• 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.

Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Too much STAN rugby is never enough. But for us lazy b....s it would be nice if there was a thread telling us which games in the Premiership comp are worth watching every week?
 

Dctarget

Andrew Slack (58)
Too much STAN rugby is never enough. But for us lazy b....s it would be nice if there was a thread telling us which games in the Premiership comp are worth watching every week?
Good idea Wamb, I like chatting about French rugby so I've started a thread for NH 2021-22 season. Can discuss the Premiership, Top 14, Pro 14, Six Nations, European Cup etc.

 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Wallaby vs France 1st Test
Metro GEM: 323,000
Metro + Regional: 429,000
Stan: 200,000
Total: 629,000

Wallaby vs France 2nd Test
Metro GEM: 326,000
Metro + Regional: TBC
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Wallabies vs France 3rd Test
Metro Nine: 496,000
Metro + Regional: 691,000
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Bledisloe Cup Game 1
Metro GEM: 304,000
Metro + Regional: 395,000
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Bledisloe Cup Game 3
Metro GEM: 281,000

Wallabies vs Sprinboks Game 1
Metro GEM: 263,000

Wallabies vs Sprinboks Game 2
Metro GEM: 336,000
Metro + Regional: 464,000
They viewership figures are interesting. They do seem to suggest that a lot of aussie fans are a bit over watching us lose back to back games against the all blacks. The fact that the 3rd test against france was by far the most popular doesnt surprise me. Fans are clearly more engaged when the wallabies are winning test matches...all of this just reinforces my world view that the wallabies should be playing rhe all blacks less and should be playing other nations more often
 

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
They viewership figures are interesting. They do seem to suggest that a lot of aussie fans are a bit over watching us lose back to back games against the all blacks. The fact that the 3rd test against france was by far the most popular doesnt surprise me. Fans are clearly more engaged when the wallabies are winning test matches...all of this just reinforces my world view that the wallabies should be playing rhe all blacks less and should be playing other nations more often
Yes please, that means the ABs play other nations more, but we all know we not going to get our wish.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Yes - that's also the issue for Stan buying more rugby content: will they pull more subscribers by showing French rugby, 6 Nations, even MLR, etc? Or do they get essentially 100% of rugby fans with SRAU/TT/P and Rugby Championship? No commercial benefit to paying more money for more competitions of no more subscribers. I suppose they do want to make it attractive 12 mo a year for rugby subscribers, otherwise I'll be cancelling it once TRC finishes.
Yeh I am a tight bastard and would cancel kayo when super rugby finished but now with so much rugby on tap I just leave it with the other subscriptions (fletch, Amazon prime, Disney plus, Netflix and stan).
 

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yes please, that means the ABs play other nations more, but we all know we not going to get our wish.
And just to add, was sitting here reading my Rugby News and Aaron Smith has an article on playing his 100th. Saying how grateful he was with the presentation from Michael Hooper who he respects highly and gets on with well, it was a print featuring the matches he has played against Wallabies. he has played them 25 out of 100 tests, seemed a little too many to me, just a little to much of one team.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
And just to add, was sitting here reading my Rugby News and Aaron Smith has an article on playing his 100th. Saying how grateful he was with the presentation from Michael Hooper who he respects highly and gets on with well, it was a print featuring the matches he has played against Wallabies. he has played them 25 out of 100 tests, seemed a little too many to me, just a little to much of one team.
If the world league or what ever called got off would have solved this as would if they move the World Cup to every 2 years.
 
Last edited:

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
If the world league or what ever called got off would have solved this as would it if they move World Cup to every 2 years.
Yep like a world league, but really dislike a WC every 2 years, that's all rugby would be about a WC, I think 4 years is more than often enough. Although some kind of World league would be great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BDA

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Yep like a world league, but really dislike a WC every 2 years, that's all rugby would be about a WC, I think 4 years is more than often enough. Although some kind of World league would be great.
I think World Cup every 2 years being raised is only because world league got canned - same concept really
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
The way the global game is financed would have to change dramatically if the World Cup was to be played every two years.

I think it would be a really bad move. It would reduce how special it is substantially and I think it would reduce the attractiveness for host countries significantly.
 

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
And there's the elephant in the room: the European clubs. So basically the same as FIFA again.

Perhaps an alternative could be something akin to cricket's Champion's (Champions'? Champignons?) Trophy. Handful (8?) of top ranked teams, all killer, no filler, two pools, semis, final. Kept compact, during test window. Played at non-traditional rugby venue/s (US, Dubai, Honduras), or maybe rugby nations that wouldn't host a RWC in the immediate future (a tournament in Argentina and Uruguay would be fucking mint).

This allows for a revenue split between the sides, with maybe a kitty set aside for non-competing sides so they don't fall away. Gives some incentive to keep test rankings up (i.e. take every test seriously). Maybe even have a wild card spot. Love to see a side like Georgia competing.

Add interesting prizes, something money can't buy. Like beers with the Emir for the winning side.

Probably a ton of logistical, legal, economic, and cultural (forgive me Your Highness ) reasons why it would never get off the ground. But then again, this just happened:

Z.jpg
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
The way the global game is financed would have to change dramatically if the World Cup was to be played every two years.

I think it would be a really bad move. It would reduce how special it is substantially and I think it would reduce the attractiveness for host countries significantly.
In effect they are creating a world league concept except every 2 years. If we had the world league (ie it got up) there would not be this push. The idea is it gives tier 2 nations more matches and really the same drivers as the world league concept. I can see why commercially they would push this. The difference was world league funded by private equity. Personally would rather the world league concept every year but if can’t have that can understand reasons to push World Cup to bi-annual cycle
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
The Tier 1 nations will vote it down unless there is a significant change to the funding model.
Well northern hemisphere countries scuppered world league. Yes the funding model would need to be reviewed and changed for sure. You are right that a lot of the commercial side would need to be re-engineered before this saw the light of day. I am not closed to the idea but agree lot more due diligence required to see if this would be feasible. Personally prefer the world league concept but this seems dead now and not much chance of being revisited given different pe investment in six nations etc
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Wallaby vs France 1st Test
Metro GEM: 323,000
Metro + Regional: 429,000
Stan: 200,000
Total: 629,000

Wallaby vs France 2nd Test
Metro GEM: 326,000
Metro + Regional: TBC
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Wallabies vs France 3rd Test
Metro Nine: 496,000
Metro + Regional: 691,000
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Bledisloe Cup Game 1
Metro GEM: 304,000
Metro + Regional: 395,000
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Bledisloe Cup Game 3
Metro GEM: 281,000

Wallabies vs Sprinboks Game 1
Metro GEM: 263,000

Wallabies vs Sprinboks Game 2
Metro GEM: 336,000
Metro + Regional: 464,000

Wallabies vs Argentina Game 1
Metro Nine: 269,000
Metro + Regional: 407,000
 
  • Like
Reactions: mst

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Wallaby vs France 1st Test
Metro GEM: 323,000
Metro + Regional: 429,000
Stan: 200,000
Total: 629,000

Wallaby vs France 2nd Test
Metro GEM: 326,000
Metro + Regional: TBC
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Wallabies vs France 3rd Test
Metro Nine: 496,000
Metro + Regional: 691,000
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Bledisloe Cup Game 1
Metro GEM: 304,000
Metro + Regional: 395,000
Stan: TBC
Total: TBC

Bledisloe Cup Game 3
Metro GEM: 281,000

Wallabies vs Sprinboks Game 1
Metro GEM: 263,000

Wallabies vs Sprinboks Game 2
Metro GEM: 336,000
Metro + Regional: 464,000

Wallabies vs Argentina Game 1
Metro Nine: 269,000
Metro + Regional: 407,000
Not bad figures considering nrl/afl finals plus playing Argentina which not such a draw card Cf. boks
 
Last edited:

Derpus

Rod McCall (65)
Not sure this is the right thread but anyone else notice the complete hyperbole in the Aussie press at the moment. Apparently we are odds on to win the next RWC.
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Not sure this is the right thread but anyone else notice the complete hyperbole in the Aussie press at the moment. Apparently we are odds on to win the next RWC.

News Corp have taken a strange turn and writing positive articles about rugby again, are they finally over the ‘acting-out’ phase of the break up?
 
  • Confused
Reactions: dru
Top