Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Braveheart81]

I asked some questions about the proposed change. I'm not saying I have all the answers.

For a competition that is trying to nestle itself between Super Rugby and Club Rugby it seems like a major challenge playing alongside both competitions. For that reason you would need complete buy-in from the clubs (particularly in Sydney) where they are significant stakeholders in the NRC teams.

I'm unsure why questioning whether trying to avoid competing with the NRL and AFL finals and instead competing for viewers with Super Rugby and Club Rugby means I am wedded to ideas and structures of the past.

 

[barbarian]

Yeah pushing the NRC to intersect with Club and Super Rugby makes no sense to me at all.

The whole point of it is a development pathway, which allows the best club players to play against non-Wallaby Super players.

And this statement is patently incorrect:

There actually aren't that many super players in it anyway.

A quick scan of the team sheets from last week and I counted over 40 Super Rugby players (that I knew of) in action - not fringe contracted EPS blokes, but guys who played full seasons. The Vikings, Spirit and Rising especially- they are fielding more than 10 Super blokes in their starting 23s.

Moving it earlier in the season would defeat the purpose. Clubs won't let their best players go, and the Super teams would only let 3rd and 4th stringers out. It would be a shell of a competition.
.

 

[half]

As I have always posted Super Rugby rates slightly more the A-L. Further let me acknowledge A-L owners have hugely helped with funding.

Also let me acknowledge soccer participation rate means ads like Yoshi are impracticable and we would get torn to shreds especially on social media.

Having said all this an A-League competition by itself for Australian use only looks like receiving more than a combined rugby media deal, which if media reports are correct, was increased mostly because of European buying.

The game numbers are not that different the A-League about 15 more I think.

In the famous words of Mr Miller "Why is this so".

 

[Train Without a Station]

Half,

The A-League has 135 games featuring local teams in a season. If they manage an $80M deal that's $590k per regular season game disregarding finals.

The current broadcast deal that the ARU is locked into is around $55M.

That is 94 games featuring the 6 Australian teams (including the Wallabies). That works out at around around $585k per game.

That's probably a reasonable assessment as it does not consider the NZ and SA Rights, but also does not consider games featuring only these teams.

The A-League has double the amount of local teams as Super Rugby, and the season is 27 games as opposed to 16.

That's a significantly higher quantity of broadcast product.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Half,

The A-League has 135 games featuring local teams in a season. If they manage an $80M deal that's $590k per regular season game disregarding finals.

The current broadcast deal that the ARU is locked into is around $55M.

That is 94 games featuring the 6 Australian teams (including the Wallabies). That works out at around around $585k per game.

That's probably a reasonable assessment as it does not consider the NZ and SA Rights, but also does not consider games featuring only these teams.

The A-League has double the amount of local teams as Super Rugby, and the season is 27 games as opposed to 16.

That's a significantly higher quantity of broadcast product.

Do Foxsports pay for all the games featuring Aus teams or just the ones they produce?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Not sure. But in order to consider the value we disregard the SA and NZ income so we aren't considering SA and NZ income of our games if we are considering our income on theirs. I assume we also divide the European income by 3 and the increase is the Aus share of that.

 

[half]

Half,

The A-League has 135 games featuring local teams in a season. If they manage an $80M deal that's $590k per regular season game disregarding finals.

The current broadcast deal that the ARU is locked into is around $55M.

That is 94 games featuring the 6 Australian teams (including the Wallabies). That works out at around around $585k per game.

That's probably a reasonable assessment as it does not consider the NZ and SA Rights, but also does not consider games featuring only these teams.

The A-League has double the amount of local teams as Super Rugby, and the season is 27 games as opposed to 16.

That's a significantly higher quantity of broadcast product.

From the 2017 schedule http://www.superxv.com/fixtures

My understanding is 17 rounds at 8 games per round, thats 136 games. Plus Wallabies.

Also as you said the 55 million includes the Tri Nations. Media reports said at the time all or most of the increase for Super Rugby was from Europe.

Additionally the soccer deal will be reduced because they are insisting on being shown on a commercial FTA station. Also FFA will be paid in a separate deal for most of their Socceroo matches.

Soccer has a 30 game I think FFA Cup, rugby has roughly the same with NRC.

The huge difference which to me stands out is soccer is a national domestic competition. You also need to remember were soccer came from and the often negative press it gets.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yes half but if we consider all games not featuring Australian teams we need to consider the NZRU and SARU income from the deal.

And that income increase is from Europe. But again it is split between 3 teams.

So based on that then Super Rugby and the Test season brings in around $1.2M AUD per game. The ARU only sees 1 third of that, but also only needs to fund 1 third of that.

Where Soccer came from it was the 2nd most played football code in Australia. Don't forget that part.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think this is the core takeaway more much of this thread.

The situation isn't binary and if I or someone else disagrees with a suggestion by half or Rugbynutter39 or anyone else in this thread it is not because we think everything is fine and nothing needs to be changed.

Very clearly change does need to happen but care needs to be taken as well because the finances of Australian Rugby are not strong enough to be able to absorb a big loss caused by making a bad decision.

One of the biggest considerations for rugby in Australia compared with other sports is that there is significant opportunity for players to earn as much or more money overseas (depending on their status within the game) and as such decisions can't be pursued that require players to take huge pay cuts.

All of my points raise the need for financial due diligence and financial model that considers any changes rolled out to minimise financial risks.

But bigger risk is not changing I think we also agree. As seems all agree change is required, so debate on what needs to change and how should change and speed of change have different viewpoints. What I do appreciate is at least having this debate on what needs to change and how. As I don't think anyone is suggesting it is easy but that we need to move to a better model but won't get there overnight and need to work out how we can make gradual jumps to get us there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yes half but if we consider all games not featuring Australian teams we need to consider the NZRU and SARU income from the deal.

And that income increase is from Europe. But again it is split between 3 teams.

So based on that then Super Rugby and the Test season brings in around $1.2M AUD per game. The ARU only sees 1 third of that, but also only needs to fund 1 third of that.

Where Soccer came from it was the 2nd most played football code in Australia. Don't forget that part.

So what is the solution - all I hear is problems of others solutions but not a way to solve them.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

So what is the solution - all I hear is problems of others solutions but not a way to solve them.

The nub of the problem is that there is a gap between what our game offers a viewing audience and what the main competing games offer (AFL and NRL).

The gap is widening. This is because our game is not governed by Australia, for Australian tastes. The NRL and AFL are governed by Australia, and are designed and run for and by Australians.

The question is, what can be done to close the gap in expectations and preferences?


Answer that and you will have your solution.

 

[p.Tah]

To appeal to Australuan tastes perhaps we bring in Pauline Hanson as a consultant.

 

[Quick Hands]

. Clubs won't let their best players go
.

Clubs don't own players.

 

[Quick Hands]

So what is the solution - all I hear is problems of others solutions but not a way to solve them.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What we're essentially seeing are the same arguments being put forward in the last couple of pages that other codes had 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The adminstrators of those other codes bit the bullet and got their national competition.

There were people in Melbourne who argued against the VFL becoming the AFL, the AFL is a reality and yet the Melbourne clubs still play their VFL games, it's just at a lower level. There were people in Sydney who argued against the NSWRL becoming the ARL/NRL, same result - all those Sydney clubs still play against each other in a Sydney competition, it just sits below the NRL. Believe it or not when Newcastle and Brisbane came into the competition, people in Newcastle and Brisbane league estabishments argued against it on the basis that it would wreck the local club competitions - well, those competitions are still going. The same would have occurred at any sport that has a national league. So it's just a red herring that people put up; if the NRC moved to a two round competition, Shute Shield and it's equivalents would still go on just as those other ones that I have mentioned still do (incidentally, I find it a little ironic that the people running this line have historically belittled the Shute Shield at every opportunity, bagged Brett Papworth and some have even said that SS has and does hold back and/or sabotage rugby in Australia).

The idea that rugby can't have a home and away national league of 8 teams run during the rugby season is too ridiculous for words.

Another red herring is the super rugby argument - the games that I have watched have featured very few super rugby players, some almost none. But let's not forget that an earlier start would see super rugby players available for NRC during the June test window and then as soon as their team finished the super season, so in fact they would be available for more games than they are now or at the very least the same number.

As you've identified there a some posters here who delight in knocking every idea that anyone puts forward to improve things. Keep up the good work, it's easy to be discouraged sometimes, but you're on the right track. There's plenty of us, but often it's better to communicate and share ideas by conversations.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What we're essentially seeing are the same arguments being put forward in the last couple of pages that other codes had 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The adminstrators of those other codes bit the bullet and got their national competition.

There were people in Melbourne who argued against the VFL becoming the AFL, the AFL is a reality and yet the Melbourne clubs still play their VFL games, it's just at a lower level. There were people in Sydney who argued against the NSWRL becoming the ARL/NRL, same result - all those Sydney clubs still play against each other in a Sydney competition, it just sits below the NRL. Believe it or not when Newcastle and Brisbane came into the competition, people in Newcastle and Brisbane league estabishments argued against it on the basis that it would wreck the local club competitions - well, those competitions are still going. The same would have occurred at any sport that has a national league. So it's just a red herring that people put up; if the NRC moved to a two round competition, Shute Shield and it's equivalents would still go on just as those other ones that I have mentioned still do (incidentally, I find it a little ironic that the people running this line have historically belittled the Shute Shield at every opportunity, bagged Brett Papworth and some have even said that SS has and does hold back and/or sabotage rugby in Australia).

The idea that rugby can't have a home and away national league of 8 teams run during the rugby season is too ridiculous for words.

Another red herring is the super rugby argument - the games that I have watched have featured very few super rugby players, some almost none. But let's not forget that an earlier start would see super rugby players available for NRC during the June test window and then as soon as their team finished the super season, so in fact they would be available for more games than they are now or at the very least the same number.

As you've identified there a some posters here who delight in knocking every idea that anyone puts forward to improve things. Keep up the good work, it's easy to be discouraged sometimes, but you're on the right track. There's plenty of us, but often it's better to communicate and share ideas by conversations.

Yes I lived in Melbourne during transition from vfl to afl - and heard same arguments and traditionalist trying to hold on to what they know and keep the vfl.

Rugby's long term survival and growth rather than just limiting the decline has to be around a national professional domestic competition if it is to have any chance of competing against rival
Codes. Won't happen overnight but got to be working towards that as long term goal.

Nrc step in right direction towards that long term goal imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

QH do you deliberately ignore reality or are you just oblivious?

Firstly, when the VFL and NSWRL expanded there was no international market for players which necessitated maintaining existing revenue streams in order to retain the best players. There were no international competitions for them to be compared to negatively if they lost the best player.

Expanding didn't require them to give up existing revenue streams. Just to add new markets to their existing competitions. The expansion of the NSWRL DID wreck the BRL and relegate it to a 2nd tier competition.

What none of those codes did was look at dramatically increasing their cost base (number of teams) while maintaining the same or less revenue which many are saying is achievable based on the A-League.

What nobody is able to explain is that how with the ARU having zero cash reserves, and the average player salary around the world increasing, how a competition is going to be able to fund twice as many teams on the same or less revenue, with based on the A-League evolution, very little expected growth in crowds or TV viewers, and how this will sustain the code going forward?

Rugbynutter, what's my solution?

Well based on the alternatives proposed, my solution is maintaining the status quo, because we are better off with that than certain bankruptcy which is what will occur unless a national rugby competition vastly exceeds the "success" of the A-League, which competes in a much less congested market.

This isn't a "you have to take a risk to get the reward" scenario. This is a scenario where you have to have some reasonable expectation of success to consider it. Unless we think a national competition in lieu of Super Rugby will bring in twice as many viewers and attendees as the A-League and twice the TV revenue then it would not sustain Australian rugby through the first TV deal.

Yes a domestic competition is the way forward. But without either:

* cash reserves (which are currently empty); or
* a mature competition that will bring in immediate revenue;

This is just not a feasible move.

I don't take delight in knocking every idea. I'm just trying to point out the reality that the ARU actually have to deal with in response to the people who are knocking the ARU when they essentially say "oh it's easy, just do this instead".

Nobody has addressed a single one of these issues/constraints that I keep repeating. Why? Because it doesn't stack up. Probably a big reason why the ARU is still locked into Super Rugby.

 

[barbarian]

QH you have continually made this personal, somehow thinking your subtle-but-not-subtle jabs are intelligent. I'm not just going to sit back while you throw these pithy, pissy jabs at me and Braveheart, because your arguments are just ridiculous.

Let's start with this one:

There were people in Melbourne who argued against the VFL becoming the AFL, the AFL is a reality and yet the Melbourne clubs still play their VFL games, it's just at a lower level. There were people in Sydney who argued against the NSWRL becoming the ARL/NRL, same result - all those Sydney clubs still play against each other in a Sydney competition, it just sits below the NRL. Believe it or not when Newcastle and Brisbane came into the competition, people in Newcastle and Brisbane league estabishments argued against it on the basis that it would wreck the local club competitions - well, those competitions are still going. The same would have occurred at any sport that has a national league. So it's just a red herring that people put up; if the NRC moved to a two round competition, Shute Shield and it's equivalents would still go on just as those other ones that I have mentioned still do.

All you are saying here is 'expansion worked for the NRL and AFL, so therefore all change is good'. What about the NBL? How did their expansion go? Just ask all those West Sydney Razorbacks fans, hey. Or the SIngapore Slingers fans. Or really any fans of that league. What about the defunct clubs in the A-League? What about the Western Reds or Adelaide Rams in the NRL?

Life sometimes doesn't go on. Change is not always a good thing. Just saying 'it worked for the NRL and AFL' is a pretty silly way to approach a very complex issue.

But ultimately the problem is that this:

The idea that rugby can't have a home and away national league of 8 teams run during the rugby season is too ridiculous for words.

Is a flat out misrepresentation of what me and BH are arguing. We aren't saying that it couldn't happen at all. It very much could. Just that it would make all three competitions (Club, NRC, Super) poorer.

Club Rugby would lose it's best players. Super Rugby teams would lose the 3rd and 4th stringers, the squaddies that play a valuable role at training. And the NRC would become a bastard child with Super Rugby front-liners coming in and out every now and then, with no continuity at all.

And then you just get back to the personal rubbish. It's a shame, because you have some good ideas but when you persist with this ridiculous name calling you lose all credibility.
.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

QH do you deliberately ignore reality or are you just oblivious?

Firstly, when the VFL and NSWRL expanded there was no international market for players which necessitated maintaining existing revenue streams in order to retain the best players. There were no international competitions for them to be compared to negatively if they lost the best player.

Expanding didn't require them to give up existing revenue streams. Just to add new markets to their existing competitions. The expansion of the NSWRL DID wreck the BRL and relegate it to a 2nd tier competition.

What none of those codes did was look at dramatically increasing their cost base (number of teams) while maintaining the same or less revenue which many are saying is achievable based on the A-League.

What nobody is able to explain is that how with the ARU having zero cash reserves, and the average player salary around the world increasing, how a competition is going to be able to fund twice as many teams on the same or less revenue, with based on the A-League evolution, very little expected growth in crowds or TV viewers, and how this will sustain the code going forward?

Rugbynutter, what's my solution?

Well based on the alternatives proposed, my solution is maintaining the status quo, because we are better off with that than certain bankruptcy which is what will occur unless a national rugby competition vastly exceeds the "success" of the A-League, which competes in a much less congested market.

This isn't a "you have to take a risk to get the reward" scenario. This is a scenario where you have to have some reasonable expectation of success to consider it. Unless we think a national competition in lieu of Super Rugby will bring in twice as many viewers and attendees as the A-League and twice the TV revenue then it would not sustain Australian rugby through the first TV deal.

Yes a domestic competition is the way forward. But without either:

* cash reserves (which are currently empty); or
* a mature competition that will bring in immediate revenue;

This is just not a feasible move.

I don't take delight in knocking every idea. I'm just trying to point out the reality that the ARU actually have to deal with in response to the people who are knocking the ARU when they essentially say "oh it's easy, just do this instead".

Nobody has addressed a single one of these issues/constraints that I keep repeating. Why? Because it doesn't stack up. Probably a big reason why the ARU is still locked into Super Rugby.

You seem to think I am proposing this overnight - I am not.

Nrc provides opportunity to test the waters of bigger semi professional national competition which can tinker around the edges every year to grow this into a longer form national domestic competition.

For example next year looking at adding Fiji team which could be ok and innovative way to increase interest in such a national domestic competition and maybe over time with some other innovations product, marketing wise etc could move towards national long form professional domestic competition .

But accepting status quo is not an option but moving towards this goal with steady jumps over time is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

Why will a Fiji team increase interest?

The whole crux of the argument is that international teams are the reason for the lack of Super Rugby interest.

That sounds like the first step in the direction of Super Rugby... I believe one of the teams in the original Super Rugby, the South Pacific Championship was... Fiji...

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Just one thing won't increase interest but lots of little things that move us closer to the goal....somehow this point continues to be lost on you which is incredibly frustrating. And this was just an example - but focus is instead just on the example then broader messages. All my messages have been about lots of different things they need to do to increase interest, some they are doing, and lot more need to be doing. If something along the way can be discovered that could make more rapid advancement towards this goal so be it (e.g. some rich trillionaire decides wants to establish only professional national domestic rugby comp for his or her own gratification - but seriously I don't know what that left field event could be) but otherwise we work towards this from a risk management perspective where limit financial risks involved but continue to innovate to grow and create bigger and long form national domestic professional comp that does not bankrupt ARU. This was the whole hallmark of re-establishing the NRC on a better footing after ARC debacle, but of course they need to continue to improve and grow this where this one day could be turned into a longer form professional national domestic comp.

The idea is we have to be innovative...including some nearby PI countries involvement may assist in garnering PI community interest and participation.

Big PI population in western Sydney that is not engaged in union.

At same time yes the point this competition would need to retain a dominant domestic flavour. Inclusion of PI teams should be limited and be about helping to increase PI resident interest in this country.

I don't want to go on about inclusion of Fiji in expanded NRC as this removes focus about doing innovative things across the board in terms of product, partnerships, sponsorship, marketing, financial innovation etc etc etc etc. The point is should be looking at ways to increase interest in variety of ways to work towards creating a sustainable professional long form domestic competition (ok predominantly domestic perhaps with PI countries). Inclusion of PI countries with World rugby money is addressing some of issues about risks you talk about.

Status quo can't sustain long form professional domestic competition but with innovation and good planning and roadmap can over time work towards this goal.


It is about finding solutions that get us towards this goal.