Australian Rugby / RA

[WorkingClassRugger]

Channel 10 aren't happy, Optus aren't coming back to the table this year, and GRob describes Faux as RA's "loyal partner" lol:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...aster-over-castles-departure-as-talks-delayed

So when RA have no option but to accept Faux's heavily reduced offer, what then? Are there any other potential bidders to at least drive the price up a little?

Well, they've made their bed.

 

[kiap]

Well, they've made their bed.

RA? They did. But anyone who believes a non-bid or bid by Optus or TEN is contingent on Raelene Castle being around, is deluded.

Events overtook everyone months ago.

 

[Quick Hands]

Channel 10 aren't happy, Optus aren't coming back to the table this year, and GRob describes Faux as RA's "loyal partner" lol:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...aster-over-castles-departure-as-talks-delayed

So when RA have no option but to accept Faux's heavily reduced offer, what then? Are there any other potential bidders to at least drive the price up a little?

This was always the problem with rejecting one bid without another bid locked in.

EDIT: And it's highly unlikely that Castle would have done so without board approval.

 

[KOB1987]

Channel 10 aren't happy, Optus aren't coming back to the table this year, and GRob describes Faux as RA's "loyal partner" lol:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...aster-over-castles-departure-as-talks-delayed

So when RA have no option but to accept Faux's heavily reduced offer, what then? Are there any other potential bidders to at least drive the price up a little?

There is nothing in that piece that isn’t speculation. Of course Optus are putting the process on hold because they don’t know what the product looks like.

 

[Braveheart81]

Whether it's super rugby or a domestic model I think that the wages will be lower. Super Rugby isn't financially viable and is becoming less so as crowds and TV viewers decline. Long term I think a local domestic competition will be more financially viable and the talent pool isn't necessarily as small as some people think. For example just as the NRL can sign players from the islands and NZ, so will a domestic competition. Of course the major talent is going to be offshore, but that's going to happen regardless of whether it's super rugby or domestic as the wages on offer won't be able to compete with Europe.

One of the things which makes sport entertaining to watch on TV is full stadia and enthusiastic partisan supporters. Super rugby just doesn't do that and as the standard of play has also declined I'm not sure that it's that much more desirable.

I agree wages will probably be lower as I think they will be globally for a while at least. This reset from COVID-19 will be used to some degree for competitions to rein back in spending. Global wages in rugby are largely driven by the leagues that have owners losing money to fund the shortfall in the UK, France and Japan. It has also been heightened by things such as Saracens cheating on the salary cap.

We still have to remain competitive though. It's a global game and if the salaries available aren't high enough, it won't attract the quality of players we need. League salaries and just general salaries from doing a regular job in Sydney/Brisbane etc. are relevant.

 

[Derpus]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...it-as-optus-delays-talks-20200426-p54nbu.html

Seems Optus & 10 have dropped Rugby like the bag of flaming shit that it is.

 

[cyclopath]

I guess my point is rugby needs to challenge that sort of thinking, as I think for a domestic competition it is viable (assuming we are heading down that path). I really do feel we need to be more open to ideas of law variations introduced by GRR. Nothing should not be on the table for discussion is my view If you want to be serious to turn the ship and alter the course. Past experience shown tinkering around the edges won’t cut it.

See my bit about it being a global sport and it's a somewhat arrogant approach for us, as a struggling rugby nation, to assume the game globally needs fixing, laws-wise. Most places seem quite happy with the laws of the game in its current state. Why would we want all our players playing under multiple differing sets of laws depending on the match? Most of the issues I see centre around how the laws are applied.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Matt Burke made some pretty interesting and sensible comments on the news tonight. The crux of it was that the present situation should be used as an opportunity to rebuild our domestic footy, bring the Force back in, invite the PI's and Japan and hopefully get the Kiwi's on board.

I apparently have a different interpretation of "domestic" to Burke. By all means, reinstate WA but including PIs, Japan and NZ hardly makes for a domestic competition.

I have no qualms really about having the PIs involved, but so long as they are based out of (Western) Sydney and Brisbane. If Japan and NZ are also included, it won't be long before there are complaints/criticisms again about our local teams being absent for a number of weeks while they tour those countries. Japan and NZ probably need to be kept out if it is truly a domestic competition being implemented, but maybe with a Champions type tournament at the end.

 

[Rebels3]

This was always the problem with rejecting one bid without another bid locked in.

EDIT: And it's highly unlikely that Castle would have done so without board approval.

That was impossible to happen, as the Fox contract allowed first offer from them to be supplied. RA had their hands tied until that happened, then they had the right to refuse and only then they could take it to tender.

The process exactly went that way as well. Fox tabled a deal, RA rejected it, then they were formally allowed to open negotiations with other contracts.

 

[Omar Comin']

I agree wages will probably be lower as I think they will be globally for a while at least. This reset from COVID-19 will be used to some degree for competitions to rein back in spending. Global wages in rugby are largely driven by the leagues that have owners losing money to fund the shortfall in the UK, France and Japan. It has also been heightened by things such as Saracens cheating on the salary cap.

We still have to remain competitive though. It's a global game and if the salaries available aren't high enough, it won't attract the quality of players we need. League salaries and just general salaries from doing a regular job in Sydney/Brisbane etc. are relevant.

I think it's pretty likely that wages will have to fall a bit in the short term if we move to a domestic competition (maybe not so much if NZ come to the party on a Trans-Tasman competition which I think is reasonably likely). But a few points:

- You'd probably only need 5 or 6 Australian based teams to create a domestic comp as you could make an 8 team competition with a Fijian side and another team or 2 from the Asia-Pacific region. So there wouldn't need to be major expansion of the player pool.
- There aren't unlimited squad positions for Australian players in Europe and Japan so even if wages are lower than Super Rugby plenty of players are going to stay.
- Core Wallabies players would still get RA contracts, so their income may not change too much. Though there may need to be a reduction in the number of central contracts and an easing of the Giteau rule.
- A state of origin series or other sub-international rep rugby series could be introduced and that would supplement incomes for elite players.

 

[wamberal]

Most of the issues I see centre around how the laws are applied.

Maybe that is because they are too complicated and rely on too much subjectivity to apply them? The fact that the game is doing okay in other countries does not actually help us very much, unless those unions that are prospering are willing to help us in practical ways. For example, they could stop raiding our player resources, or they could voluntarily pay a transfer fee to us or our neighbouring unions.


And I know that we have been around this circuit many times, but we are pretty much unique in having a domestic competitor playing a game which is also called "rugby", which uses a similarly shaped ball, and has a fair bit in common with our sport. Other than that it is far more popular, and enjoys widespread media coverage, with every game televised either or both on FTA and cable.



The AFL takes a huge share of our possible market, too of course. Yes, other major rugby countries have alternative winter sports, but from my time living in England, it seemed to me that rugby and association football could live quite happily and prosperously together.


So I demur: most of our issues do not revolve around the application of the laws.

 

[Derpus]

^^^
I was having a chat with a friend about NRL v Rugby and i stated Rugby seems to be growing faster elsewhere. He then said that is actually a myth and that NRL is growing just as fast if not faster - particularly in places like the Baltics and Russia.

Im not convinced the laws are up to scratch even internationally. But i agree with the sentiment that there is fuckall we can really do about that, and it won't help changing the laws here while the laws remain the same elsewhere.

 

[wamberal]

The 10 who signed the letter have certainly put themselves as a lobby group as no way any of them would be considered for a governance or management role in rugby.

In principle the 13 man rugby review board sounds sensible but who controls the appointments is where gets interesting. I as per Australian want twiggy involved as yes with his team and GRR have pushed new ideas and this is what rugby needs is new ideas so I would want them involved / represented as they appear more willing to challenge the status quo and that is where we need more of and less of the north shore private school network dreaming of the Shute shield being the centre of the universe and future of rugby.

According to an article by Georgie in today's SMH, the dreaded Shute Shield will be kicking off in July, and (hold your nose) it will have either a Wildfires team, or a Western Force/Emus combination. The latter option makes me wonder which north shore private school Twiggy attended?

Particularly as my club travelled to Perth before the restrictions and played the Western Force. (Not too many Eastwood types went to GPS schools, either).

 

[Ignoto]

Whether it's super rugby or a domestic model I think that the wages will be lower. Super Rugby isn't financially viable and is becoming less so as crowds and TV viewers decline. Long term I think a local domestic competition will be more financially viable and the talent pool isn't necessarily as small as some people think.

Agree on this. From a broadcasters perspective, they want more games in local timezones so that there are more eyeballs watching the content. This current set up (and future Super Rugby set up) means there is often 1 - 3 games involving an Australian team that's in a decent timezone.

If RA utilises COVID to trial out a Trans-Tasman competition, that could be somewhere between 3 - 5 games. Add in a Club Championship and you could have a large amount of content for your broadcaster.

We and the Kiwis may as well use this time to experiment as there is absolutely nothing lost this year as we ain't playing any South African or Argentinan teams for a year. More importantly, NZRU will be will aware that their brand has saturated the local markets (including Aus and SA). Their next growth market is Asia so that's what RA should be enticing them with.

 

[Braveheart81]

- You'd probably only need 5 or 6 Australian based teams to create a domestic comp as you could make an 8 team competition with a Fijian side and another team or 2 from the Asia-Pacific region. So there wouldn't need to be major expansion of the player pool.

So we're essentially back to the NRC and wondering whether a bit of tinkering can turn that into a viable product.

It's going to be really challenging.

- There aren't unlimited squad positions for Australian players in Europe and Japan so even if wages are lower than Super Rugby plenty of players are going to stay.

They can only get so low though. It's really only the young players that can hang around for those minimum value contracts. If you're in your mid-late 20s and that's the option available you are probably pursuing a different career instead and just playing club rugby (like plenty of players do).

 

[Dan54]

See my bit about it being a global sport and it's a somewhat arrogant approach for us, as a struggling rugby nation, to assume the game globally needs fixing, laws-wise. Most places seem quite happy with the laws of the game in its current state. Why would we want all our players playing under multiple differing sets of laws depending on the match? Most of the issues I see centre around how the laws are applied.

I can't like this enough Cyclo, and if here in Aus we plan to play under different laws we are not playing rugby!!

 

[Dan54]

Agree on this. From a broadcasters perspective, they want more games in local timezones so that there are more eyeballs watching the content. This current set up (and future Super Rugby set up) means there is often 1 - 3 games involving an Australian team that's in a decent timezone.

If RA utilises COVID to trial out a Trans-Tasman competition, that could be somewhere between 3 - 5 games. Add in a Club Championship and you could have a large amount of content for your broadcaster.

We and the Kiwis may as well use this time to experiment as there is absolutely nothing lost this year as we ain't playing any South African or Argentinan teams for a year. More importantly, NZRU will be will aware that their brand has saturated the local markets (including Aus and SA). Their next growth market is Asia so that's what RA should be enticing them with.

How can RA entice them with the Asian market, that they haven't got ? While understanding what you hoping for , but I keep getting mixed messages, we want a domestic comp, oh but with some island teams?? We can tempt NZRU with Asiam market, when we don't have it? I make no bones about I like rugby, not just Australian rugby, or even just NZ rugby, but I like RUGBY, and admit to wanting to see us (both NZ and Aus)playing SA teams because it involves bloody good rugby. I also know it very unlikely to happen below Test level for quite some time if at all, but please don't think we will have Japan etc waiting to jump into bed with us here in Aus so we can sell that as a way to get NZ in a comp. I believe there will end up some kind of trans tasman comp, and although it doesn't excite me and I don't think there much of a hunger for it at home in NZ probably some kind thing like that will happen, because both countries need tv revenue as much as possible, Aussie only comps (NRC is only one I can think of) does not rate at all, so rugby won't survive in AUs with just that. NZ's comp is for a smaller ,arket in NZ, but does tend to sell in overseas markets well, M10 cup can be watched live almost anywhere in world (I know my son watched final live in Italy a couple of years back while I waited for a delayed game on Fox). I not sure you could even watch NRC live in NZ last few years , but WOB or DP etc maybe able to enlighten us and one of reasons I have repeatedly said Aus rugby is not a good timeslot for Kiwi viewing! Rugb is an international game and that is out advantage ,so we need to use that advantage!!

 

[Omar Comin']

So we're essentially back to the NRC and wondering whether a bit of tinkering can turn that into a viable product.

It's going to be really challenging.

It's not essentially the NRC when it's the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels instead of the associated NRC teams. And when it's the main event, not a secondary development competition after the main season is over.

They can only get so low though. It's really only the young players that can hang around for those minimum value contracts. If you're in your mid-late 20s and that's the option available you are probably pursuing a different career instead and just playing club rugby (like plenty of players do).

Agreed, but I don't think there's any reason to think salary's would get that low. RA would still be able to give some reasonable level of funding to each Australian based team from Wallabies revenues, and the teams themselves may even generate more money from a competition that is actually tailored to our market and not an exercise in international compromise. Broadcasting revenue would likely decrease in the short term, but it probably will regardless of competition format. It's also possible that in the longer term our broadcasting revenue would increase with a tournament focused on our market. The Australian media market is way bigger than NZ's and SA's combined.

The average Super Rugby salary is $225,000 so it could fall a fair bit and still be a pretty decent wage for most 20 somethings. And there'd still be the allure of the gold jersey and bigger contracts with improved form.

 

[kiap]

my club travelled to Perth before the restrictions and played the Western Force. (Not too many Eastwood types went to GPS schools, either).

Likely due to a salt of the earth type in Hodgo.

As for the north shore, there are 150-year-old 'toff boy' schools with boat sheds that don't have a postcode starting with two, you know. Their alumni aren't always gentlemen, though. One of the most rough as guts borderline crims I ever encountered came out of Geelong Grammar (admittedly was expelled before graduation day, but still).

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

There is nothing in that piece that isn’t speculation. Of course Optus are putting the process on hold because they don’t know what the product looks like.

The second half is 100% speculation but in the first half there's a direct quote from the (admittedly outgoing) head of Channel 10 & unattributed ones from people at Optus so that's not really speculation.