Rebelsfan
Billy Sheehan (19)
not an argument, just an observation sir
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
not an argument, just an observation sir
S
Show-n-go
Guest
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
When they were expanding with the Force and then the Rebels, I was cheering them on in full support.
But now I don't think it would matter (as much) if the Rebels were to be cut. What benefit does it bring to retain them in Super Rugby? Super Rugby isn't growing the game in Australia anyway. And if the Rebels could move to GRR, it would be less dramatic than when the Force were being cut with nothing to go to.
If the only purpose of Super Rugby is to retain enough professional players to keep the Wallabies competitive, then why not revert to 3 teams? They would have greater depth, allowing our Super Rugby teams to regularly rest test players and still remain competitive. Combinations could also be better for the Wallabies.
Don't shoot me. I'm just putting this out there. Trying to expand rugby's footprint in Australia through Super Rugby has been a failed experiment. So what does it matter if the Rebels were to move to GRR?
Or is the main reason for wanting to retain 4 teams because it gives more professional opportunities to play rugby in Australia?
But now I don't think it would matter (as much) if the Rebels were to be cut. What benefit does it bring to retain them in Super Rugby? Super Rugby isn't growing the game in Australia anyway. And if the Rebels could move to GRR, it would be less dramatic than when the Force were being cut with nothing to go to.
If the only purpose of Super Rugby is to retain enough professional players to keep the Wallabies competitive, then why not revert to 3 teams? They would have greater depth, allowing our Super Rugby teams to regularly rest test players and still remain competitive. Combinations could also be better for the Wallabies.
Don't shoot me. I'm just putting this out there. Trying to expand rugby's footprint in Australia through Super Rugby has been a failed experiment. So what does it matter if the Rebels were to move to GRR?
Or is the main reason for wanting to retain 4 teams because it gives more professional opportunities to play rugby in Australia?
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
I think that is a pretty good point, I know WA have had a reduction in playing numbers since the Force were removed, but retaining the Rebels at what cost and more importantly what reason especially if the increase in support in Victoria is minimal.
Those teams were costing millions with little return to the code, but just imagine what you could have done with a tenth of that money invested in grassroots in those areas, unfortunately it doesn't work that way, but the biggest fear I have is the RA just have no vision, ideas or just don't seem capable of how to change course.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
@Hoggy and @Joe King
Guys, this is I feel an entrapped mind set. Start from an acceptance that the only point of a pro comp is solely to feed WBs and the rest follows. As broadcast firmly by Clynne his graph justification ALWAYS showed a cut to three result.
Start differently in a world where (currently) the majority of income is from the WBs and consider this an opportunity - potentially easing the pain to any transition in the pro game in Aus. Listen to the broadcasters and the fans as to what is needed to make the pro game more successful (less unsuccessful if you prefer). “A” Plan will likely involve a trans Tasman. Be ready to seriously test, no actually forcefully push, TT entrenched thinking. This means a B Plan and a serious will to implement it if needed.
“B” Plan requires reliance on the game in Aus, still with the WB cash to ease transition. Important here to involve SRU and QPR (plus the other states) in what will possibly succeed.
The answer to this subtle change in preconceptions is ABSOLUTELY NO to any further shrink.
Guys, this is I feel an entrapped mind set. Start from an acceptance that the only point of a pro comp is solely to feed WBs and the rest follows. As broadcast firmly by Clynne his graph justification ALWAYS showed a cut to three result.
Start differently in a world where (currently) the majority of income is from the WBs and consider this an opportunity - potentially easing the pain to any transition in the pro game in Aus. Listen to the broadcasters and the fans as to what is needed to make the pro game more successful (less unsuccessful if you prefer). “A” Plan will likely involve a trans Tasman. Be ready to seriously test, no actually forcefully push, TT entrenched thinking. This means a B Plan and a serious will to implement it if needed.
“B” Plan requires reliance on the game in Aus, still with the WB cash to ease transition. Important here to involve SRU and QPR (plus the other states) in what will possibly succeed.
The answer to this subtle change in preconceptions is ABSOLUTELY NO to any further shrink.
Rebelsfan
Billy Sheehan (19)
The franchise models need to be self sufficient. My understanding is that RA pay the player salaries and the travel costs. The administration, match day costs and off field support staff needs to be funded by the club itself. Revenue streams include: Club membership, walk ins on match day, sales of club colours and sponsorships. It is surely up to each club to build these revenue streams. If they can't, then the hard decision to cut the club should become a lot easier.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
Yes but you can equally argue that the Franchise model given to these clubs is not sustainable, as the clubs have pointed out not enough people are buying our Pizzas, so at what point of shrinkage do you no longer have a franchise model.
Rebelsfan
Billy Sheehan (19)
If there is no demand for the product then it gets cut
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
Or you change recipes.
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
The Super-level Clubs are obviously tied to the broadcaster/s, their national bodies, and their local fanbase. Screw up any one of those connections and the team will definitely be in a financial struggle, if not an irreversible tailspin to its own death.
However, strengthen them, and you strengthen yourself. If more people are watching the Wallabies, then the ARU are probably getting more money. If they have more money, they can give you more money. So it's not like you can be in there making financial arrangements on behalf of the ARU, but you can strengthen their budget just by producing the kind of team that people would be excited to see at test level and hoping the selectors pick them.
Likewise, competitive games make for good viewing, so broadcasters will want even competitions. You might think that requires a level of parity, but it doesn't; the top four teams this season won 40% of the games, which means the remaining 11 teams had to fight tooth and nail for the remaining 60% of all wins. This lead to there being fewer than two wins between second-last and a finals spot, and the drama of the final round where three of the games were win-and-you're-in games.
The connection to the fanbase is so hard. Clubs have to balance the difference between the fans who won't go to a single game if it's too expensive or the team is losing, and the fans who would sit in the snow for two hours to watch their team lose 3-0 every week to the worst teams in the competition. There are fans who want the relationship to be limited to an 80 minute performance every week, and those who are insulted by the idea that the team is just part of a transaction for 80 minutes of entertainment. To even get half of this connection right is a success. But fans who feel engaged and keep coming back will cancel out a massive portion of your annual expenses, and generally help you in negotiations with broadcasters, national bodies, players, and coaches.
However, strengthen them, and you strengthen yourself. If more people are watching the Wallabies, then the ARU are probably getting more money. If they have more money, they can give you more money. So it's not like you can be in there making financial arrangements on behalf of the ARU, but you can strengthen their budget just by producing the kind of team that people would be excited to see at test level and hoping the selectors pick them.
Likewise, competitive games make for good viewing, so broadcasters will want even competitions. You might think that requires a level of parity, but it doesn't; the top four teams this season won 40% of the games, which means the remaining 11 teams had to fight tooth and nail for the remaining 60% of all wins. This lead to there being fewer than two wins between second-last and a finals spot, and the drama of the final round where three of the games were win-and-you're-in games.
The connection to the fanbase is so hard. Clubs have to balance the difference between the fans who won't go to a single game if it's too expensive or the team is losing, and the fans who would sit in the snow for two hours to watch their team lose 3-0 every week to the worst teams in the competition. There are fans who want the relationship to be limited to an 80 minute performance every week, and those who are insulted by the idea that the team is just part of a transaction for 80 minutes of entertainment. To even get half of this connection right is a success. But fans who feel engaged and keep coming back will cancel out a massive portion of your annual expenses, and generally help you in negotiations with broadcasters, national bodies, players, and coaches.
sunnyboys
Bob Loudon (25)
RA says Super Rugby is growing and no changes are likely
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-foxtel-budget-cuts-bite-20190617-p51ymd.html
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-foxtel-budget-cuts-bite-20190617-p51ymd.html
I think we will need to get used to doing with much less, Foxtel essentially funds rugby, they are bleeding badly as we cut those cords and move away from cable to streaming services
Without enough kayo subscriptions there won't even be Super Rugby (unless some other entity steps up)
Without enough kayo subscriptions there won't even be Super Rugby (unless some other entity steps up)
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
ESPN+ is set to enter the market later this year and have specifically mentioned Rugby as a target for domestic content. They may be a decent option if they decide to get involved.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Well, that's better than losing money. But any potential increase will likely rest on the heels of the Nations Championship concept getting up.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Jamie
Watty Friend (18)
It is fair to say that Foxtel will be doing the maths in terms of how many subscribers they will lose if the start cutting rugby content, at present I pay $44 a month purely for the rugby and GOT, now that GOT is finished I should really change my subscription to sports only but not too bothered at the moment. Now the minute they cut any rugby content well goodbye Foxtel (I've been a customer since the beginning)
Rugby will always have a home somewhere so my $$$ will go there, as far as the NRC goes (In which whatever format they settle on) I will be more than happy to pay RA directly ($10 a month?) for direct streaming via their site.
IMO Rugby Foxtel will continue live under the Foxtel banner and I don't think we have too much to worry about,
PS: As much as I hate to say it "Go Brumbies!", let's tune in for the quarters and specially the Brumbies game, hoping it cracks the 100k
Rugby will always have a home somewhere so my $$$ will go there, as far as the NRC goes (In which whatever format they settle on) I will be more than happy to pay RA directly ($10 a month?) for direct streaming via their site.
IMO Rugby Foxtel will continue live under the Foxtel banner and I don't think we have too much to worry about,
PS: As much as I hate to say it "Go Brumbies!", let's tune in for the quarters and specially the Brumbies game, hoping it cracks the 100k
Bandar
Bob Loudon (25)
Agree with everything you have said.
I think that Fox would be a bit concerned about losing the current rugby subscribers. While I realise my circle of friends is more rugby orientated I reckon well over half of them would drop fox if the rugby went. I'm sure that would equate to something like a 20% reduction overall for them.
Yeah and go the Brumbies
- Status