Where to for Twiggy Rugby?

[Killer]

I think a Trans-Tasman comp has a much better chance of securing a better TV rights deal, both locally and abroad (Asia, UK etc). And while I agree that the ARU are probably not capable of pulling off a domestic league, I think you put way too much faith in Twiggy. He hasn't delivered anything yet - all he's proven is that he's a good media performer. I've seen too many sports be burned by mining magnates to be willing to hand the reins of the entire sport to Forrest. .

The ARU thought they would be insolvent in 2019 without dropping a team. Unless they have substantially bigger crowds this year, unlikely, they will still be insolvent in 2019. Not much to hand over to anyone. And that's not to mention all their other issues of sponsorship, broadcast revenue post 2020, pre RWC year internationals lack of revenue, the list is huge which you know and I won't bore you with. I don't know what other options there are?

 

[Quick Hands]

I think a Trans-Tasman comp has a much better chance of securing a better TV rights deal, both locally and abroad (Asia, UK etc). And while I agree that the ARU are probably not capable of pulling off a domestic league, I think you put way too much faith in Twiggy. He hasn't delivered anything yet - all he's proven is that he's a good media performer. I've seen too many sports be burned by mining magnates to be willing to hand the reins of the entire sport to Forrest. .

I assume that he's smart enough not to try to manage a sport himself. The best businessmen employ the best to do the job properly for them.

 

[Quick Hands]

Michael - think about the National economies while you are running through these figures.

Nominal 2017 (Taken from a random search, there are quite a few sites that cover it):
UK: $US 2.5Tr
France: $US 2.4Tr

Massive, and "little" Australia?
Australia: $US 1.4Tr

But look at our current SANZAR partners:
Republic of South Africa: $US0.3Tr
New Zealand: $US0.2Tr

We punch above our weight. Our partners have little to offer on this scale, especially as they are basically already saturated in terms of $rugby. Australia is nothing like saturated, competes heavily in the domestic market and will never see rugby as number #2 winter sport let alone the top dog. But we don't need it, just a few percentage points improvement makes a difference. And unlike Japan, let alone China, has an already established (though being trashed) grass roots.

Clearly Japan and China are of interest:
China: $US11.8Tr
Japan: $4.8Tr

But start here. Domestically in Australia.If SANZAAR want to stay with us, they need to understand where the comparative market opportunities lie - Not in NZ nor RSA.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

 

[barbarian]

OK so what's the domestic product then?

Pitch the comp for us. Because I'm incredibly skeptical an expanded NRC can work, given the current NRC is still completely invisible in the eyes of the rugby public, let alone the sporting public.
.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

OK so what's the domestic product then?

Pitch the comp for us. Because I'm incredibly skeptical an expanded NRC can work, given the current NRC is still completely invisible in the eyes of the rugby public, let alone the sporting public.
.

Our current four plus a reintroduced Force and the addition of the Drua. From there. Add in both country squads based out of two of the larger regional centres in both NSW and Queensland. There's your initial 8. We could either play each other twice for 14 games or do as the A-League and NBL do and play each other three teams for 21 games plus finals.

 

[Braveheart81]

So four games a week. What time slots do you look at playing games in? Who is the likely broadcaster? Presumably the comp is played when Super Rugby is currently.

What sort of budget would you be shooting for in terms of player payments etc.?

 

[Killer]

Today this is what my crystal ball says, subject to change.

I agree we are some way from any clear successful alternative. I'm not a details person, it doesn't interest me.
But it seems TF is being left with by the ARU, the NRC and his comp. The ARU are operating the Super comp atm, the maximum of their limited abilities, no, probably beyond but still in control.

Therefore I think the future will involve a combination of Twiggyball and the NRC as we move into 2020 onward. Between then and now TF will develop his own comp while keeping the NRC as a going concern with the plan at this stage to combine them, TBC.

No idea what will happen with Super Rugby, if it continues it will probably need support from TF too. This will allow TF to get what he wants ref player eligibility etc.

Thus we will have 2 comps, a Aussie Asia comp on FTA and the trans tasman super comp(maybe including SA) for fox. All players in either comp will be eligible for the Wallabies.

 

[barbarian]

That's pretty out there Killer. I think you're overestimating Twiggy's power, and that Super Rugby will somehow fade into the background.

Like it or not the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force are the five strongest brands in Aussie rugby (besides the Wallabies) and that's why I'm skeptical an expanded NRC model can produce the levels of interest we need it to.

I just think people are putting a lot of faith in a comp that doesn't yet exist (Twiggyball) to carry us into the future. And I'm generally optimistic about Forrest's involvement, but just don't think he'll ever end up being able to fully fund our pipe-dream local comps.
.

 

[dru]

OK so what's the domestic product then?

Pitch the comp for us. Because I'm incredibly skeptical an expanded NRC can work, given the current NRC is still completely invisible in the eyes of the rugby public, let alone the sporting public.
.

barbarian, you are of course right, national economy is simply a statement of strength of commercial market. My point was more around this presumption of the Aus minnow v the UK whale. There is a scalar difference, but it's not even close to as bad as people think. And for consistency you need to consider what the other SANZAAR markets do for us - not much in terms of growth potential and size.

Here in Aus, my concern is that the ARU really has done little to market the game. Seems to be plenty in both NZ and RSA but it's been dim in Australia. We have then the well trodden discussion of gradual decline to the pro game in Aus - broadcasts in difficult time slots, lack of regularity for the home crowds, and competition for the winter sporting segment. But we haven't really attempted any effective campaign for the game, not since I've been back in Australia (200&).

Change the product to overcome the natural difficulties in Super and we have different platform to be launching from. It would clearly be missing the brand strength of SA and more particularly NZ but open up to a more friendly format to the largest SANZAAR potential market.

But I dont actually think yourself and for that matter BH are disagreeing so much as reading the status differently.

We have a negative $trend for Aus in Super. Any alternative, especially a domestic alternative would needs be starting from a lower platform, I think with a growth potential. How do you gauge when the down-trend is sufficient to make the risk acceptable - necessary?

I think this happened in the off season 2016 leading to 2017. If I thought we were not close to that tipping point, I'd be arguing for support to SANZAAR (though not at the moment for ARU until they are cleaned up).

 

[Quick Hands]

OK so what's the domestic product then?

Pitch the comp for us. Because I'm incredibly skeptical an expanded NRC can work, given the current NRC is still completely invisible in the eyes of the rugby public, let alone the sporting public.
.

The NRC is largely invisible because it's played at the same time as NRL and AFL finals. It will never get any media oxygen as long as it's played at this time of year. And every fourth year it will also be swamped by RWC as well.

It (the domestic national league) needs to be played in the window currently occupied by Super Rugby. It's an either/or choice for Australian rugby.

 

[barbarian]

Dru I think we are all coming from a very similar place. We acknowledge the failures of elements of the Super model, and the potential benefits a domestic alternative could bring.

Where we differ is the realities of making it actually happen. I just don't know how a domestic-only (or even one with a couple of PI/Asian sides) competition can produce the level of $$$ required to pay players enough to hold them in Aus.

We're already losing players by the planeload to increased cash in Europe, but thankfully Super is financially strong enough for us to keep most of our front-line stars here. This is mainly thanks to TV revenue.

When we lose a fair chunk of that TV revenue, we would logically lose the means to pay our stars the big $ we need to keep them here. So not only are we building a new comp, but we're doing it without Izzy, Quade, Hooper, etc.

So when the rubber hits the road, I'm really skeptical about how we can make the dollars and cents work in a domestic competition. Though it may be the best thing long-term for our game.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

So four games a week. What time slots do you look at playing games in? Who is the likely broadcaster? Presumably the comp is played when Super Rugby is currently.

What sort of budget would you be shooting for in terms of player payments etc.?

You can't answer any of those questions until you have a product to market. Nor can you put a product together until you have all sorts of information which only the ARU really has legal access to. All people here can do is put forward suggestions - it's worth noting that many posters forsaw and predicted the decline of professional rugby in Australia, the collapse of the community game and the dire financial position.

What we know for certain is the Super Rugby isn't working for us and it's difficult to see a circumstance when it will work for us. We also know that France and particularly England have both revamped their approach to the game and Super Rugby isn't the pre-eminent on-field product which it once was. Take out the Kiwi derbies and there was a lot of sub-standard dross masquerading as elite rugby going on.

 

[barbarian]

The NRC is largely invisible because it's played at the same time as NRL and AFL finals. It will never get any media oxygen as long as it's played at this time of year. And every fourth year it will also be swamped by RWC as well.

It (the domestic national league) needs to be played in the window currently occupied by Super Rugby. It's an either/or choice for Australian rugby.

I accept the timing is poor. But it can't even secure the interest of hardcore rugby fans, and I don't think timing changes that enough to make it financially viable. I love the NRC, but can't see how we can build it in three years into something we can hang the entire game on in Aus.

 

[Braveheart81]

You can't answer any of those questions until you have a product to market. Nor can you put a product together until you have all sorts of information which only the ARU really has legal access to. All people here can do is put forward suggestions - it's worth noting that many posters forsaw and predicted the decline of professional rugby in Australia, the collapse of the community game and the dire financial position.

Putting forward suggestions is what I am interested in.

Outside of the finer details, I don't see why people can't speculate what the general structure of their desired competition will be.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Dru I think we are all coming from a very similar place. We acknowledge the failures of elements of the Super model, and the potential benefits a domestic alternative could bring.

Where we differ is the realities of making it actually happen. I just don't know how a domestic-only (or even one with a couple of PI/Asian sides) competition can produce the level of $$$ required to pay players enough to hold them in Aus.

We're already losing players by the planeload to increased cash in Europe, but thankfully Super is financially strong enough for us to keep most of our front-line stars here. This is mainly thanks to TV revenue.

When we lose a fair chunk of that TV revenue, we would logically lose the means to pay our stars the big $ we need to keep them here. So not only are we building a new comp, but we're doing it without Izzy, Quade, Hooper, etc.

So when the rubber hits the road, I'm really skeptical about how we can make the dollars and cents work in a domestic competition. Though it may be the best thing long-term for our game.
.

I am more inclined to the view that we need a continuation of Super Rugby in some format because a purely domestic competition will really struggle to earn the type of dollars required to keep our better performers and coaches etc at home. However, it does look very likely that any TV deal post 2020 will also diminish significantly from the existing one in value. If/when that happens, how will the Super Rugby franchises with or without the help of the ARU afford the pay levels then required to keep the stars at home? Are we sure that a trans Tasman comp wouldn't still be of sufficient interest to NH fans to support a reasonable broadcasting deal? If it won't be, then I can see no solution to the problem of greater and greater numbers of top Aus rugby players going offshore. Maybe Forrest is the only option with any chance of keeping a high quality competition going in this country.

 

[Quick Hands]

Putting forward suggestions is what I am interested in.

Outside of the finer details, I don't see why people can't speculate what the general structure of their desired competition will be.

In general terms I'm not quite sure what any format would finally look like. I don't see it as being a carbon copy of NRC as I think that there are definitely one too many NSW teams in the NRC to translate to a domestic competition and possibly one too many Qld teams (although I can be convinced otherwise).

The question then becomes can we as a nation make a go of a competition which includes teams from the 5 super franchises plus Fiji, Tonga and Samoa i.e. an 8 team league - I think that this is eminently doable and would be reasonably easy to sell. Note that this format would see the three PI teams playing some home games in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne to attract expat communities. Note that the inclusion of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga would bring WR (World Rugby) subsidies so that their inclusion would be a net positive economically and I'd also suggest would be a positive in terms of participation in Australia where we see many PI communities residing in rugby league areas of Sydney and Brisbane and the youth attracted to RL ahead of rugby.

I think that it's a harder sell to run off an NRC base and/or to bring in Japan and other Asian teams. I'm not opposed, I just think it would be harder logisically and economically.

 

[wamberal]

Sorry to disagree, but from my limited experience with PI kids in more affluent areas, but the ones that I know prefer the other code, even when they have a choice.



You are right, they are attracted to league. It would be an interesting study. One of the reasons that countries like Tonga and Fiji have strong rugby communities is because the "aristocracy" prefers rugby. Our game has an inbuilt advantage, in other words. That does not exist here, in fact it is the other way around.


In Tonga, a country that I do know a bit about, kids will play whichever code offers them more financial opportunities when they are old enough to play professionally. Not much argument which code that is, at least for the ones who are able to get into Australia.

 

[Quick Hands]

Sorry to disagree, but from my limited experience with PI kids in more affluent areas, but the ones that I know prefer the other code, even when they have a choice.



You are right, they are attracted to league. It would be an interesting study. One of the reasons that countries like Tonga and Fiji have strong rugby communities is because the "aristocracy" prefers rugby. Our game has an inbuilt advantage, in other words. That does not exist here, in fact it is the other way around.


In Tonga, a country that I do know a bit about, kids will play whichever code offers them more financial opportunities when they are old enough to play professionally. Not much argument which code that is, at least for the ones who are able to get into Australia.

We have different opinions and certainly completely different experiences with the PI community in terms of their preference for codes. I agree that in the end they will follow the money, but that doesn't reflect their personal preference in my experience.

 

[dru]

We have different opinions and certainly completely different experiences with the PI community in terms of their preference for codes. I agree that in the end they will follow the money, but that doesn't reflect their personal preference in my experience.

And with much stronger opportunity in the mungo world, why shouldn’t they? Give a reasonable choice and see how it goes.

 

[barbarian]

If/when that happens, how will the Super Rugby franchises with or without the help of the ARU afford the pay levels then required to keep the stars at home? Are we sure that a trans Tasman comp wouldn't still be of sufficient interest to NH fans to support a reasonable broadcasting deal? .

I agree that we still might not be able to hang onto our best talent.

But IMO the Trans-tasman model is our best bet to have a competition that delivers what we are after (more quality content in our time zone) with the most appeal to both local and foreign broadcasters.

Even that might not be enough.
.