• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

The Ghost of Raelene

Mark Ella (57)
Honestly the major problem with Super Rugly in its current format is that the Australian teams are shit and the marketing is absolutely horrendous. If the Force were strong, then everyone would be interested in watching them play the Auckland Blues.

On a related note, is there a more boring team in Australian sport then the Waratahs (at least recently)? The team has absolutely no identity or character, it just seems to be a bunch of interchangeable (white) guys wearing a sky blue jersey. Compare that to a well marketed team like the Penrith Panthers that actually connects with its fans.
Not really sure why the Waratahs get the bullet there. Lack of character amongst most of our teams. Rebels & Force seem to engage the best.

Penrith connect because they win (exactly what we don't do). If they weren't everyone would think they are obnoxious and not care. Much like the Panthers 2005-2015.

So much can come through Social Media, especially when we lack traditional media exposure compared to others. This element is picking up quite a bit from what I can see through pre season this year. Again, a few years behind what the NRL sides have done but I imagine this isn't through interest but lack of resource to engage the necessary skills.
 
This might sound a bit NSW-centric, but the only thing that will save super rugbys relevance is the the success of the tahs.

We saw it at the start of the past season. There was a buzz around it off the back of the tahs success in 2022. A bumper crowd of 25k at the start of the season and then all momentum lost after a dissapointing performace. Super Rugby needs to the biggest market in Oceania to succeed.

I bet you that if the tahs start getting the same buzz again and build on it. Crowds for the Brumbies and Reds will build.
 

HooperPocockSmith

Jimmy Flynn (14)
The Brums and their supporters aren’t really in a position to throw stones. They’ve had relative success and their crowds continue to dwindle. This is in a market with one competitor (Raiders) vs 9 x NRL sides, 2 x AFL, 3 x A-league + everything else in Sydney.

EDIT: i should have mentioned, I have a lot of respect for the Brumbies football department. They are by far the best at identifying and developing talent. But there seems to be a disconnect between what they do on the field and their commercial engagement.
 
Last edited:

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Harvey Norman first to not renew contract. $5m apparently. Others thinking of going as well.

Im happy Hamish went but I have a feeling outside of the persona he might have been more valuable to the organisation than many think.
Agreed. I also question whether it was the most sensible thing to axe the bloke right before the issue of TV rights comes up - an area of business he knew well, had umpteen contacts in and had proven competency (at least relative to the rest of rugby in the country) by securing a good renegotiation package last time around.

I do question whether a deal couldn't have been driven between him and the states behind closed doors - lets get this centralisation stuff sorted, TV rights and lock down long-term sponsorship deals - but then your gone. Who knows though, maybe they did try that and he said get stuffed. Wouldn't surprise me. He is such a wanker, especially now using his Newscorp contacts to leak texts and try to win a PR battle 1) he can't win and 2) no one gives a toss about.
 

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Feel like the Hammers media contacts were phone numbers he's accumulated but they would look at the ceiling and take a deep breath when they saw his name pop up on theirs.

We all know that guy.
Maybe, but the upper echelons of the business world are full of personality types quite similar to the Hammers - move fast, break things, i'm the smartest guy in the room, fuck off if you dare question me. I suspect many of them were undisturbed my his more egotistical tendencies.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Mark Ella (57)
True.

I'm hoping this change can bring a better long term future than the damage in the immediate wake. It's not as if we are killing it right now with these types. We need different ones.
 

Lorenzo

Colin Windon (37)
It's not the 80s. No one is making $5m/year sponsorship decisions based on the chairman having their phone number and having gone to the same school. There's too much pressure on costs, particularly in a listed operation like Harvey Norman. They pulled the plug because after three years their analytics indicate (correctly, probably) that the product wasn't driving the results they wanted.
 

stillmissit

Desmond Connor (43)
Harvey Norman first to not renew contract. $5m apparently. Others thinking of going as well.

Im happy Hamish went but I have a feeling outside of the persona he might have been more valuable to the organisation than many think.
That's why they wanted to keep him on the board. Just should never have been chairman.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Agreed. I also question whether it was the most sensible thing to axe the bloke right before the issue of TV rights comes up - an area of business he knew well, had umpteen contacts in and had proven competency (at least relative to the rest of rugby in the country) by securing a good renegotiation package last time around.

I do question whether a deal couldn't have been driven between him and the states behind closed doors - lets get this centralisation stuff sorted, TV rights and lock down long-term sponsorship deals - but then your gone. Who knows though, maybe they did try that and he said get stuffed. Wouldn't surprise me. He is such a wanker, especially now using his Newscorp contacts to leak texts and try to win a PR battle 1) he can't win and 2) no one gives a toss about.

TV rights are locked in until the end of 2025 aren't they?

I don't think there are impending negotiations to be had there and he seemed like a major roadblock in relation to centralisation because the states wanted him gone.
 

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
TV rights are locked in until the end of 2025 aren't they?

I don't think there are impending negotiations to be had there and he seemed like a major roadblock in relation to centralisation because the states wanted him gone.
Negotiations seem to be next year, journo chat seems to phrase them as fairly imminent.

On balance I think he should have gone because I think your right he was a roadblock, and from a personal perspective I am happy to not have to hear from him anymore.

I just think it changes none of the fundamental issues with the game, I'm very unconvinced by Dan Herbert who reportedly agreed with all these decisions Hammer has been towelled for, and have my concerns about some potential costs his removal might bring with it.

Generally, I am increasingly of the opinion we'd be better off letting the professional Super model die a sorry death and rebuilding from there around the clubs as we should have done in 1995. But can't do now so long as we have to fund Super teams and remain beholden to the state unions. There are lots of wealthy people who love rugby, and player numbers remain high. The community game is still pretty strong. We are also a big market that World Rugby has a vested interest in keeping alive.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Generally, I am increasingly of the opinion we'd be better off letting the professional Super model die a sorry death and rebuilding from there around the clubs as we should have done in 1995. But can't do now so long as we have to fund Super teams and remain beholden to the state unions. There are lots of wealthy people who love rugby, and player numbers remain high. The community game is still pretty strong. We are also a big market that World Rugby has a vested interest in keeping alive.

Saying we should have opted for something different in 1995 is absolutely revisionist. There was no other option. We had one party offering a substantial amount of money to our best players.

The alternative was being like the Australian Cricket Board when World Series Cricket came along and banning all the best players and selecting a test team made up of second rate players who didn't get offers to play Super Rugby.

RA is beholden to the state unions. It is a union of unions.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Saying we should have opted for something different in 1995 is absolutely revisionist. There was no other option. We had one party offering a substantial amount of money to our best players.

The alternative was being like the Australian Cricket Board when World Series Cricket came along and banning all the best players and selecting a test team made up of second rate players who didn't get offers to play Super Rugby.

RA is beholden to the state unions. It is a union of unions.

I'd suggest though, that we are well past the time where that call moved from "could have" to should have happened.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Despite being an avid rugby supporter in the mid 90's, I probably couldn't have named more than one club team from the Sydney and Brisbane competitions at that time.

The suggestion that Australian rugby should've built a professional rugby competition around the clubs citing the NRL and AFL as a comparison is a false equivalence - those club teams were the pinnacles of their sport with far greater support, money and brand awareness.

As BH said, based on what was being offered at the time it was the correct decision to lay the foundations of a competition on the stronger brands with the Reds and Tahs, along with an ACT side, with their concentrated player pool to compete against NZ and SA teams.

The problem is not what we did back then, it's what we've done, or haven't done since.
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
TV rights are locked in until the end of 2025 aren't they?

I don't think there are impending negotiations to be had there and he seemed like a major roadblock in relation to centralisation because the states wanted him gone.

If you are right 27 months to run, so 16 months before in depth negotiations need to take place. People relax we have time.

Replacing H, will not be the issue in the negotiation, the drivers will be, increasing subscription numbers for Stan, rating performances for 9, and general media talk which in part will be effected by crowds, and in part by how the rugby family see the outcome of the various issues on the table now.

The lose of key sponsors i.e. HN and the rumours pertaining to Cadbury, hHHHmmmm not to concerned, sponsors come and go, media presence is the key, my gut tells me, HN & Cadbury will be replaced for less than they pay, meaning cutting the cloth to stay within budget.

With, BL tour and 27WC, the expectation is for an increased media deal, a lot will depend on restoring confidence and belief to get back those who have left.

They key driver to restore confidence and belief IMO is getting a new media deal, that for revenue reasons will need to include Super Rugby, but with the development of a clear pathway to run a 22 to 28 week national domestic competition, with a champions league ending with NZ.
 

Goosestep

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Honestly the major problem with Super Rugly in its current format is that the Australian teams are shit and the marketing is absolutely horrendous. If the Force were strong, then everyone would be interested in watching them play the Auckland Blues.

On a related note, is there a more boring team in Australian sport then the Waratahs (at least recently)? The team has absolutely no identity or character, it just seems to be a bunch of interchangeable (white) guys wearing a sky blue jersey. Compare that to a well marketed team like the Penrith Panthers that actually connects with its fans.
Let’s be honest the Waratahs has always been a is a shit name to get behind ..

Waratahs … it’s sounds so lukewarm for a football team.



 
Top