Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

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.

Cyclo, if I implied internationals being the funding to pro rugby was gate only - it was not intended.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't see how it isn't a core part of any discussion regarding Super Rugby and alternatives.

Because the conversation that you quoted was very specifically directed to the point of net revenue. i.e. any alternative doesn't need to be judged on whether or not it generates net revenue, just that it exists and by existing would provide a career path for players.

 

[MikeyBro]

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.

sure, while Super Rugby puts some Rand in the pocket NZRU won't bite the hand that feeds. Personally I think Super Rugby is cooked, and around 2020 you will see a Trans Tasman comp replace it. NZ doesn't want to play with/against themselves for too long and 4 million people can only buy so many rugby jerseys and Sky subscriptions.

 

[Strewthcobber]

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.

Last year the ARU made about $20m net from matchday, $25m from sponsorship and $60m from broadcasting, but that includes the very lucrative English series.

Under the previous agreement (2012) it was around a 60/40 international/Super rugby split of broadcast revenue.

I don't think the current split has ever been made publix

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

sure, while Super Rugby puts some Rand in the pocket NZRU won't bite the hand that feeds. Personally I think Super Rugby is cooked, and around 2020 you will see a Trans Tasman comp replace it. NZ doesn't want to play with/against themselves for too long and 4 million people can only buy so many rugby jerseys and Sky subscriptions.

Super Rugby defintely cooked. What emerges from the rubble will be interesting to see. Hopefully it's part of a bigger discussion which includes the place of TRC - which I think in it's 2 round format is also cooked. (for many of the same travel and time zone issues)

 

[Braveheart81]

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?

The situation is changing. South Africa's involvement is decreasing and could decrease further.

The competition is nowhere near as healthy as it was.

I can't imagine the NZRU will hold firm to a view that is no longer in their best interests.

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo, if I implied internationals being the funding to pro rugby was gate only - it was not intended.

Sorry, I probably misunderstood.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Last year the ARU made about $20m net from matchday, $25m from sponsorship and $60m from broadcasting, but that includes the very lucrative English series.

Under the previous agreement (2012) it was around a 60/40 international/Super rugby split of broadcast revenue.

I don't think the current split has ever been made publix

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Replying to myself, but player payments are around $25m to Super Rugby teams and an additional $10m or so for ARU top ups and wallaby Match fees. Obviously a bit of cross over there.

------+-+

Put another way, the ARU probably earn enough from broadcast to pay Super rugby player salaries

The Super rugby teams don't earn enough from sponsorship or the gate to pay for the rest of what it costs to run a pro rugby team, especially ones that have to compete with NZ teams

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

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?

Trust me, most NZ rugby fans don't buy NZRU's stated reasons for putting contact with SA at the top of their "non-negotiable" list & will happily accept pretty much whatever evolves from the current Super Rugby setup. If that happens to be Trans-Tasman plus Fiji and/ or Asia it's an easy enough sell esp if SA have decamped.

 

[cyclopath]

Last year the ARU made about $20m net from matchday, $25m from sponsorship and $60m from broadcasting, but that includes the very lucrative English series.

Under the previous agreement (2012) it was around a 60/40 international/Super rugby split of broadcast revenue.

I don't think the current split has ever been made publix

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Thanks, my guess, without knowing the numbers (why I asked!) was that broadcast revenue was the larger part.
It would interesting to see how negotiations would go with regard to a new broadcast deal if the broadcasters knew we were bailing out of Super Rugby. I suspect they might hardball quite a bit.
So, to keep players remunerated at a similar level, there's a large shortfall in revenue.
If someone like Andrew Forrest stumps up $50 million, that's gonna be spread thinly over any number of years.
While the concept of having something of our own going forward is quite nice (Please note this bit before pitching in saying I'm not keeping an open mind to change), I see a few concerns and I don't know how to address them.
1. TV Revenue. 'Nuff said. Elephant in room.
2. Further decline in competitiveness at Test level. All the players comment how much faster Test rugby is than Super Rugby, and I suspect that Super Rugby is a step up from Club. If we're pitching a broadly based lower level comp, then the urgency of a national coaching structure is even more acute. Our general skill levels and structures are woefully below acceptable. We just might not compete at more than a mid-tier level in Tests long-term with the status quo. I don't really want to get into a debate on the current national coaches - we all know the issues - but the coaching problem is far more extensive than just there. Gotta fix the whole bloody thing. Needs money, brands and willpower. Fuck this up and this will impact Point 1. and also Point 3.............
3. Sponsorship revenue. Sponsors need exposure (TV etc), and sponsors want winners ( yeah, they're idealists! ). I'd be concerned this too will shrink.

I'm sure there is more.
Someone like Andrew Forrest might need to set up a Direct Debit facility because $50 million may not go too far!

 

[wamberal]

We do not need a leader, we need a genuine sense of unity.


Together we might just survive. Divided, there is little doubt that we will fail, at least in terms of having a major sport that has widespread public and (importanly) corporate support.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Thanks, my guess, without knowing the numbers (why I asked!) was that broadcast revenue was the larger part.
It would interesting to see how negotiations would go with regard to a new broadcast deal if the broadcasters knew we were bailing out of Super Rugby. I suspect they might hardball quite a bit.
So, to keep players remunerated at a similar level, there's a large shortfall in revenue.
If someone like Andrew Forrest stumps up $50 million, that's gonna be spread thinly over any number of years.
While the concept of having something of our own going forward is quite nice (Please note this bit before pitching in saying I'm not keeping an open mind to change), I see a few concerns and I don't know how to address them.
1. TV Revenue. 'Nuff said. Elephant in room.
2. Further decline in competitiveness at Test level. All the players comment how much faster Test rugby is than Super Rugby, and I suspect that Super Rugby is a step up from Club. If we're pitching a broadly based lower level comp, then the urgency of a national coaching structure is even more acute. Our general skill levels and structures are woefully below acceptable. We just might not compete at more than a mid-tier level in Tests long-term with the status quo. I don't really want to get into a debate on the current national coaches - we all know the issues - but the coaching problem is far more extensive than just there. Gotta fix the whole bloody thing. Needs money, brands and willpower. Fuck this up and this will impact Point 1. and also Point 3.....
3. Sponsorship revenue. Sponsors need exposure (TV etc), and sponsors want winners ( yeah, they're idealists! ). I'd be concerned this too will shrink.

I'm sure there is more.
Someone like Andrew Forrest might need to set up a Direct Debit facility because $50 million may not go too far!

Looking at the A-League for a comparison. They are paying their players much less than ours, and over the life of the comp, the owners of the teams have lost well over $200million combined. Add in the government grants and SBS subsidies and it's probably over $300m.

We're going to need some more Twiggys.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

Don't forget that team costs reduce when we no longer need to travel to Africa.

TV revenue is dropping for other reasons than an alt comp. we may be forced into change whether we are enthusiastic about it or not.

I do not trust Clyne and the current board to lead us through this.

 

[Derpus]

Trust me, most NZ rugby fans don't buy NZRU's stated reasons for putting contact with SA at the top of their "non-negotiable" list & will happily accept pretty much whatever evolves from the current Super Rugby setup. If that happens to be Trans-Tasman plus Fiji and/ or Asia it's an easy enough sell esp if SA have decamped.

I hope this is true for a wide variety of reasons. Some nostalgic/romantic part of me feels NZ/Aus should always stick together.

 

[Gnostic]

Swing and a miss.



Like it or lump it, the media consumed in my teens is littered with thousands of references to other TV shows from between 1970 and 1995 (Nostalgic writers woo)



As a result I am familiar with many terribad shows (and particularly the intros) such as The Incredible Hulk, Knight Rider, Quantum Leap, Baywatch, and the aforementioned 6 Million Dollar Man, having actually watched none to very little of them.

Shit I'm old then knowing exactly what the reference was. You didn't mention the best cult show of the 80s - Monkey.

Yes I am intentionally derailing the thread just for a bit of colour and a break in the monotony.

 

[Gnostic]

Thanks, my guess, without knowing the numbers (why I asked!) was that broadcast revenue was the larger part.

It would interesting to see how negotiations would go with regard to a new broadcast deal if the broadcasters knew we were bailing out of Super Rugby. I suspect they might hardball quite a bit.

So, to keep players remunerated at a similar level, there's a large shortfall in revenue.

If someone like Andrew Forrest stumps up $50 million, that's gonna be spread thinly over any number of years.

While the concept of having something of our own going forward is quite nice (Please note this bit before pitching in saying I'm not keeping an open mind to change), I see a few concerns and I don't know how to address them.

1. TV Revenue. 'Nuff said. Elephant in room.

2. Further decline in competitiveness at Test level. All the players comment how much faster Test rugby is than Super Rugby, and I suspect that Super Rugby is a step up from Club. If we're pitching a broadly based lower level comp, then the urgency of a national coaching structure is even more acute. Our general skill levels and structures are woefully below acceptable. We just might not compete at more than a mid-tier level in Tests long-term with the status quo. I don't really want to get into a debate on the current national coaches - we all know the issues - but the coaching problem is far more extensive than just there. Gotta fix the whole bloody thing. Needs money, brands and willpower. Fuck this up and this will impact Point 1. and also Point 3.....

3. Sponsorship revenue. Sponsors need exposure (TV etc), and sponsors want winners ( yeah, they're idealists! ). I'd be concerned this too will shrink.



I'm sure there is more.

Someone like Andrew Forrest might need to set up a Direct Debit facility because $50 million may not go too far!

Point one is at serious risk now with the viewership statistics and we will be relying heavily on re-selling/expansion into Euroland to just maintain what we have now. Uncontrollables come into play as well with a very flat (and that is generous) wages outlook we have a declining discretionary spend and Pay TV certainly falls into that category. There is no easy fix, but certainly a key is improving the quality of product, and IMO achieving that with the power structures we have is pretty long odds to be achievable.

As GoT (and in keeping with your previous references) is the biggest money earner around ATM perhaps we can have a Dothraki Khal type purging of the RUs and invite the Khaleesi herself to preside. Would be the largest Rugby event in the history of the game anywhere and a massive money earner on so many levels.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I hope this is true for a wide variety of reasons. Some nostalgic/romantic part of me feels NZ/Aus should always stick together.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised to learn how many kiwis feel the same way.

 

[cyclopath]

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised to learn how many kiwis feel the same way.

I do, but I might not be representative.

 

[wamberal]

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised to learn how many kiwis feel the same way.

When they beat us, they do. Fortunately, that is virtually all the time.

 

[Gnostic]

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised to learn how many kiwis feel the same way.

We are family through history, we may bag our brothers but woe betide anybody else who does (regardless of our shitty Government/Politicians)