Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Maybe, and it depends on how you determine success. For me the success ended in the late 90's, and by 2006 the writing was on the wall. In fact for me 2006 it was SCREAMING change is needed things are changing.
Rugby diehards in their glee over being able to go to to toe with league in revenue terms totally oversold it [and still do], believed their own hype, and never once looked at the environment it was born into or from.
This lead to decades of poor management decisions, essentially because the how and why Super Rugby was born and the environment Super Rugby was created from was ignored. Decisions were made from incorrect data and the over hyping of good data. Further attacking anyone who questioned the status que.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Out of interest, what were the signs in 2006 that changes were required? I was living overseas for the 2001 to 2007 time period and watched it from afar. It still seemed like a pretty good product back then.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I'm guessing it was the Waratahs 33,740 person average crowd in 2006 which caused most of the worry
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I put this together back in 2020 in relation to crowd figures in Australia (For some years the figures weren't available or were incomplete back in 2020 when I put it together so weren't included.)
Reds (from 2005 all home games at Suncorp)
2003 - 18,425* (home games at Ballymore)
2004 - 19,730** (5 home games at Ballymore and 1 at Suncorp)
2005 - 18,130
2009 - 18,647
2010 - 22,826
2011 - 33,253
2012 - 34,479
2013 - 31,836
2014 - 28,489
2015 - 21,780
2016 - 16,605
2017 - 15,115
2018 - 12,101
2019 - 11,351
Brumbies (the consistently best performing Aust team - all games at Canberra/Bruce/GIO Stadium)
2003 - 21,536
2004 - 21,450
2005 22,895
2009 -17,160
2010 - 15,520
2011 - 13,303
2012 - 14,419
2013 - 14,247
2014 - 12,410
2015 - 12,445
2016 - 12,135
2017 - 9,886
2018 - 8,391
2019 - 8,798
Waratahs
2003 - 30,521
2004 - 34,500
2005 - 33,739
2009 - 22,430
2010 - 20,204
2011 - 20,493
2012 - 20,936
2013 - 16,949
2014 - 19,500
2015 - 22,415
2016 - 20,322
2017 - 14,499
2018 - 13,511
2019 - unavailable but anecdotally under 10,000 per game
NB: The Reds would have packed out Suncorp in 2011 as they had a great team and won. Their crowds held up longer than the others.
Likewise the Waratahs were just as popular in 2014 because they won. (and it wasn't till they made the finals that the crowds picked up)
In 2019 the Waratahs stopped make their crowd figures public so no stats were available.
Note the trends (average Super Rugby home crowds)
Also, I'm not asserting that 2006 was a dividing line, but it is clear that over time the trend was in an ever increasing downward spiral. My oft stated position in these threads has been that the administration of rugby is Australia has been a complete trainwreck for 20 years (or more). Interesting that quite a few or those who ridiculed people like me have now adopted the "20 years of mismanagement" mantra as an excuse for the current dire position.
A competent and forward looking administration would have noted signs of decline early and taken steps to transition from Super Rugby to a national club competition at some point if not around 2010, then certainly by 2015. No Super Rugby franchise in Australia turns a profit - in the professional era the game has been funded by the Wallabies. Imagine a world where all the millions thrown at Super Rugby (and the ARC and the NRC) had instead been used to set up a national club competition (like most sports in Australia have). Now the Wallabies ability to generate money is damaged by the chaos and dysfunction beneath and as a game we are going to struggle to maintain a full time professional game in the short to medium term.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
ARC was 2007 so I reckon there were people in the administration that thought the same.
Unfortunately that comp was a complete financial disaster, and scared off any other genuine attempt. Even NRC was accepted as a low cost development option.
Ultimately, we have used Super Rugby to have as many full time pros as we could "afford". A club comp would never have been able to be full time pros level. That was seen as too big an impact on the Wallabies
Last edited:
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
The professional era has seen the ABs and the Wallabies become the main source of income for rugby in their countries. This doesn't happen in NRL and AFL because they have little to zero international game to speak of. The pinnacle of both codes is their respective national comp.
'All the millions that were thrown at Super Rugby' were possible because of Super Rugby and the international game. Newscorp paid $55 million to SANZAR in the first deal back in 1996 and then $323 million in 2006. How much do you think Newscorp would have paid for a domestic comp?
Yes - I think a national competition would be awesome (like ITM in NZ or CC in SA) but the money for that comes from a thriving Super Rugby competition and a successful Wallaby team.
A serious question - how popular was Shute Shield and the other state comps in comparison with the NRL and AFL before Super Rugby?
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Shute Shield has never been, and *will* never be, anywhere near the draw of NRL and AFL.
If you go waaaaaay back to when the Ellas came on the scene, you might get clubs like Randwick crowds close to the poorest performing NSWRL clubs (as they were back then), but never really been a consideration.
There are some who like to bang Shute Shield's drum, but unless it has radical reform it will never be the basis for representative rugby again.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I've agitated for some kind of domestic club competition for years, so I'd be in agreement with you there. An improvement in the Wallabies performances and thus crowds, may buy us some time to do something about it.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You can't get that money without Super Rugby, so a bit of a null point.
If we wanted to go that way, the time to do it was off the back of RWC2003 cash which was pissed away on ARC as you mention
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
ARL was as popular as it ever was in the mid-90s before the super war split. Average crowd of 14000
AFL was getting to an average crowd of 30,000 by then too.
Outside of a couple of big games each season, it was lower grade players, parents, wives and girlfriends in the Brisbane rugby comp
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
No, that money was pissed away on Super Rugby which was supposed to have Asian & American conferences by now.
After 2003 they thought they were going to take over the world remember and crush the NRL & AFL with Global pots of rugby money.
Just hasn't quite worked out that way.
Goosestep
Jim Clark (26)
The Reds being quarter finalists & the brumbies being still alive says otherwise…
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
I don't get your point
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Remember you asked, its the short version but a long post.
Puts on helmet, but its what I have been arguing for over 20 years, kinda use to negative replies.
Why 2006, there were a number of things, and some come from the mid 90's. Some background to why the say 2002 and by 2006 it was SCREAMING.
Super Rugby was born in a media war, when League was at its lowest in years, Football was approaching bankruptcy, and AFL in a rare time of not great management.
Fox paid well over to ensure Rugby could compete with league in the media war, and put many positive articles across News papers. Fox needed Rugby to succeed and put everything into making Super Rugby successful.
The results were obvious, crowds second only to AFL, the best media deal in Australia if measured against games played, all was looking good only blue sky above.
I on the other hand, I was looking at different data, and to explain.
Super Rugby, especially with the News output totally over rode club Rugby, and club Rugby was loosing lots of local ground. This is totally under estimated because when club Rugby was constantly in the news it attracted good players. By 2006 the fall off in player quality was becoming noticeable.
Then their was the recovery by the codes, League was recovering and growing again, AFL got back to its excellence management, Basketball started to get more involved with the USA basketball, Football went bankrupt with the old Soccer Australia unable to fly out the national team and then recovered and started a new competition in the A-League.
The next relative change was Test Cricket started to drop a little, as well as some other more traditional sports.
The above all between say 2002 and 2006, and change continues today. The biggie in 2006 was the Socceroos made their first world cup in decades. The reaction by the media was huge and so were the ratings. Further Football joined the Asian Football Confederation resulting in many regular games as opposed to a game every four years.
News by now had both AFL, and League on Fox, the subscriptions were in, Rugby was no longer critical to Fox. In fact League and AFL were more important to Fox than Rugby. Fox also picked up Football including all national games. E-games where starting to grow.
The GPS schools parent demographic was changing, and although by far still dominate, both Football & AFL were making inroads into these schools.
Effectively the environment Super Rugby was born in and created in which lead to its success not longer existed.
To me it was obvious nay beyond obvious, all the other codes had become stronger than they were, we were no longer Fox's favourite child, Football was now a genuine competitor for the non rugby fans who watched the test matches, in the Socceroo's in Asia. This followed on from the 2002 WC in Japan and Korea when Australians started to realise that our Asian neighbours could play sport.
Further any analysis of any long term growth and success, of sporting codes world over is with National Domestic Competitions.
For me the total change in the environment Rugby found itself in was not only ignored, if questioned it was both laughed at and openly attacked [BTW who was right] . The near cult like support of Super Rugby's systems by Rugby fans, and being run by ""Lunch A Lot" types in Australia, resulted in creating an environment where Rugby was incapable of adapting to the changes happening around it. Whereas League and AFL were constantly making changes.
This has continued and a great non Rugby example is Cricket, which was loosing ratings and crowds especially Test Cricket and not only in Australia. India then stated 20 20 and Australia the Big Bash i.e. a sorta club quick competition. 20 20 is a perfect example of a code reacting to change and moved to a National Domestic Competition.
Without stating the obvious, compare Rugby today, to League, AFL, Football, Basketball, Netball to Rugby in 2000. For me using US sports franchise systems was the perfect model.
I can explain in much more detail if you want, but how those running the show when everything changed around them, showed little to no reaction is the kind would say sad, the cruel would say tragic.
Last edited:
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
Pretty good summation Half. that relationship with Fox from the early years was telling, it was the golden child there for a while. But it didn't adapt or head the warning signs which were there from day one, as the other codes evolved with the landscape and changed, rugby didn't, or couldn't
About every 4 years a new broadcast deal was done and it's those deals that sealed the fate imo for rugby though, I don't think you can understate the long tern damage done, yes the money increased but for Australia it never addressed the fundamentals of what the game needed here, domestic growth to compete against the AFL & NRL.
It was all about revenue, remember someone signed off on a Japanese based team playing its home games in Singapore against teams from South Africa
Last edited:
dru
David Wilson (68)
This is a correct statement for sure, but it isn't where my head was in thinking through an answer.
@Bullrush. NRL was not "pre-comp" to a (better developed) professional National comp. It built out of NSWRL with the inclusion of a team from Brisbane. I can't comment on the popularity and success of NSWRU as I was living in Qld, but certainly here I was watching and following the QRL broadcast on TV.
Nor did I live through Shute Shield as a "pre-comp" to a professional National comp. Not national, but rep, I guess international. That said, it was ammateur and I suspect any broadcasting was not to prime time slots. This said, by all verbal responses here, over time, it was a vibrant competition with plenty of local support. Wallabies were largely sourced here (and from Brisbane), coaches like Bob Dwyer cut their teeth here.
There was some considerable reaction in Qld to the development of the Broncos and giving the local scene the single digit. Persistence, professionalism, on-field success, and money solved this in time.
I doubt the local rugby scene in Brisbane (QPR) would have led well to the basis of a new national comp at the time. I think that Shute Shield may well have done so - subject to the same need to in time overcome local Qld resistance.
There are a series of "old heads" in the Shute Shield, still in leadership positions, who still lament that something was not attempted out of SRU. Relationships between NSWRU/Waratahs ltd (and from there to RA) and SRU remain one of the key problems in Australia rugby.
The obvious issue with all of this is that alternate histories are fiction. We have real world rugby issues to attend.
Last edited:
dru
David Wilson (68)
There is no need whatsoever to propose a solution other than "national competition".