive to broadcasters.

BH, how do you come to this conclusion? We've been told for ages "not enough local content"; "not enough good broadcast time slots". We've been a lot of things to broadcasters but attractive doesn't feature.

It's also a product that had 7-9 games a week depending on the year.

Sophistry. It had a group of games in Africa that basically no-one watched and even fewer live. It had a bunch of games in NZ. And the local content spread between Aus and internationally in time slots that did not work. The broadcasters liked the theory of the international aspect, but the reality was they were not prepared to pay for it without local content.

Look, we can take on board what we have been told about the sale-ability of the product. Or we work in pretense. The later seems to be the way forward and I doubt you will be disappointed with where RA take us.

I very much suspect you will be disappointed with the ultimate outcome.

 

[The Honey Badger]

What makes anyone think this would have interest from FTA to be shown in prime time? The ratings are unlikely to be anywhere close to high enough.

It's not just a case of being third behind AFL and NRL. It's a question of whether reruns of a crappy sitcom on the secondary channel that cost them almost nothing would outrate it.

good point.

But maybe, just maybe, we find a willing partner. Maybe a masochist that will take some considerable pain, and believe that one day Rugby might rate in AUS like it does in the REST OF THE WORLD.

 

[The Honey Badger]

It's not spot on because there is absolutely not the demand for it - if there was it would exist or be getting plenty of traction by stakeholders. The public are not interested in watching Tevita Kuridrani running around for the Tuggeranong Vikings.

Whether you like it or not, a TT competition is probably the only viable option at this point in time- for the simplified reasons below:
- We are likely to only be able to obtain funding to support 2-4 proper professional teams.
- If you increase the number of teams, the resulting semi- professional environments and lower calibre of athlete is not going to be attractive to viewers, especially when they have the alternate options of watching the elite NRL and AFL
- Unfortunately 2-5 professional teams does not produce enough content for broadcasters, and any efforts to fill the content gap with a champions league competition or state of origin, adds additional risk and complexity for all stakeholders
- Including the NZ teams instantly provides you an additional 4-5 teams and enough content to appease broadcasters

A TT model is likely the only viable and bankable option at this stage. You can then start looking to increase the number of Australian teams, once this competition has proven to be stable and successful.

Hmmm, why then does SS rate at all?? All these average low caliber athletes running around playing crap rugby. Who would watch that?

 

[Slim 293]

Hmmm, why then does SS rate at all??

It doesn't.......... ratings fell 67% over 5 years.

 

[hoggy]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/swans-chairman-fearful-of-v-landys-nrl-20200630-p557nd.html

Depressing. but hey lets double down and hope some overseas broadcaster will fix things.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, how do you come to this conclusion? We've been told for ages "not enough local content"; "not enough good broadcast time slots". We've been a lot of things to broadcasters but attractive doesn't feature.

It has been sold to broadcasters around the world of which we get a cut.

Most people here are pushing for a structure that will likely only get interest from Fox Sports who are fairly rapidly falling apart. I think international interest is critical because the market here that is interested in rugby union is tiny.

I am convinced we need to be part of a competition that attracts interest from not just Australia because that also gives it far greater potential to attract investment. Rugby is a growing sport worldwide but here it is stagnant in terms of interest and shrinking in terms of revenue.

 

[Omar Comin']

Which international markets have ever paid a significant amount for Super Rugby outside of the SANZAAR countries? Is it just the UK? And my understanding was that was really just for the last deal due to a bidding war, and they were unlikely to pay the same amount next time.

Surely the Australian market is by far the biggest exploitable opportunity for Australian rugby.

 

[ForceFan]

good point.

But maybe, just maybe, we find a willing partner. Maybe a masochist that will take some considerable pain, and believe that one day Rugby might rate in AUS like it does in the REST OF THE WORLD.

It only takes a masochist if all they are going to do is pour $$s into the black hole knows as Rugby Australia.

The professional game in Australia needs to run by professionals who are committed to making the game a commercial proposition in this country. Part of that will be creating a product that is attractive to rugby fans and broadcasters.

Andrew Forrest committed $150 million to grow GRR to the stage that it was self-sustaining.
He's far from having spent that amount to date.
Every change o GRR has resulted to a revised business model which provides a road map to viability.

Rugby Australia has NEVER been held accountable for its squandering of valuable resources (and I'm not just talking $$s).

 

[dru]

It has been sold to broadcasters around the world of which we get a cut.

Most people here are pushing for a structure that will likely only get interest from Fox Sports who are fairly rapidly falling apart. I think international interest is critical because the market here that is interested in rugby union is tiny.

I am convinced we need to be part of a competition that attracts interest from not just Australia because that also gives it far greater potential to attract investment. Rugby is a growing sport worldwide but here it is stagnant in terms of interest and shrinking in terms of revenue.

Interesting. But ultimately it is just part of the same package where the Aus Super teams cost money which is paid for from Wallaby earnings. As the number of teams reduce so does that income, which is at any rate negative. There is nothing in that plan that offers a potential change.

More local content at least offers some scope for potential improvement. To be fair, the proposed TT without Africa, Argentina and Japan will improve broadcast times and should also offer a more reasonable home game consistency. If that international aspect is the importance claimed we should see this born out once an NZ-Aus "bubble" is available.

I still don't see it being any more successful than a domestic based comp and does not offer the potential upside that a domestic comp would.

At any rate my thoughts are redundant because what you are asking for is what we will get. I honestly hope you are proven correct.

 

[eastman]

I still don't see it being any more successful than a domestic based comp and does not offer the potential upside that a domestic comp would.

What is this supposed upside that an Australian only competition would provide? You seem to be overlooking any benefit that NZ bring to the competition, including (but not limited to) an expat community in Australia, the best talent pool and existing franchises (this can't be ignored).


Ultimately a TT model is probably the only one that is viable and bankable at this stage so it's all irrelevant, but let's recognise that it will at least provide the foundation for rugby to grow in Aus.

 

[eastman]

Which international markets have ever paid a significant amount for Super Rugby outside of the SANZAAR countries? Is it just the UK? And my understanding was that was really just for the last deal due to a bidding war, and they were unlikely to pay the same amount next time.



Surely the Australian market is by far the biggest exploitable opportunity for Australian rugby.

Open question here; If a domestic- only competition is 'best practice', who do so many major sporting competitions look to expand internationally where viable? (e.g. NRL, Pro14, and English Super League and not NFL)

 

[sunnyboys]

This thread has contained some discussion of Super Rugby v NRC recently and what the drop in standard would mean for viewers atc.

I reckon the Reds v Tahs teams for Friday night are verging on NRC standard to be honest ... maybe we get to that standard one way or another no matter the comp we play

 

[dru]

What is this supposed upside that an Australian only competition would provide? You seem to be overlooking any benefit that NZ bring to the competition, including (but not limited to) an expat community in Australia, the best talent pool and existing franchises (this can't be ignored).


Ultimately a TT model is probably the only one that is viable and bankable at this stage so it's all irrelevant, but let's recognise that it will at least provide the foundation for rugby to grow in Aus.

I'm not ignoring them at all. I'm simply recognising the commercial value that broadcasters have placed on it - ie very little.

Your premise that Super provides a foundation for rugby to grow in Australia has proven incorrect. Drastically - to the point that our franchises are being cut and not being able to make ends meet. and with income further dwindling behind each cut.

What a TT does is assist NZ who believe that they can't afford more than 5 pro teams which is insufficient for a pro comp. So we help them flesh out an NZ comp to our cost.

If a TT is to be a Champions comp after the domestic season, and we provide teams to it on a representational basis, I'm all for it. But unless the model can demonstrably address issues that we need resolved then it is an error.

 

[The Honey Badger]

But you wouldn't be starting with all new teams with a domestic option, you have 5 established teams already.

Only problem is NSW & QLD both need to host another team, so in my thinking we need to go to city and country (or something similar) - Yes Brums, Rebs and Force would all remain

 

[hoggy]

Only problem is NSW & QLD both need to host another team, so in my thinking we need to go to city and country (or something similar) - Yes Brums, Rebs and Force would all remain

There's just no money right now but my thinking is if you can scrape together 6 teams , 5 using the current teams add another in NSW with the eventual aim of an 8 team domestic comp, with 2 teams in your biggest markets, aim for a game each weekend in NSW, i'm just not sure a team could survive outside of Sydney (names & structures can be debated).

Its all just pipe dreams though, you can put money on an 8 team TT comp the Rebels are history, and if the Kiwis want the Force, then so are the Brumbies.

 

[The Honey Badger]

There's just no money right now but my thinking is if you can scrape together 6 teams , 5 using the current teams add another in NSW with the eventual aim of an 8 team domestic comp, with 2 teams in your biggest markets, aim for a game each weekend in NSW, i'm just not sure a team could survive outside of Sydney (names & structures can be debated).

Its all just pipe dreams though, you can put money on an 8 team TT comp the Rebels are history, and if the Kiwis want the Force, then so are the Brumbies.

Surely no one on this site believes that 3 AUS Teams in a TT comp is the best way forward.

And if that is the reality then maybe more will consider the merits of an all AUS NRC.


As for the 6th team, I dont think it can be based in NSW and compete with the Tahs. It would have to be a Barbarian side. IMO. maybe playing out of Adelaide, or else call them the Inland Barbarians (comprising all the regions and playing at various regional stadiums)