Where to for Super Rugby?

[MikeyBro]

I would have gone with North Korea personally. He's crazy enough to actually nuke the ARU.

And you get China's support by default anyway.

No way. ARU have a direct line to Kim Jong-un. How else do you explain a missile flying over Japan a couple of days after Cheika says he will do "everything in his power" to keep Sean McMahon in Australia? Plus, it would explain the ARU's lack of transparency.

 

[Derpus]

I don't know, heading for 10,000 posts and 500 pages it seems to be going ok.

If it annoys you so much, maybe you could just make the decision not to read it.

 

[The Honey Badger]

i'm normally not one for pot boilers or fantasy or conspiracy or detective stories, but this one has me hooked. cant wait to see what happens in the end, and not knowing how many episodes to go, just adds to the tension.

(caution plot spoiler ahead: personally i think the bad guys are gunna win)

I suspect you are right, but the laws must be so wrong if the Force do not have a case against the ARU for damages for the ARU acting as they did.

I would think that the case for damages would be so great that this is what will force (pun) the ARU into mass resignation and hopefully change would come from that.

 

[Quick Hands]

Maybe there is no Plan B. Have you considered that awful possibility?


In other words, the ARU made a calculated, but somewhat desperate gamble, that an expanded Soup would generate more interest and dollars.


These things we know, or most of us do:

1. A local domestic competition will not bring in any net revenue. Just getting something onto FTA nationally would be a significant achievement in itself.


2. A Trans-Tasman comp is unlikely to eventuate. The New Zealanders would prefer to stick with their own provincial competition. Why would they dilute it with our teams?

3. Trying to think of a third point. Maybe just to say that the only tiny possibility of any breakthrough would be for a billionaire to decide that an Australian domestic rugby competition is worth promoting, and being willing to put a few 10s of millions into a vehicle that FTA (or Foxtel, or maybe even some sort of streaming service) might find attractive enough to pay big money for.


So I have to say that it really doesn't matter whether or not you foresaw all this happening. It has happened.


Plan A did not work, and, as I said, there is no obvious Plan B.

Well, we know that the ARU doesn't seem to have a plan B. Which doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one (even if the plan B involves some short term pain, there should be one).

1. Super rugby brings in no net revenue, in fact it seems to run at a loss - so there's no significant change there. Shute Shield gets' itself on FTA, so it's not impossible - just might require thinking outside the square (not something ARU are noted for)

2. Agree - I abandon any idea of this

3. Like Twiggy Forrest for example.

 

[Derpus]

I suspect you are right, but the laws must be so wrong if the Force do not have a case against the ARU for damages for the ARU acting as they did.

I would think that the case for damages would be so great that this is what will force (pun) the ARU into mass resignation and hopefully change would come from that.

It may not be so great. How they determine damages is usually pretty complicated, but loss of expected future earnings or revenue usually factors fairly heavily. Dunno how much money the Force expected to make.

 

[Quick Hands]

Must be hard for you having 3 legs and no arms or ears .

 

[Braveheart81]

1. Super rugby brings in no net revenue, in fact it seems to run at a loss - so there's no significant change there. Shute Shield gets' itself on FTA, so it's not impossible - just might require thinking outside the square (not something ARU are noted for)

It provides a professional rugby career to roughly 150 players in Australia outside of the Wallabies.

 

[dru]

It provides a professional rugby career to roughly 150 players in Australia outside of the Wallabies.

Reducing shortly thanks to ARU. Nor do I buy that no B Plan can eventuate.

We are told that Super is a cost generator not a profit centre. Money from the internationals could be better spent and retain those pro players.

 

[MikeyBro]

2. Agree - I abandon any idea of this

I totally disagree. A Trans Tasman comp is inevitable, with Pacific/Asian teams joining in eventually too. NZ might not like the ARU much, but they got no problem with AUD.

 

[Quick Hands]

It provides a professional rugby career to roughly 150 players in Australia outside of the Wallabies.

Which wasn't the point of discussion.

A purely domestic league which also ran on the same terms (in terms of generating net revenue) as super rugby could in theory provide the same career path.

In any case, I wouldn't be so sure that super rugby will continue to provide a professional rugby career to 150 players for very much longer. The money which supports these careers needs to come from somewhere - money from gatetakings is down, money from sponsors is down and there's every likelihood that money from broadcast rights will be down when the current deal expires.

As point 3 indicates, the arrival of a billionaire who is willing to tip money in is a part of a solution. But, only a madman with more money than sense would tip in a cent towards super rugby or to an organisation managed like the ARU. I'd suggest that a domestic league would be far more likely to provide an ongoing career path than the current system.

 

[cyclopath]

Reducing shortly thanks to ARU. Nor do I buy that no B Plan can eventuate.

We are told that Super is a cost generator not a profit centre. Money from the internationals could be better spent and retain those pro players.

How much money currently comes from International gates, compared to TV deals? Anyone know? My gut feeling is the money from Internationals would not cover a large part of professional player salaries.

 

[half]

Wam, Quick, BH

WAM, I think you are right that there is no plan B. BH is totally correct Super Rugby revenue is very important and you just can’t through it all away without a detailed plan on how not be destroyed in the process.

Equally Wam, I think you are wrong in suggesting there is no alternative and at the risk of TOCC insightful comments about my knowledge of what other codes are doing especially soccer. Let me add a little to the discussion.

Let me preface this by saying I was in the US on business for a few weeks this year on business. The business was about an education development. Taking Australian kids to the US for specific NASA networks pertaining to maths and science. In the overall analysis we looked at US sport as well across the board as part of the process. In providing cultural norms for students.

Anywho, there are five major sports in the US, American Football [gridiron], Basketball, Baseball, Hockey and Soccer. Soccer has by light years the smallest media deal.

Soccer in the US is also the number five code in terms of TV ratings, media.

Tis not a bad example to see how it has grown and expanded in a system with a global and ruthless player market.

The MLS has gone from about where the ARU is now or lower in fact to today where it is very strong.

The how is interesting, they identified key problems and determined they needed to invest in player development, grass roots, and control their own grounds so build their own stadiums, play at times that suited their crowds and fans.

Additionally they charge franchise fees to anybody wanting to join the competition.

The MLS is now booming and will grow to 28 teams by 2020, from 10 teams only a few years ago.

They essentially created new revenue streams by owing their own stadiums, the stadiums were small compared to other US sports but they filled them and grew their revenue from them.

I am in no way suggesting the MLS model is the model the ARU should follow. However the MLS proved you can be at rock bottom and recover as long as you set achievable goals and maintain the standards you set.

You do need an insightful, and visionary leader. Maybe someone like ???????? lives in WA, has mining interests.

 

[wamberal]

I totally disagree. A Trans Tasman comp is inevitable, with Pacific/Asian teams joining in eventually too. NZ might not like the ARU much, but they got no problem with AUD.

A couple of heroic assumptions there. Firstly, the game in NZ seems to be rolling in it, without any supposed help from us.

Secondly, where will all the AUD come from? Not from Australia, surely. We would be lucky to break even, if current trends are maintained.

 

[Quick Hands]

I totally disagree. A Trans Tasman comp is inevitable, with Pacific/Asian teams joining in eventually too. NZ might not like the ARU much, but they got no problem with AUD.

Only death and taxes are inevitable. NZRU don't want it. Until they do want it, it won't happen. They've been unambiguous and defintive in all their statements regarding a trans-Tasman competition for quite some time.

You're free to disagree though, but that's the current position.

 

[Quick Hands]

A couple of heroic assumptions there. Firstly, the game in NZ seems to be rolling in it, without any supposed help from us.

Secondly, where will all the AUD come from? Not from Australia, surely. We would be lucky to break even, if current trends are maintained.

I love it when we agree Wamberal.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I love it when we agree Wamberal.

I worry - usually it means something is unarguable and/or inevitable

 

[Quick Hands]

Wam, Quick, BH

WAM, I think you are right that there is no plan B. BH is totally correct Super Rugby revenue is very important and you just can’t through it all away without a detailed plan on how not be destroyed in the process.

Equally Wam, I think you are wrong in suggesting there is no alternative and at the risk of TOCC insightful comments about my knowledge of what other codes are doing especially soccer. Let me add a little to the discussion.

Let me preface this by saying I was in the US on business for a few weeks this year on business. The business was about an education development. Taking Australian kids to the US for specific NASA networks pertaining to maths and science. In the overall analysis we looked at US sport as well across the board as part of the process. In providing cultural norms for students.

Anywho, there are five major sports in the US, American Football [gridiron], Basketball, Baseball, Hockey and Soccer. Soccer has by light years the smallest media deal.

Soccer in the US is also the number five code in terms of TV ratings, media.

Tis not a bad example to see how it has grown and expanded in a system with a global and ruthless player market.

The MLS has gone from about where the ARU is now or lower in fact to today where it is very strong.

The how is interesting, they identified key problems and determined they needed to invest in player development, grass roots, and control their own grounds so build their own stadiums, play at times that suited their crowds and fans.

Additionally they charge franchise fees to anybody wanting to join the competition.

The MLS is now booming and will grow to 28 teams by 2020, from 10 teams only a few years ago.

They essentially created new revenue streams by owing their own stadiums, the stadiums were small compared to other US sports but they filled them and grew their revenue from them.

I am in no way suggesting the MLS model is the model the ARU should follow. However the MLS proved you can be at rock bottom and recover as long as you set achievable goals and maintain the standards you set.

You do need an insightful, and visionary leader. Maybe someone like ???????? lives in WA, has mining interests.

The critical difference in all these examples is that none of them are run by the ARU (with assistance from NSWRU and QRU)

 

[Braveheart81]

Which wasn't the point of discussion.

A purely domestic league which also ran on the same terms (in terms of generating net revenue) as super rugby could in theory provide the same career path.

In any case, I wouldn't be so sure that super rugby will continue to provide a professional rugby career to 150 players for very much longer. The money which supports these careers needs to come from somewhere - money from gatetakings is down, money from sponsors is down and there's every likelihood that money from broadcast rights will be down when the current deal expires.

As point 3 indicates, the arrival of a billionaire who is willing to tip money in is a part of a solution. But, only a madman with more money than sense would tip in a cent towards super rugby or to an organisation managed like the ARU. I'd suggest that a domestic league would be far more likely to provide an ongoing career path than the current system.

I don't see how it isn't a core part of any discussion regarding Super Rugby and alternatives. It seems that a very large part of it's intention is to provide a professional rugby career for a substantial number of players to help support the respective national sides.

I agree that something has to change and ultimately will change. Ultimately I think that will be a Trans Tasman competition post 2020.

I think it is a very small part of the overall equation in terms of Super Rugby to just look at it from the perspective of cash inflows and outflows from the ARU.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I agree that something has to change and ultimately will change. Ultimately I think that will be a Trans Tasman competition post 2020.

Do you see any issue for NZRU in having to back track on their prior position vis a vis Australia and if you do, how will they massage that to their public?

 

[half]

How much money currently comes from International gates, compared to TV deals? Anyone know? My gut feeling is the money from Internationals would not cover a large part of professional player salaries.

I think you have identified the key issue, in how do you replace Super Rugby revenue and maintain at the same time, existing media coverage, player wages to hold key players.

What you have not done is enter into the debate of how and where we can change.

I used to think I had the answer, but I no longer do and am a loss to identify new ways to replace Super Rugby revenue, and media space [which is equally important].

We need today as I see it a meeting of rugby's best minds, to determine a way forward.

For that we need a trusted and visionary leader, which sadly I don't think we have today.