I don't see how even a salary cap of $2m works - do any of the franchises revenue [not including RA payments] anywhere close to the current $5.5 salary cap (not including coaches salaries, travel costs etc.)? In which case, Super Rugby is simply being bank rolled by RA, which they can't afford?
I don't know if $2m is achievable but I know it more achievable than the current $5.5m of which you have to spend 95%. Super Rugby is being bank rolled by RA which has to continue as the teams are not self-sustaining. RA cannot afford to bank roll the $5.5m for each team but maybe it can $2m.
Super Rugby has involved something like 6 countries over 5 or 6 continents, had 100' of $millions spent on it, arguably some of the best rugby players in the world playing and some of the best quality rugby teams to grace the fields yet in Australia it has barely raised interest in the game much above that of Suburban rugby club level.
If abandoning the Giteau rule results in the highest standard team turning out for the Wallabies, maybe a $2m salary cap would be well within RA's means?
All of them (*noting actually NSWRU, QRU, ACTRU and not Super Rugby teams) make more than $2m from sponsorship, match day revenue and sponsorship each year. The QRUhad $5.5m in sponsorship alone.
JTL runs Dec to May. MLR runs Feb to July.
It depends on what structure you are involved in, you could spend $20 Million on each Super rugby team and it will not make much difference as people are not interested in the competition, we've had some of worlds the best players, coaches & teams involved in this competition for 20 years.
If it costs $14M to run a Super Rugby side, there is no way any of the Super Rugby Franchises get anywhere close to that revenue on their own; +/- a million or eight more like?
What do you mean by "on their own"?
Yes - that was misleading, apologies. $10M net of redistribution.
But how much of RA's revenue would fall away if the Wallabies were at least as strong, or more so with selection available to be the best from o/s? Arguably, the Wallabies win record could increase and the revenue could go up. In any case, it will still be RA who funds most of the Super Rugby teams out of the revenue generated by the Wallabies, so perhaps there would be a happy spot where the revenue would cover the costs of the Super Rugby sides year to year.
100%. The wallabies are the golden goose. Buying a Stan subscription is quite binary, so am not convinced that cutting a super team will materially reduce the value of the broadcast rights.
They are only the Golden Goose when enough people choose to support them. Australian rugby has had a Wallaby first strategy for 25 years now and it hasn't exactly worked out has it.
That wasn't exactly my point. I have come around to favouring cutting the cap over cutting a team.
I am sorry but the idea that cutting a team will not reduce the value of the broadcast rights is simply fanciful thinking. The broadcaster is in this to make money not as a donation to RA. They will argue that by cutting a team you are cutting a potential viewing market and given Australia's population distribution cutting Victoria is a big issue. They will also argue that 5 teams down to 4 is a 20% decrease in local content. A 25% decrease in potential viewers and a 20% reduction in content will result in the broadcasters pushing for either a 40% reduction in what they pay or arguing that RA has materially changed the nature of the original agreement and will look to exit the agreement. You can bet they already have their lawyers working on it.