2016 Super Rugby Expansion

[BDA]

I think going forward 5 Super teams is probably sufficient given our limited depth. I certainly think there is a strong correlation between the performance of our super sides and national team success. 2010, 2011 and 2012 are good examples of that. I do think it was important that we added a 5th team in 2011 but I think a 6th team, at least in the next 3 or 4 years, would probably stretch our players and resources a bit paper thin.

If the tournament expands again I'm happy to see a team from overseas fill the 6th spot.

I'd rather see us concentrate our efforts on establishing a third tier comp (in the mould of the NRL Toyota Cup). Once we have a third tier comp we will put ourselves in to a good position to have the depth to field 6 quality sides.

 

[TOCC]

A 6th team will not be viable for another 10 years at least....

Force and Rebels are proof of this, and that's with foreign player allowances...

 

[Oliphant]

You raise some good points, but remember that professional sports receive most of their revenue from TV rights, not at ground attendances. 15 teams gives more matches to the braodcasters.

NRL has the same problem with attendances - games are played at crowd unfriendly times to suit TV.

Fully understand the importance of the Commercial aspect of Professional Sport. However, having played sport in-front of capacity crowds, there is not doubt in my mind that this aspect lifts the performances of players, and having played in-front of near empty stadiums, it affects your psyche. Therefore, capacity crowds result in more exciting contests and more excitement creates bigger spend by consumers.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see what the television audience stats reveal over the period of the competition. I know that if I switch to a game and the stadium is empty, my natural human reaction is one of disappointment. Disappointment is a negative response, negative results in no spend. As a major sponsor coming into the game, I would want to see capacity stadiums which will result in higher television viewing audiences.

 

[Oliphant]

^ play in smaller stadiums!

Well if you do the simple math you will note that the attendance figures should increase in the current stadiums, regardless of any other external factor, if average ticket prices at grounds are reduced and will increase more than the percentage that you reduce the tickets by. This equates to an increase in revenue, which at the end of the day is what it is all about in the commercial age of the game.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

EXPANSION? Attendance Stats and Visual Stats show that attendance at grounds is on the decline - directly translated that the game is losing it appeal. Increasing the number of teams will, in my opinion, dilute the appeal of the game even more! There is nothing worse than attending ANY rugby match, no matter whom is playing, in any empty stadium. With this happening, and you cannot deny this, just take a look at the stands in all recordings of the 2013 games, there is something seriously wrong with the game! Expansion is not going to make it appealing. No major sponsor in a new territory will come on board if they are shown footage of empty stadiums, or attend a game with empty seats.

My opinion:-
1. Go back to Super12

2. Re-look at a few rules that diluting the physicality of the game (feed into the scrum, tackler gain ascendancy)

3. How referees are apply the rules of the game

This will result in stronger teams, which = more physical rugby = more attractive rugby = packed stadiums = more revenue = more sponsorship = more bang for the buck!

Right, if that were to happen then each nations should have to give up a team. Seems about fair doesn't it. You are focusing a lot on the crowd attendance while overlooking viewership which is actually up this season and with a successful season will grow again next season. This will add value come 2015 and the new round of negotiations.

Super Rugby will expand. The SARU will likely be looking to get the Lions back and then you have the question of what to do about Argentina.

 

[Oliphant]

Right, if that were to happen then each nations should have to give up a team. Seems about fair doesn't it. You are focusing a lot on the crowd attendance while overlooking viewership which is actually up this season and with a successful season will grow again next season. This will add value come 2015 and the new round of negotiations.

Super Rugby will expand. The SARU will likely be looking to get the Lions back and then you have the question of what to do about Argentina.

Have a read of what I posted earlier regarding attendance and viewership, you may get a better idea of my point. Since then I have done a quick calculation on current attendance figures and revenue from ticket sales and am surprised at the results myself! 15% reduction in ticket costs and a 20% increase in attendance makes some nice gains in revenue over 8 home games. Added to this the logic behind my earlier comments referred to above and JACKPOT!

Hurricanes attendance figures at just 28,35% of Stadium Capacity, Waratahs @ 33,57%, Crusaders @ 38,54%, Rebels @ 41,1%, Highlanders @ 42,38%, Cheetahs @ 46,31%, Sharks @ 47%, Blues @ 50,3%, Chiefs @ 53%, Reds @ 58,4%, Force @ 59,3%, Brumbies @ 62,8%, Bulls @ 69,45%, Kings @ 74,84% and Stormers @ 83,37%

Not very good in my book with just 4 teams above 60%??!!

 

[en_force_er]

SA deserves 7 teams undoubtably, NZ deserves 7 but there's no place or money to put in another, and Aus doesn't and will never have the space for a 7th.

Our best bet? Give the SA another license to have the Jo-berg Lions back, and auction off 2 licenses to Asian/Pacific markets. One for the Aus conference and one for the Kiwi.

Potential buyers could be the Japanese RU, the Argentinian RU (though that would be hard for logistical reasons) and privet corporate entities (who could place the team in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or the PIs if they're in a charitable mood).

The key point to remember about a PI team is, their living costs are very low and for many who haven't made their name yet it's play ITM for a pittance or play locally for less than a pittance. Being a fully professional athlete of any capacity would be terrific. Their player turnover would be huge, but think of them the way Ireland used Connacht 5-10 years ago.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Have a read of what I posted earlier regarding attendance and viewership, you may get a better idea of my point. Since then I have done a quick calculation on current attendance figures and revenue from ticket sales and am surprised at the results myself! 15% reduction in ticket costs and a 20% increase in attendance makes some nice gains in revenue over 8 home games. Added to this the logic behind my earlier comments referred to above and JACKPOT!

Hurricanes attendance figures at just 28,35% of Stadium Capacity, Waratahs @ 33,57%, Crusaders @ 38,54%, Rebels @ 41,1%, Highlanders @ 42,38%, Cheetahs @ 46,31%, Sharks @ 47%, Blues @ 50,3%, Chiefs @ 53%, Reds @ 58,4%, Force @ 59,3%, Brumbies @ 62,8%, Bulls @ 69,45%, Kings @ 74,84% and Stormers @ 83,37%

Not very good in my book with just 4 teams above 60%??!!

You do realise that the rough average capacity across all Super Rugby venues equates to around 40,000, right? Outside of some of the larger Soccer leagues and the NFL there isn't a competition in the world that has teams playing out of such large venues. In fact, in terms of Rugby, you would find that Super Rugby is the best attended. This is across all venues.

I don't understand how you think that by reducing the number of teams would boost either attendance or viewership. In fact in terms of viewership, expansion has appeared to boost it particularly in Australia. The value of Super Rugby sits in content plus viewer numbers not how many bums in seats. It's about the ability to sell advertising and reach of that advertising. If you take Aus for example where a few weeks back it was reported that Aus derbies had witnessed a 42% spike in interest. That's how you boost the value. We don't need to worry too much about the overall standard of the competition as this season has already demonstrated that it's of high quality (.i.e. the 10th placed Tahs defeated the 3rd placed Chiefs).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

SA deserves 7 teams undoubtably, NZ deserves 7 but there's no place or money to put in another, and Aus doesn't and will never have the space for a 7th.

Our best bet? Give the SA another license to have the Jo-berg Lions back, and auction off 2 licenses to Asian/Pacific markets. One for the Aus conference and one for the Kiwi.

Potential buyers could be the Japanese RU, the Argentinian RU (though that would be hard for logistical reasons) and privet corporate entities (who could place the team in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or the PIs if they're in a charitable mood).

The key point to remember about a PI team is, their living costs are very low and for many who haven't made their name yet it's play ITM for a pittance or play locally for less than a pittance. Being a fully professional athlete of any capacity would be terrific. Their player turnover would be huge, but think of them the way Ireland used Connacht 5-10 years ago.

I don't mind the general concept of moving to three 7 teams conferences but would keep it to five teams in both Aus and NZ and look to fill the other four from Asia particularly in Japan, HK and Singapore. We don't even necessarily need to fill the extra rosters. This is how you involve the likes of Argentina, PI, Japan and Nth American players.

 

[Rassie]

1. No. We haven't changed it for the inclusion of Argentina. The body is still run by the three countries, Argentina is simply included
2. Peters and co have stated this won't be the case. The conference system allows expansion, where you'll simply play 8 teams outside of your conference.

If Argentina don't have a team, can't see the USA etc. getting one.

But Argentina do have a team called the Pampas. With money they can actually get some of their players back in Argentina and not sit on some French clubs bench as a medical joker.

Just one note. If Canada is added Australian teams are going to have some trouble to get Visa's for their players as they don't hand them out to convicts.......

 

[en_force_er]

I don't mind the general concept of moving to three 7 teams conferences but would keep it to five teams in both Aus and NZ and look to fill the other four from Asia particularly in Japan, HK and Singapore. We don't even necessarily need to fill the extra rosters. This is how you involve the likes of Argentina, PI, Japan and Nth American players.

I meant 6 but it was late and I mistyped. I think Argentina and North America SHOULD be involved but I just can't see how it would be logistically possible.

For the conference system to work with Argentina they'd have to produce at least 3 teams. For a non-conference system to work it wouldn't matter how many sides they produce but it would mean culling some existing sides as it would make the comp very long and very messy.

You could maybe have a 5 team American conference of 3 Argentina sides, 1 Denver based American side that plays everywhere (because their best dedicated rugby stadium is there), and 1 British Columbian based Canadian side (where the best local rugby is played). But is the fan/corporate demand there?

I think Asia is realistic, there's no doubt that regardless of fans you could sell a license or two to the companies running the 2-3 biggest top league teams in Japan, who probably have similar spends to Super rugby sides anyway. The JRU have stated in the past that they're not interested in buying into Super rugby, but maybe they would be. Having their 20 best players playing Super rugby with 20 or so good internationals and the top league being their "3rd tier" would certainly put their local game in a good position.

As for Singapore/Hong Kong, I think you could attract a corporate dollar or two.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

As a force fan (would also apply to rebels) i would be very worried if aus got a 6th team. Australias depth is already spread very thin with plenty of overseas players on the books the force ans rebels would find it even harder to get and keep hold of talant.

Why would a young up and coming player or an older player ready to break into the big times come to melb or perth now that a second team is in nsw or qld.





Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jets]

Australia can't have a 6th team, where would you put it? Adelaide or Hobart? I'd argue that NZ don't have the market for a 6th team also. South Africa are the only place where it would work.

I like the Asia and Pacific ideas. Singapore in the Aust conference and Apia (or a team that plays out of Samoa, Fiji and Tonga) in NZ could work.

I think it's going to be a 15 team comp for a while. The introduction of a Super Rugby Americas comp wouldn't be bad, but that's a stand alone comp that would have to be IRB funded.

 

[Rassie]

As a force fan (would also apply to rebels) i would be very worried if aus got a 6th team. Australias depth is already spread very thin with plenty of overseas players on the books the force ans rebels would find it even harder to get and keep hold of talant.

Why would a young up and coming player or an older player ready to break into the big times come to melb or perth now that a second team is in nsw or qld.





Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

The idea of making the Rebels and the Force one team sounds good and sell that extra places of to someone else

 

[en_force_er]

Australia can't have a 6th team, where would you put it? Adelaide or Hobart? I'd argue that NZ don't have the market for a 6th team also. South Africa are the only place where it would work.

I like the Asia and Pacific ideas. Singapore in the Aust conference and Apia (or a team that plays out of Samoa, Fiji and Tonga) in NZ could work.

I think it's going to be a 15 team comp for a while. The introduction of a Super Rugby Americas comp wouldn't be bad, but that's a stand alone comp that would have to be IRB funded.

I think you could maybe have a Western Sydney team. I'd be a bad decision, but I don't think you'd see Aussie rugby implode because of it.

I think Tokyo would be best, because their rugby has local grounding and players rather than just expat and corporation backing. But Singapore would be fine.

I think a team in Apia who plays a couple of home games in the North Harbour area would be a good go and like I said you could run it cleverly to keep the costs down.

 

[en_force_er]

The idea of making the Rebels and the Force one team sounds good and sell that extra places of to someone else

Yeah, rugby should definitely retreat slowly back into inner Sydney and Brisbane and never be played elsewhere.

Until we can achieve this goal, I suppose we could have one team in Perth/Melbourne (only if it can't be avoided). They could spent 1 day on 1 day off in each city.

Great idea. Inspired.

 

[Jets]

I think you could maybe have a Western Sydney team. I'd be a bad decision, but I don't think you'd see Aussie rugby implode because of it.

Leave Sydney for the Tah's. They can't get crowds to their games as it is. Anyway my point is there is no space for a 6th team in Aust.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Leave Sydney for the Tah's. They can't get crowds to their games as it is. Anyway my point is there is no space for a 6th team in Aust.

I largely agree with you. That's why any movement toward expanding the Aus/NZ conferences should look to introduce new teams based in Asia independent of the need for either nations to fill their rosters. If a Japanese squad (or two) came into the fold you could get the majority of the national team (who could play Super Rugby from what I witnessed over the weekend) plus with some imports from Argentina/PI's/Nth America or Europe. Same for any other teams in either Singapore or Hong Kong (or both)

 

[en_force_er]

I largely agree with you. That's why any movement toward expanding the Aus/NZ conferences should look to introduce new teams based in Asia independent of the need for either nations to fill their rosters. If a Japanese squad (or two) came into the fold you could get the majority of the national team (who could play Super Rugby from what I witnessed over the weekend) plus with some imports from Argentina/PI's/Nth America or Europe. Same for any other teams in either Singapore or Hong Kong (or both)

There's certainly 15-20 Super Rugby standard players in Japan. I don't think they'd all necessarily be the kind of players who'd start in your best XV, but they'd be in the mix.

I'd almost be willing to sign an amnesty thing with Japanese based sides that they can sign Aussies that can still play for Aus. Imagine if all those Aussies playing for big bucks in France/Japan were still playing Super Rugby and available for Aus? It's not a perfect plan obviously, but it has it's merits.

 

[GunnerDownUnder]

If there is money then 4 groups of 6 would be my favoured option.
6 Saffies, 6 Kiwis, 6 Aussie (gives the Wallabies at least 5 starting players to pick from with a splattering of international players over here) and a Pac Rim group - Combined Islanders, Hong Kong, Singapore and three Japanese teams.
Would also mean a much needed extra game at home and away - Super 15 is too short at the moment.
2 from each group go through to last 8.