• 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

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
On a bit more of a lighthearted note - popular kids program Bluey had its latest episode air today, it ends with the family all gathering around the television and watching the Wallabies beat the All Blacks in a test match.

Good to see the team getting some pop culture airtime! Especially considering the theme of the episode was to tie into the state of origin.
You have spoilt it for me, I always thought it was a true story;)
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
My autistic younger brother loves bluey so maybe need him to convert me lol as watching a program where wallabies beat the kiwis yes please…

My whole family loves Bluey. It is a great Australian story.

Guest voices from Ryan Gosling, Billy Joel, Natalie Portman and , Lin Manuel Miranda - who said it was his "most watched" show of the pandemic. Broad appeal
 

Wilson

David Codey (61)
My whole family loves Bluey. It is a great Australian story.

Guest voices from Ryan Gosling, Billy Joel, Natalie Portman and , Lin Manuel Miranda - who said it was his "most watched" show of the pandemic. Broad appeal
Just under 10 minutes of unapologetically Brisbane based joy to start the day, what's not to love.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Interesting that RA originally asked for a long term agreement on Super Rugby Pacific but NZRU rejected that, hence the 2 year deal that exists now.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Interesting that Rugby Australia originally asked for a long term agreement on Super Rugby Pacific but NZRU rejected that, hence the 2 year deal that exists now.
Maybe because they wanted the option to cut oz teams participating back to 2. All of this seems to underpin why there is a fractious relationship between NZRU and RA and why lingering tensions.

This whole broadcast money disparity between oz and nz which part of the current arguments seems to me to underpin the flaws of this cross border competition. As to have uncertainty of outcome you need teams on a level playing field and so how can oz super rugby teams compete with nz super rugby teams if they (nz clubs) are getting more money to pay and retain players. Must be missing something here.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
Maybe because they wanted the option to cut oz teams participating back to 2. All of this seems to underpin why there is a fractious relationship between NZRU and Rugby Australia and why lingering tensions.

This whole broadcast money disparity between oz and nz which part of the current arguments seems to me to underpin the flaws of this cross border competition. As to have uncertainty of outcome you need teams on a level playing field and so how can oz super rugby teams compete with nz super rugby teams if they (nz clubs) are getting more money to pay and retain players. Must be missing something here.
Maybe that was NZRU hedging there own bets, there must have been a certain level of uncertainty about how the Drua/Pacifika were going to go, even whether the whole competition would be viable. pretty much wanted a get out clause.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Maybe that was NZRU hedging there own bets, there must have been a certain level of uncertainty about how the Drua/Pacifika were going to go, even whether the whole competition would be viable. pretty much wanted a get out clause.
Fair comment. I actually think the competition could have legs if the focus could just be on making it the best competition it could be without competing agendas. But there lies the problem as the parties behind this have other conflicting agendas. Anyhow let’s see what happens as don’t want to rehash old ground.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Maybe that was NZRU hedging there own bets, there must have been a certain level of uncertainty about how the Drua/Pacifika were going to go, even whether the whole competition would be viable. pretty much wanted a get out clause.
Yeah probably were, but if you’re playing that card and refusing to commit long term, then your forcing the other parties to explore other options for their own security.

It would be arrogant to expect other stake holders to be happy with short term contracts and not consider other options.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy_Crouch

Ken Catchpole (46)
Maybe that was NZRU hedging there own bets, there must have been a certain level of uncertainty about how the Drua/Pacifika were going to go, even whether the whole competition would be viable. pretty much wanted a get out clause.
Agree, which is why it is laughable people are blowing up about McLennan's comments. I would be disappointed if they weren't doing their due diligence on best options for us.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Agree, which is why it is laughable people are blowing up about McLennan's comments. I would be disappointed if they weren't doing their due diligence on best options for us.

And as new agreement for super rugby will need to be negotiated you always have more power in bargaining if you have other options that come into play if so what offered with super rugby not so palatable.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'm surprised RA wanted a longer deal than 2 years too. The Stan deal is only 3 years (from 2021 onwards) so RA could've potentially had a competition agreement without a broadcaster?
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Ironically one option RA originally pushed was for Super Rugby Pacific to be a standalone entity with equity ownership split between RA and NZRU, RA even offered NZRU a greater share of equity to get it over the line. Another option that wasn’t supported.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I'm surprised Rugby Australia wanted a longer deal than 2 years too. The Stan deal is only 3 years (from 2021 onwards) so Rugby Australia could've potentially had a competition agreement without a broadcaster?
Not unusual, many competitions have long term or perpetual agreements on participation that exceed the current broadcast agreements.

SANZAAR have all agreed to Rugby Championship until 2025 which is longer then most broadcast agreements.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
I'm surprised Rugby Australia wanted a longer deal than 2 years too. The Stan deal is only 3 years (from 2021 onwards) so Rugby Australia could've potentially had a competition agreement without a broadcaster?

I do wonder how much does Stan come in to all of this, if the original broadcast deal takes them until 2024 then maybe there has been some talk in the background about after that.
The point is last Saturdays Final was not worth a lot to Stan when it was predominantly a NZ product, and with that unlikely to change drastically. Stan maybe more open to a domestic product regardless of the "so called" quality, they would get more content relevant to Australia. They would get a final every year etc,etc.

The issue that RA have is they only have 5 teams, you would need at least 8 long term to make that work, so who funds that.

I don't think for a minute even if we go domestic, there would not be a level of crossover games/Champions league etc.

It is a no brainer long term, but how do you get there.
 
Top