• 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?

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I assume they will get a cut of TV money, and then sponsorship will take care of rest. That was supposedly how teams were meant o work I believe

This is the point, Dan. They get a cut of NZ broadcast rights, surely. Seems a pretty dopey position for NZR to put themselves in.
 

Dan54

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
This is the point, Dan. They get a cut of NZ broadcast rights, surely. Seems a pretty dopey position for NZR to put themselves in.

Yep I would imagine they would get a cut of the broadcasting rights, just as the supposed one in Aus conference would get cut of theirs I think, but don't quote me on it, I only guessing. But any additional teams that are part of comp would I imagine be entitled to a cut.
 

Dan54

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
When you say they are doing the funding themselves, who is ‘they’ and how are they funding it?
And if NZ aren’t funding it out of their broadcast rights, then where is this broadcast money coming from?


They are Moana Pasifika. From everything I have heard in statements one of reasons the MP team wasn't allowed in next year because they didn't have sponsors etc locked in. They have to be self funded and not have their players being paid for by NZR, so yes they would either get a cut of broadcasting fees or have their own agreement in place with TV, but it needs a little more than TV money to run a Super rugby team. You fellas do realise that don't you? From what I understand neither NZR or RA could run their teams on what is imagined the Super rugby payout from TV deals, it is funded heavily by what their respective test teams earn, and MP wouldn't have part of that, so would require a fair bit of their own money.
 

Adam84

Paul McLean (56)
They are Moana Pasifika. From everything I have heard in statements one of reasons the MP team wasn't allowed in next year because they didn't have sponsors etc locked in. They have to be self funded and not have their players being paid for by NZR, so yes they would either get a cut of broadcasting fees or have their own agreement in place with TV, but it needs a little more than TV money to run a Super rugby team. You fellas do realise that don't you? From what I understand neither NZR or RA could run their teams on what is imagined the Super rugby payout from TV deals, it is funded heavily by what their respective test teams earn, and MP wouldn't have part of that, so would require a fair bit of their own money.

Yes Dan we realise it takes more then just broadcast money to run a team, you don’t have to talk down to us.

I dont really understand where the sponsorship is going to come from, the pacific islands aren’t lucrative markets for sponsorship so they’ll have to rely heavily on exposure in the market where they are based, which as i understand will be in Auckland. I’d be surprised if this doesn’t cannibalise potential sponsorship for the Blues.

As for your comments about broadcast revenue, based on industry standard across other Australasian sporting teams broadcast revenue makes up significant portion, if not a majority of sporting team revenue. Which is why we are asking where this funding is coming from, because if NZRU aren’t willing to share their portion of broadcast rights with the Moana Pasifika team, and they don't have a governing body to top them up then the concept is already in a extremely precarious state.

Dan, you’re the one saying this concept is going ahead and funding is sorted, we are just asking for details about that.
 

Bandar

Johnnie Wallace (23)
we are just asking for details about that.

Who's the 'we'? I don't think Dan is the offical spokesperson for NZR or super rugby so won't rely on him for specific funding details of the proposed competition.

I assume NZR & RA will come up with a formula to disperse a certain percentage of the broadcast revenue between each of the 12 participating teams.

How Moana Pasifika and Fiji Drua manage their budget and supplement with additional sponsorship is up to them, but the NZ & Australian teams are owned by the governing bodies therefore they have a greater say over their rosters and management.
 

Adam84

Paul McLean (56)
I assume NZR & RA will come up with a formula to disperse a certain percentage of the broadcast revenue between each of the 12 participating teams.

Given RA just cut funding to the Australian SR teams by 30%, I don't know where this money is coming from, and I suspect thats the reason RA argued to delay the new team when it was first proposed by the NZRU. Theres still so much financial instability in the market, they haven't even sold the international rights for the TRC and Super Rugby yet.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Yes RA offering 30% less, however a lot of this will be mitigated in the following.

JobKeeper
Covid related tax benefit and cash injection schemes from the government for business hit with revenue losses.
Rent (each stadium is government owned)
Etc.

I don’t think it’s as simple as saying clubs will have 30% less to play with. They will be receiving 30% less from RA but receiving assistance from other areas.

I suspect money will be less than the past overall however more a real figure of 5-15% less which probably could be mitigated again with reduction of overheads such as job duplication at state and national level

Just JobKeeper alone for Jan to Mar with 30 people at the club qualifying for it is around $200k
 

Dctarget

Steve Williams (59)
Twiggy is worth $22 billion. He could turn us into the best competition overnight and not even scratch his money. Gotta let him in somehow.
 

Dan54

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Yes Dan we realise it takes more then just broadcast money to run a team, you don’t have to talk down to us.

I dont really understand where the sponsorship is going to come from, the pacific islands aren’t lucrative markets for sponsorship so they’ll have to rely heavily on exposure in the market where they are based, which as i understand will be in Auckland. I’d be surprised if this doesn’t cannibalise potential sponsorship for the Blues.

As for your comments about broadcast revenue, based on industry standard across other Australasian sporting teams broadcast revenue makes up significant portion, if not a majority of sporting team revenue. Which is why we are asking where this funding is coming from, because if NZRU aren’t willing to share their portion of broadcast rights with the Moana Pasifika team, and they don't have a governing body to top them up then the concept is already in a extremely precarious state.

Dan, you’re the one saying this concept is going ahead and funding is sorted, we are just asking for details about that.


Sorry mate in no way was I trying to talk down to you. And as Bandar pointed out I don't have info on MP sponsors, haven't even tried to find out. I do know that NZR told them they couldn't join Super Aotearoa in 2021 because they didn't have enough of their financial package in place and cited needing more info on sponsors etc. NZR copped a bit of flack on here and other boreds for putting them off until they were substainable. I not a advertising guru so have no idea where they will be aiming for, but suspect they will looking at a few international deals. They might or might not cut into Blues sponsorship, or even other teams. See I not looking at negative side (I try to look at how things can be done, not why they CAN"T be done)and expect with the ones getting behind the deal they know what is required to run a team. All I can say is there is or seems to be a pretty positive vibe around the concept in NZ.
 

Adam84

Paul McLean (56)
Yes RA offering 30% less, however a lot of this will be mitigated in the following.

JobKeeper
Covid related tax benefit and cash injection schemes from the government for business hit with revenue losses.
Rent (each stadium is government owned)
Etc.

I don’t think it’s as simple as saying clubs will have 30% less to play with. They will be receiving 30% less from RA but receiving assistance from other areas.

I suspect money will be less than the past overall however more a real figure of 5-15% less which probably could be mitigated again with reduction of overheads such as job duplication at state and national level

Just JobKeeper alone for Jan to Mar with 30 people at the club qualifying for it is around $200k

Yeah they will mitigate the impact somewhat, but we’re talking funding cuts of $1.5 million, 200k in JobKeeper only offsets a fraction of that and its not likely to be extended past March. It’s also probable that sponsor and corporate revenue will decline as well on the back of weaker economic conditions, St George have downgraded their sponsorship with the Reds already.

I dont think we will see crowds rushing back to sports in 2021 either, crowds will turn up for the occasional big event, but outside of that i think sporting attendance will remained subdued.

I think all Super Rugby clubs are going to be doing it pretty tough in 2021 operating on a significantly reduced budget, the hard part will be in March when JobKeeper finishes, they may be forced to lay off more employees.
 

Dan54

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I not sure how they will get jobseeker for Aug to Jan, as your turnover has to be down 30%, and that is the time that I didn't think Super teams would have any income anyway as they not playing.
 

Adam84

Paul McLean (56)
I not sure how they will get jobseeker for Aug to Jan, as your turnover has to be down 30%, and that is the time that I didn't think Super teams would have any income anyway as they not playing.

There are a number of ways to assess the decline in revenue for that reason, for super rugby teams where the majority of revenue is earned during the season they could use the irregular turnover test.
 

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
The NZ vibe may well be pro Moana Pasifika. I’d say it is not that different in Aus for the Drua - though this is moderated by financial reality.

Fiji does not have a sufficiently substantive local economy to be a natural supporter of a professional rugby club in an international comp. Tonga and Samoa less so. Australia is no where near capable of funding either Drua or Moana Pasifika and it is confusing that NZR would think that they are. More so if the case is they think RA to commit to the additional burden.

These issues are very real, but become moot if Moana Pasifika is self funded. Ie no broadcast share.

As a side note: RA had mentioned that expectations of income share in a TT were not necessarily on an equal %age basis. So perhaps the negotiated difference permits NZR to expand? This I would completely support - certainly a defacto 6th NZR team spreads talent to help level the playing field. A good thing if it can be afforded. If it is an expectation of equal share across the clubs (so equal cross subsidy from the Aus clubs and NZR); then is it simply more NZR contempt. Irrespective of the Kiwi “vibe”.

Yes Dan this is conjecture, though an attempt to tease out possible options as to what the thinking is. One clear outcome is that the situation is obscured without better NZR disclosure. And clear detail from Moana Pasifika on their arrangements which are not at all “their own business”.

Honestly, with this unilateral Kiwi action on-going, why on earth would RA be encouraging a fully integrated single super season of TT? Let’s be done with a domestic comp followed by TT. At least this way NZR can not fuck up the domestic component.
 

waiopehu oldboy

George Gregan (70)
Re: where MP's money is coming from, I've heard both Robinson & Impey say they'll get their share of TV revenue, & Sir BeeGee say that there are untapped sources of sponsorship & other revenues out there. Plus I think there's an expectation Samoa & Tonga RU's will have some kind of stake & input either directly or by way of WR per their contribution to Fiji Drua. NZR have invested a lot of goodwill in this, unless the financials are a total shambles I don't see them being able to get out of admitting them to SR at some point.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Yeah they will mitigate the impact somewhat, but we’re talking funding cuts of $1.5 million, 200k in JobKeeper only offsets a fraction of that and its not likely to be extended past March. It’s also probable that sponsor and corporate revenue will decline as well on the back of weaker economic conditions, St George have downgraded their sponsorship with the Reds already.

I dont think we will see crowds rushing back to sports in 2021 either, crowds will turn up for the occasional big event, but outside of that i think sporting attendance will remained subdued.

I think all Super Rugby clubs are going to be doing it pretty tough in 2021 operating on a significantly reduced budget, the hard part will be in March when JobKeeper finishes, they may be forced to lay off more employees.
Things like rent will most likely have been hugely reduced if not eliminated at the moment. I work for a business that operates in a state government owned facility (just like aami park) the government has all but eliminated our rental costs while restrictions remain, this is absolutely huge for our bottom line, obviously I can’t speak for the individual teams however I’d be surprised if a temporary deal hasn’t been struck to help mitigate the costs or even temporarily eliminate them most likely depending on the revenue streams reached as the season goes on. I just don’t think they’d be forecasting for 30% drop, then again it could change depending on which state they are in and government assistance provided, some will no doubt be more generous than others.
 

Dan54

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
The NZ vibe may well be pro Moana Pasifika. I’d say it is not that different in Aus for the Drua - though this is moderated by financial reality.

Fiji does not have a sufficiently substantive local economy to be a natural supporter of a professional rugby club in an international comp. Tonga and Samoa less so. Australia is no where near capable of funding either Drua or Moana Pasifika and it is confusing that NZR would think that they are. More so if the case is they think RA to commit to the additional burden.

These issues are very real, but become moot if Moana Pasifika is self funded. Ie no broadcast share.

As a side note: RA had mentioned that expectations of income share in a TT were not necessarily on an equal %age basis. So perhaps the negotiated difference permits NZR to expand? This I would completely support - certainly a defacto 6th NZR team spreads talent to help level the playing field. A good thing if it can be afforded. If it is an expectation of equal share across the clubs (so equal cross subsidy from the Aus clubs and NZR); then is it simply more NZR contempt. Irrespective of the Kiwi “vibe”.

Yes Dan this is conjecture, though an attempt to tease out possible options as to what the thinking is. One clear outcome is that the situation is obscured without better NZR disclosure. And clear detail from Moana Pasifika on their arrangements which are not at all “their own business”.

Honestly, with this unilateral Kiwi action on-going, why on earth would RA be encouraging a fully integrated single super season of TT? Let’s be done with a domestic comp followed by TT. At least this way NZR can not fuck up the domestic component.

I understand your points dru, but MP have made it abundantly clear they don't want to be seen as a 6th kiwi team. And they wish to stand on their own feet.
As for NZR disclosures, I work the opposite way to you and don't want them making too many statements that are half arsed.
We had a lot of half statements (supposedly) from RA this year, I am convinced that at least 70% of them were paper talk only, and don't think we want that added to. I think RA that has gone pretty quiet on Drua, and rightly I imagine waiting to see what comes up in financials etc, think everyone is stepping carefully, and rightfully so.
 

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
think everyone is stepping carefully, and rightfully so.

Oh nonsense. NZR are a bull in a china shop. Time for them to become a touch more circumspect and engage with RA as a legitimate stakeholder. This unilateral action, and in the case of Kanaloa Hawaii poorly executed, is doing nothing to strengthen ties.
 

Adam84

Paul McLean (56)
Things like rent will most likely have been hugely reduced if not eliminated at the moment. I work for a business that operates in a state government owned facility (just like aami park) the government has all but eliminated our rental costs while restrictions remain, this is absolutely huge for our bottom line, obviously I can’t speak for the individual teams however I’d be surprised if a temporary deal hasn’t been struck to help mitigate the costs or even temporarily eliminate them most likely depending on the revenue streams reached as the season goes on. I just don’t think they’d be forecasting for 30% drop, then again it could change depending on which state they are in and government assistance provided, some will no doubt be more generous than others.

I didn’t say they would be forecasting a 30% drop in revenue, i said that the grant from RA for the broadcast rights has reportedly dropped by 30% for 2021.

As for the support from state government, this will fluctuate team to team, Reds don’t pay rent for Ballymore yet they having ongoing overheads for maintenance of the facilities that wont reduce, likewise with the Brumbies. Unsure of the agreement the Waratahs have, but they have a lease with UNSW as i understand.

Stadiums are where the teams may get a discount, especially for the Reds, Rebels and Brumbies. Waratahs may not be as lucky given the number of privately managed stadiums in NSW. For those teams who do rent from the government, their annual costs are less then the reduction in broadcast rights, so even if the stadium are offered for free(which they wont) the teams are still worse off financially.

It could really go two ways for stadium costs, there’s a real chance the state governments might remove the discounts which were offered during 2020 given the increased overheads in hosting sporting events in the COVID era.
 

Adam84

Paul McLean (56)
I think RA that has gone pretty quiet on Drua, and rightly I imagine waiting to see what comes up in financials etc, think everyone is stepping carefully, and rightfully so.

RA were pretty clear form the start, they said they didn’t want any additional teams until at least 2021 until they had a better grasp of the financial situation moving forward. Thats back when NZRU were looking to introduce a new team for the 2020 season.
 

Dan54

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
RA were pretty clear form the start, they said they didn’t want any additional teams until at least 2021 until they had a better grasp of the financial situation moving forward. Thats back when NZRU were looking to introduce a new team for the 2020 season.

No NZ were never introducing teams in 2021, but if you have got statements that they said saying different by all means show me. Hell and not posts on here, like the ones that had Drua all signed up for next year.

Just out of interest, how were NZR going to add team in 2020? It was 2020 before evrything went to pack.
 
Top