• 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.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

half

Alan Cameron (40)
^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://www.theroar.com.au/2018/01/1...unces-major-pay-increase-super-rugby-players/

OK some quite hostile towards AR.

I copied a couple of bits from different posts and you do wonder if the AR have a PR department. I fail to understand this decision in the wake of the axing of the Force.

“”This expose the ARU lies more than the money wasted on the rebranding.
$200,000 per player X 30 player per team X 5 teams = $30 million per year (2017)
$225,000 per player X 35 player per team X 4 teams = $31.5 million per year (2018).

That is a 5% increase in the total pay package at a time when “had to” alienate the state of WA, drag rugby through the stinking mud to “avoid bankruptcy”! Which business rebrand and give their employees a 5% pay increase when they are on the brink of bankruptcy.”””

“””’ This outcome is one of the reasons I thought the whole ARU board needed to be removed, not just Pulver.
The $7m player payments saved from the Force axing has simply been spread over the remaining 4 Super teams plus a $1.5m top up. Presumably the much-promoted boost for grass roots rugby is to come from other sources?

I would have thought in the current environment of increased competition for places Super Rugby players would have been happy to have a contract, and would have accepted zero increase. Surely the ARU had the upper hand?””””


“””The ARU have made clear their future:
1. Retreat back to the eastern suburbs of Sydney by having their head office at Moore Park.
2. Instead of banking the “savings” from axing the Western Force, spread the payments across the 4 remaining Super Rugby sides and increase the squad sizes by 5 players each.
3. No clear indication of where the extra money for investing in grassroots is coming from.
Retain Clyne as Chairman but install Castle as CEO.””””

“””’ The larger squad sizes mean more players will get no game time. This will do nothing to improve the depth of Australian rugby.”””
 

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
I can see the logic behind it, wether or not it’s the right decision is a different matter.

That increase helps with talent leakage from Union to league and to a lesser extent to japan and Europe.

The increased size of squad strengthens depth within squads and theoretically lifts the quality of local competitions such as Shute as more Pro players will be taking part in a regular/semi regular basis.

All this makes our super teams more likely to win which means higher attendance, revenue, participation number etc etc rugby union is saved and wallabies become the dominant force in rugby
 

Dismal Pillock

David Codey (61)

ausflow_zpsnkaaeirh.png
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
Any thoughts on the South Africans? The crowds for the Pro14 teams have been very poor (the Cheetahs started out ok but dropped quickly).

– Cheetahs – 13,982 v Zebre, 6,980 v Leinster, 4,589 v Ospreys, 5,964 v Glasgow, 3,648 v Edinburgh, 3,457 v Scarlets
– Kings – 3,011 v Leinster, 4,062 v Zebre, 2,836 v Ulster, 3,619 v Scarlets, 3,600 v Edinburgh

Surely those numbers aren't sustainable and definitely wouldn't be encouraging SARU to consider sending more teams over to the Pro(whatever number it is)
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Any thoughts on the South Africans? The crowds for the Pro14 teams have been very poor (the Cheetahs started out ok but dropped quickly).

– Cheetahs – 13,982 v Zebre, 6,980 v Leinster, 4,589 v Ospreys, 5,964 v Glasgow, 3,648 v Edinburgh, 3,457 v Scarlets
– Kings – 3,011 v Leinster, 4,062 v Zebre, 2,836 v Ulster, 3,619 v Scarlets, 3,600 v Edinburgh

Surely those numbers aren't sustainable and definitely wouldn't be encouraging SARU to consider sending more teams over to the Pro(whatever number it is)
It’s getting around time for me to dig back into Saffa rugby news again. Last I heard SARU was opening up the opportunity for a further two franchises into Europe. Some kind of shorter end of season style comp. think it was targetting Pumas and Griquas (the remaining two Currie Cup top division teams). Cheetah home numbers were disappointing but not unexpected. Kings are different, they were starting from scratch again, again, again. But they dont have the local conditions to fill a huge stadium. Note that the WBs are a fig leaf to the province and we get to play there this season.
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
OK here goes my humble attempt to explain a sporting analysis by a senior executive from Europe over here on a kinda working vacation.

He calls it the top six rule [6].

In context ran into a mate also having a couple of days off and he had one of his Australian Clients overseas experts for dinner and we sorta tagged along. Our little group discussed many things sitting on the West Newcastle waterfront at “six degrees” over dinner, red wines and ales

Anywho my very very very humble attempt to explain this guys top 6 rule. BTW he works in media and is a senior executive especially on advising both the media and sporting codes.

The theory goes something like this the top 6 teams bring in revenue that supports the code and the top 6 need the other teams so they can be a top 6 side. He pointed to most codes and countries in the world have a top 6 teams who generate the revenue the rest feed off.

In discussion we spoke about the AFL and Super Rugby.

FTA networks want 2-3 matches a week tops and they want the primary game
Subscription TV want the same complimented with more content

In a 17 team league the quality will improve, not decrease. The Friday and Saturday night games must be competitive and epic.

Think of the AFL as a theatre show. It tours from region to region and its appeal is based on the same script and the same actors

Think of the Super Rugby as a theatre company. Its success depends on relevant content. If one popular show goes bust it will inevitably be replaced by another.

The main asset of the SANZAAR is Super Rugby, not the clubs.

League is a perfect example of the top 6 rule also, with teams like the Raiders, Sharks essentially being funded by revenue generated by the Broncos, Parra, Canterbury etc.

So I guess it had me wondering how we have been seen off by SANZAAR and has the ARU sorry RA [Rats Arse] been incompetent in negotiations with SANZAAR.

Just sharing a very interesting conversation.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
@half you have interesting friends.

The top 6 may break down in a conference style system. In Aus we only had 5 and now have 4 teams. Rarely more than one in the top 6. The Top 6 from NZ and SA are not likely to do much for the top 6 theory here actually in Aus.

I read it as another theory supporting a domestic comp.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
At the end of the day, if people like rugby, they will watch it and support it. If they don't, they won't. This is a very competitive marketplace, I think most of us know that, even if most seem to think that somehow this is actually RA's fault.


The simple fact is that most people do not like it.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
At the end of the day, if people like rugby, they will watch it and support it. If they don't, they won't. This is a very competitive marketplace, I think most of us know that, even if most seem to think that somehow this is actually RA's fault.


The simple fact is that most people do not like it.

Didn’t realise that the market penetration of Foxtel was so extensive.
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
At the end of the day, if people like rugby, they will watch it and support it. If they don't, they won't. This is a very competitive marketplace, I think most of us know that, even if most seem to think that somehow this is actually RA's fault.


The simple fact is that most people do not like it.

I know plenty that love rugby but go to more AFL or soccer because their kids play those codes. Why? Programs aimed at youth. This isn't because rugby is an inferior product it's because the marketing and promotion of rugby is inferior.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
I know plenty that love rugby but go to more AFL or soccer because their kids play those codes. Why? Programs aimed at youth. This isn't because rugby is an inferior product it's because the marketing and promotion of rugby is inferior.

I think it's more than simply marketing. It's the admin, organisation and the structure. There is too little local content in reasonable time zones to make it a compelling TV product. The conference system is confusing. And of course the product is not as strong as it should be due to poor pathways, progression and connection with the grass roots. Marketing is a key - just one of them.
 

Mr Doug

Dick Tooth (41)
Oh to be back in the 80s, when life was simpler, and people were allowed to be more honest!.
The committee member who had the responsibilty for inserting the ads in our local newspaper, promoting the home-matches for our country-town based club often used the line:
"Hey fellas, come out to the Rugby ground on Saturday, and meet a better class of woman"!!
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
I think it's more than simply marketing. It's the admin, organisation and the structure. There is too little local content in reasonable time zones to make it a compelling TV product. The conference system is confusing. And of course the product is not as strong as it should be due to poor pathways, progression and connection with the grass roots. Marketing is a key - just one of them.

Yes. Rugby as a sport is the equal of its rivals. Super rugby at present is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top