• 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

LeCheese

Dave Cowper (27)
Which part is unachievable, to me this is straight forward.
Nothing about setting up a competitive and sustainable competition is straightforward.
Second, must have a media deal, that provides maximum exposure to the general public. Just makes sense.
Assuming 'maximum exposure' = fully FTA, it may make sense, but you can't demand this for a brand new, unproven comp. Broadcasters would want to see big numbers and growth over a number of years to even consider it.
Fourth, pick stadiums that are affordable and reflect crowds. Huge issue to cut costs to help maintain the competition
Tahs, Rebels, Brumbies, and Force already play smaller stadiums. A smaller stadium ~25k is not available for the Reds. I also recall evidence in another thread that matches are not being run at a loss, even with lower numbers in larger stadiums.
Sixth, the National Domestic Competition must be run and administered by the independent clubs, and they should also be responsible for funding the competition. This is how you get people to invest and more than likely run and operate it better than a governing body
That Rugby Australia as the governing body set the rules for a National Domestic Competition but the competition is independent from Rugby Australia, with Rugby Australia having little say in how its run other that to set the broader ground rules.
Issues of governance without an overarching body and disconnect with Rugby AU's interests aside, it would be a hard sell for clubs (i.e. private investors in your proposal) to agree to funding at the level required for an internationally-competitive (re: salaries, playing standards, resources, etc.) competition that is unproven (particularly when previous attempts like NRC have failed), has no big TV deal bringing in funds (as mentioned before), and when rugby is on a downwards trajectory in popularity.
Test match series must fit in with the National Domestic Competition not the other way around.
Good luck telling World Rugby you've got a clash and that they need to change when you have literally no leverage
Set KPI's that if not reached result in management in charge of those KPI's being sacked.
Hard and fast punitive measures (especially when linked to often-poorly-crafted KPIs) are one of the worst things possible for attraction and retention of talent.
 
Last edited:

half

John Solomon (38)
sigh sigh do I cry sob or is it the more things change the more they stay the same.

Mate

USA, Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Football, RUGBY

Europe, Basketball, Volleyball, Football, and RUGBY [mostly]

Africa, Football,

Japan, Basketball, Football

China, Football, RUGBY

Japan, Baseball, Football,

South America, Football, Volleyball, Basketball

Indonesia, Football,

India, IPL teams, Football

Australia, AFL, NRL, Football.

E-sports today are in team competitions run by independent people.

All the above manage it, for the love of the holy mother its like the world does it this way. Rugby is dying but rugby folk think the model is wrong for rugby or unachievable, its simply insane. For heavens look at the US and major league rugby is privately owned and guess what Adam Gilcrest owns one of the teams.

At some point the penny must drop, look at how to do it and how to make it work, not find every single thing that needs solving and saying well its to hard then.
 

half

John Solomon (38)
Much of the framework that Half suggested is setting up basic structures in place to ensure that the competition has a chance to grow and become viable, the issue has always been that any 2nd tier competition is so compromised because it is essentially just a feeder comp for the national teams as such it is never in a postion to evolve or adapt to grow, even Super Rugby pacific will ultimately falter as it wiil inevitably hit that reality.

It is the catch 22 of rugby here, without genuine growth at a domestic level the Wallabies will never really get any better, yet the whole structure of the game pretty much ensures that domestic growth will never happen, so outside of a couple of years of sugar hits here and there when the Wallabies overperform it is just rinse & repeat.

It just seems a bit ironic that any domestic competition is constantly met with calls of pipedreams and unrealistic expectations, yet many of those same people happily lapped up 20 years of Super rugby taking over the world. Now whatever happened to those South American and Asian conferences!!!
Bad day and I swore off getting into the same old again and again.

But the reasons used for it not working are so so soooooooooo flawed and as you correctly posted, all I have set out is simply the structure to make it work and for those who think there are no investors, do they live on Mars. As I posted above Adam Gilcrest owns a US MLR side, why would he not buy an Australian side.

Sadly I think some things never change.
 

LeCheese

Dave Cowper (27)
sigh sigh do I cry sob or is it the more things change the more they stay the same.

Mate

USA, Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Football, RUGBY

Europe, Basketball, Volleyball, Football, and RUGBY [mostly]

Africa, Football,

Japan, Basketball, Football

China, Football, RUGBY

Japan, Baseball, Football,

South America, Football, Volleyball, Basketball

Indonesia, Football,

India, IPL teams, Football

Australia, AFL, NRL, Football.

E-sports today are in team competitions run by independent people.

All the above manage it, for the love of the holy mother its like the world does it this way. Rugby is dying but rugby folk think the model is wrong for rugby or unachievable, its simply insane. For heavens look at the US and major league rugby is privately owned and guess what Adam Gilcrest owns one of the teams.

At some point the penny must drop, look at how to do it and how to make it work, not find every single thing that needs solving and saying well its to hard then.
Have a read of my points again. The only issue I flag to do with private ownership/funding is them being reluctant to solely fund the comp initially. Private ownership is likely the way forward.

The point is that it is unrealistic and naïve to assume that a new domestic comp will immediately fix be able to:
a) attract substantial investment (incl. a better TV deal)
b) attract and retain talent
c) reengage fans
 

half

John Solomon (38)
Have a read of my points again. The only issue I flag to do with private ownership/funding is them being reluctant to solely fund the comp initially. Private ownership is likely the way forward.

The point is that it is unrealistic and naïve to assume that a new domestic comp will immediately fix be able to:
a) attract substantial investment (incl. a better TV deal)
b) attract and retain talent
c) reengage fans
HHHHmmmmm if you ever read my previous posts on these matters you will see I always said the process will take five years.

Years One & Two, gather all stakeholders together agree on a general concept and vote in a group to design a new pyramid structure, from park to say regional level, then above this will sit the NDC. The stakeholder met adjust and in time approve the new design.

Year three, develop the concept to a working documents that can be used as the new structure / format,

Year four invite private business to buy teams in the new structure, and for those teams to create the NDC from the blueprint provided by the governing body.

Year five implement the plan.

As to your points

a) attract substantial investment (incl. a better TV deal)

True but media reports have indicated our broadcast partners like the idea of a longer NDC, equally there is no indication they won't neither.
b) attract and retain talent

Simply wrong more teams playing for longer will retain more talent for starters you have more spots to fill.

c) reengage fans

Seriously a shorter season with dominate overseas teams will reengage fans more than a longer local season, you must have studied marketing at a different uni to me.
 

LeCheese

Dave Cowper (27)
HHHHmmmmm if you ever read my previous posts on these matters you will see I always said the process will take five years.
Apologies for not being across all of your posts ever made.....

Your list of non-negotiables implied a NRL-level TV deal, massive amounts of funding, etc. were all required from the outset of the competition - my point is that you would need a number of seasons of footy being played, demonstrating it is a viable product, for that to occur.

a) attract substantial investment (incl. a better TV deal)
True but media reports have indicated our broadcast partners like the idea of a longer NDC, equally there is no indication they won't neither.
Stan/Nine have indicated they would support a domestic comp from '24, when their two-year option for broadcast rights can be enacted (or sign a new deal) - essentially giving them a get out of jail free card if it bombs after two years. There's been no indication they would be willing to come to the table with a bigger deal, nor broadcast a majority on free-to-air.

b) attract and retain talent
Simply wrong more teams playing for longer will retain more talent for starters you have more spots to fill.
Not if there isn't the level of initial investment required for salaries competitive or greater than current Super salaries, let alone competing with international markets.

c) reengage fans
Seriously a shorter season with dominate overseas teams will reengage fans more than a longer local season, you must have studied marketing at a different uni to me.
The A-league has a 26 game season and domestic competition. How's that going? Reengaging fans will take a hell of a lot more than just a new product, especially if some of the historic team names disappear / are split – work will need to be done on grass roots, how the game is played, advertising and media strategies, broader strategic development, etc. A coordinated approach across all of those domains becomes a hell of a lot more difficult without the involvement of a governing body such as Rugby Australia.
 

Jimmyjam

Alfred Walker (16)
I'd love to see a model as follows... a fully domestic competition of 8 teams x 2 rounds and finals.. circa 18 weeks. Followed by a short Heineken cup style involving the top 16 teams from NZ, Aust, Japan, possibly with other participants like Samoa, Tonga etc with 4 pools, round robin and finals... circa 6 weeks followed by the inbound tour and RC. Really solid schedule, much less travel, best of both worlds. The A program running parallel with the inbound tour and RC. Anyway, my 2 bobs worth.... Would think it would appeal to the broadcasters with most games in prime time-zones. With content also potentially coming from a NZ domestic comp as per last year would really fill the weekend with high quality matches all year!
 

John S

Trevor Allan (34)
Aaaaaaand the "where to for Super Rugby" thread has been reincarnated.....,..

Granted there has been the broadcast issues being discussed
 

Derpus

Tim Horan (67)
Aaaaaaand the "where to for Super Rugby" thread has been reincarnated.....,..

Granted there has been the broadcast issues being discussed
can't stave off the existential angst for long... it's always bubbling right beneath the surface.
 

liquor box

John Thornett (49)
I prefer short seasons, 12 weeks is plenty (plus finals). This allows a traditional club competitions to operate, a national competition and test matches.

The main reason I prefer a short competition is that every game and every decision has an impact on the final outcome of the season.
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
I prefer short seasons, 12 weeks is plenty (plus finals). This allows a traditional club competitions to operate, a national competition and test matches.

The main reason I prefer a short competition is that every game and every decision has an impact on the final outcome of the season.
The trade off is a shorter season means less content for a broadcaster to buy, the amount of live content to broadcast directly correlates to what a broadcaster will pay.

I also think in Australia it means we don’t build any tribalism, fail to develop players, and the teams get forgotten about for 80% of the year.

I think there’s a happy medium between making all game count, and presenting a package which appeals to fans and broadcasters.
 

liquor box

John Thornett (49)
The trade off is a shorter season means less content for a broadcaster to buy, the amount of live content to broadcast directly correlates to what a broadcaster will pay.

I also think in Australia it means we don’t build any tribalism, fail to develop players, and the teams get forgotten about for 80% of the year.

I think there’s a happy medium between making all game count, and presenting a package which appeals to fans and broadcasters.
I would like 12 week NRC, 12 Week Super Rugby and about 8 weeks for Internationals in our winter.
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
Finally some positive discussion from across the ditch about how to deal with super rugby and improve the product, albeit from the broadcaster:

65BB8A06-BED4-4E2B-BBC5-8755C05B0AF2.jpeg

 
Last edited:

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Finally some positive discussion from across the ditch about how to deal with super rugby and improve the product, albeit from the broadcaster:

View attachment 14580

From another article earlier last week you got the feeling that he wants to see SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) become more of a focus in terms of building the competition as more than the current held view of NZRugby (and Rugby Australia as well) as a extended trial system for the ABs as opposed to a commercial entity. Also talked about Super Rugby fans going into hibernation for long periods of time which could be an indicator of wanting a longer season in the future.
 

qwerty51

Nathan Sharpe (72)
From another article earlier last week you got the feeling that he wants to see (SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) super rugby pacific) become more of a focus in terms of building the competition as more than the current held view of NZRugby (and Rugby Australia as well) as a extended trial system for the ABs as opposed to a commercial entity. Also talked about Super Rugby fans going into hibernation for long periods of time which could be an indicator of wanting a longer season in the future.
So someone sane. Good.
 

KevinO

Greg Davis (50)
sigh sigh do I cry sob or is it the more things change the more they stay the same.

Mate

USA, Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Football, RUGBY

Europe, Basketball, Volleyball, Football, and RUGBY [mostly]

Africa, Football,

Japan, Basketball, Football

China, Football, RUGBY

Japan, Baseball, Football,

South America, Football, Volleyball, Basketball

Indonesia, Football,

India, IPL teams, Football

Australia, AFL, NRL, Football.

E-sports today are in team competitions run by independent people.

All the above manage it, for the love of the holy mother its like the world does it this way. Rugby is dying but rugby folk think the model is wrong for rugby or unachievable, its simply insane. For heavens look at the US and major league rugby is privately owned and guess what Adam Gilcrest owns one of the teams.

At some point the penny must drop, look at how to do it and how to make it work, not find every single thing that needs solving and saying well its to hard then.
You missed one for India, the Indian hockey league is the biggest hockey comp in the world. Draws all the best players from around the world in the same fashion the IPL works. One of the teams even plays in a 30k stadium.
 

KentwellCup>ShuteShield

Frank Nicholson (4)
With this talk of a new domestic comp, does anyone think one would work with premier clubs?

Reach out to shute shield and QLD premier clubs, see who's interested and who wants to make the jump.
For me, a domestic comp with Super Rugby teams does not appeal to me what so ever.
 
Top