Australian Rugby / RA

[Strewthcobber]

So RFU/IRFU are covering the costs to bring 50% of all Australian professional players essentially??

No, RFU, WRU, and SRU are covering the costs of the top 35ish players and coaches.

The game against Ireland is outside of the test window so there will be a fee paid to Australia in addition to that

RA will have also obtained some revenue for the AusXV games against Bristol and England A, which will presumably cover the other 30 players

 

[dru]

Two things the NBL has going really well for it is private ownership and availability of quality players at the price point they pay.

The private ownership is proving to (mostly) be financially beneficial though. Teams are going up in value and certainly aren't cash draining lifestyle assets that privately owned rugby clubs tend to be.

The NBL standard is pretty decent and has certainly improved a lot. They benefit massively from having a large pool of players available at that price point though.

From a financial perspective it's also a better sport. A 15 player roster in total is a lot easier to make work financially than a squad of around 35.

So a random google on US basketball gives average income at US$12m. 15 player roster comes with a much higher level of elite in order to be successful in the US.

We're taking a squad that large because we're playing a series of Australia A games aren't we?

I think everyone is in agreement that the Australia A fixtures have been pretty valuable for the next tranche of players coming through so I guess it's the cost of doing business?

Yes ofc Australia A is of benefit to Aus rugby. Is that the point though? We surely are looking to the comparative merit of Aus A vs a pro team in Victoria. That seems to me to be nothing close to a slam dunk for Aus A EOYT tour.

 

[Omar Comin']

The moment we bring it all in house we either have to find the cash to support 6 extra teams/ 3 games (just to meet our current agreement) or try and sell a competition that has only 2 games per week.

The current agreement ends next year. You'd need minimum 6 teams to start with and there's already 4 (maybe 5 if the Drua linked with us), but 8-10 would be ideal. It would likely only be possible with private ownership of expansion teams, so the viability is predicated on that interest being there. I believe this is more likely for a competition with fewer competing interests than Super rugby has and there are plenty of high net worth rugby supporters in Australia. But you never know until you explore it. The success of Super Rugby AU during covid is evidence that it has potential to work.

I think Australian rugby suffers from a lack of ambition and confidence in the game. We see much smaller countries like NZ and Ireland as the benchmarks we should emulate, when I think we should be looking at France. We're a rich country (significantly richer per capita than even France and Japan), with a sports mad population, great living standards, strong rugby history etc. We (with or without NZ) should have a league that's among the highest paying in the world and a magnet for many of the best players globally. If this was true it would lift international rugby higher too, just as the Top 14 has done for several tier 2 countries. The Wallabies would have more teams to play against with players fans here recognise.

 

[hoggy]

The current agreement ends next year. You'd need minimum 6 teams to start with and there's already 4 (maybe 5 if the Drua linked with us), but 8-10 would be ideal. It would likely only be possible with private ownership of expansion teams, so the viability is predicated on that interest being there. I believe this is more likely for a competition with fewer competing interests than Super rugby has and there are plenty of high net worth rugby supporters in Australia. But you never know until you explore it. The success of Super Rugby AU during covid is evidence that it has potential to work.

I think Australian rugby suffers from a lack of ambition and confidence in the game.

I have always been confused with the approach to the game in this country.
Mention a domestic competition and it's as if the game here could barely support a Tuesday night social league. Yet happily moves forward with a growth strategy that relies on its Test team basically being number one in the world.

 

[Braveheart81]

So a random google on US basketball gives average income at US$12m. 15 player roster comes with a much higher level of elite in order to be successful in the US.

What does the US have to do with the NBL?

The NBL has a salary cap of $1.95m this season. Comparable salaries to Super Rugby players but the salary costs of a team are less than half a Super Rugby team. That was the point I was making.

Is that the point though? We surely are looking to the comparative merit of Aus A vs a pro team in Victoria.

Why? There was pretty clearly no reasonable alternative than letting the Rebels fold. That is an independent decision. Every piece of future expenditure from that point on can't be decided through a lens of what about the Rebels? It's nonsensical.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Who would have thought we'd have more professional Basketball players based in Aus than Rugby players. 10 teams of 15 and Rugby will have 4 teams of 30-35

 

[Wallaby Man]

Who would have thought we'd have more professional Basketball players based in Aus than Rugby players. 10 teams of 15 and Rugby will have 4 teams of 30-35

No surprise to me.

Basketball is comfortably the second most popular team sport world-wide. It has huge youth participation numbers and just from a personal perspective is a lot better event to turn up to live. Kids and partners love to go despite knowing little about what’s going on with the constant music, cheer leaders and something rugby can’t offer (being indoors).

 

[Crashy]

Who would have thought we'd have more professional Basketball players based in Aus than Rugby players. 10 teams of 15 and Rugby will have 4 teams of 30-35

should include the 7s programs in the number of pro rugby players. Are there about 15 in each 7s squad?

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

should include the 7s programs in the number of pro rugby players. Are there about 15 in each 7s squad?

Fair point. So Rugby has marginally more when we count the guys that would jump at a Super Rugby contract.

 

[JRugby2]

The current agreement ends next year. You'd need minimum 6 teams to start with and there's already 4 (maybe 5 if the Drua linked with us), but 8-10 would be ideal. It would likely only be possible with private ownership of expansion teams, so the viability is predicated on that interest being there. I believe this is more likely for a competition with fewer competing interests than Super rugby has and there are plenty of high net worth rugby supporters in Australia. But you never know until you explore it. The success of Super Rugby AU during covid is evidence that it has potential to work.

I think Australian rugby suffers from a lack of ambition and confidence in the game. We see much smaller countries like NZ and Ireland as the benchmarks we should emulate, when I think we should be looking at France. We're a rich country (significantly richer per capita than even France and Japan), with a sports mad population, great living standards, strong rugby history etc. We (with or without NZ) should have a league that's among the highest paying in the world and a magnet for many of the best players globally. If this was true it would lift international rugby higher too, just as the Top 14 has done for several tier 2 countries. The Wallabies would have more teams to play against with players fans here recognise.

We're trying to get an uplift on our deal and I can't see there being any interest in a weakened 6 team (3 games per week down from 6) or even more weakened 8-10 team (4-5 games per week down from 6). I don't know why people keep looking to COVID super au as this amazing thing. We did that because we literally had nothing else and at the time it was good, but 'good' relative to nothing at all.

Be honest with yourself - if that was all we had year on year (a 5 team, 2 game a week season over 10 weeks) every single year - would you seriously enjoy it after year 2? Or if you were a broadcaster trying to maximise your subscriptions, would you buy it?

All the signals from industry have told us we need to have a better quality product and reducing the number of games or reducing the quality of those games is not serving that purpose

Broadcast rights expert Colin Smith, who has advised RA is previous deals, said: “If the Wallabies don’t make it out of the first stage of the World Cup, and there is the continued drubbing of the Super Rugby clubs, the attractiveness of rugby is going to decline significantly (https://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=44110)

 

[Bullrush]

Who would have thought we'd have more professional Basketball players based in Aus than Rugby players. 10 teams of 15 and Rugby will have 4 teams of 30-35

It's not a number that really means anything though.

It's better to have smaller numbers but be competitive on the biggest stage than to have a heap of numbers and just be average.

Although at some stage one would think that there would be some kind of correlation between numbers and rankings but there are more factors that obviously would also play a part...

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

True, but I also worry it's less jobs in the market when Rugby has to compete with league here who will have 20 teams within the decade. More numbers sure but more opportunity for a prospect.

 

[Wallaby Man]

It's not a number that really means anything though.

It's better to have smaller numbers but be competitive on the biggest stage than to have a heap of numbers and just be average.

Although at some stage one would think that there would be some kind of correlation between numbers and rankings but there are more factors that obviously would also play a part...

To be fair there is almost no quantifiable evidence that less equals more quality just like more equals better pipeline of players. All we have heard over the last 5-10yrs is people with heavy agendas bringing flawed “evidence” to suit their argument and depending on what side of the pendulum you are we either gobble it up as truth or not.

Apart from Ireland the teams at the top of the rugby tree also have the most professional opportunities, but Ireland has shown that’s not necessarily the only way to be successful with their narrower high performance opportunities. So it’s here nor there.

Just like the worlds most popular teams sports (Football, Basketball, Cricket and Ice Hockey) have shown more equals more popularity, but the worlds most successful league (NFL) is a less is more system.

At the end of the day, what makes sports successful is the spectacle and the engagement of the fans. It’s the stories a competition can tell is what’s going to transform a league. Rugby misses these stories.

 

[Derpus]

Who would have thought we'd have more professional Basketball players based in Aus than Rugby players. 10 teams of 15 and Rugby will have 4 teams of 30-35

Everyone? Basketball is way more popular and less dangerous.

 

[Crashy]

Fair point. So Rugby has marginally more when we count the guys that would jump at a Super Rugby contract.

to be fair it is rumoured that Charlotte Caslick is on north of $500k including endorsements etc. Its just a rumour but I think the top make some good coin in 7evens. Thnik the average sevens contract is around the $100k mark. not bad for an extremely fit 20 year old with no head knocks like DV rugby.

 

[Omar Comin']

We're trying to get an uplift on our deal and I can't see there being any interest in a weakened 6 team (3 games per week down from 6) or even more weakened 8-10 team (4-5 games per week down from 6). I don't know why people keep looking to COVID super au as this amazing thing. We did that because we literally had nothing else and at the time it was good, but 'good' relative to nothing at all.

Be honest with yourself - if that was all we had year on year (a 5 team, 2 game a week season over 10 weeks) every single year - would you seriously enjoy it after year 2? Or if you were a broadcaster trying to maximise your subscriptions, would you buy it?

All the signals from industry have told us we need to have a better quality product and reducing the number of games or reducing the quality of those games is not serving that purpose

Super Rugby AU was more a proof of concept, obviously a 5 team competition wouldn't be sustainable long term. The concept being domestic rivalries culminating in 2 domestic teams meeting in a final with a big crowd and tv audience. It's a blueprint that works all around the world.

The better quality product would be one with uncertainty of outcome, evenness of talent and invested Australian fan bases that get to support a successful team every now and then. This will only ever be true of Super Rugby with too few Australian based teams for the size of our market. Super Rugby should be like the NHL (where the majority of players come from Canada, while the majority of teams are based in the far bigger US market). But NZR has different priorities and we don't necessarily need them to create something better with at least some chance of growth.

 

[Tomikin]

We're trying to get an uplift on our deal and I can't see there being any interest in a weakened 6 team (3 games per week down from 6) or even more weakened 8-10 team (4-5 games per week down from 6). I don't know why people keep looking to COVID super au as this amazing thing. We did that because we literally had nothing else and at the time it was good, but 'good' relative to nothing at all.

Be honest with yourself - if that was all we had year on year (a 5 team, 2 game a week season over 10 weeks) every single year - would you seriously enjoy it after year 2? Or if you were a broadcaster trying to maximise your subscriptions, would you buy it?

All the signals from industry have told us we need to have a better quality product and reducing the number of games or reducing the quality of those games is not serving that purpose

Sigh... You basically losing focus on what was good about super rugby au. Convenually leave out the cross over after it. So we are selling Super Rugby Au, which more Australian's are interested in, the near sellout finals showed that. You are selling a joint venture cross over champions league/Shield plate with NZ. That gets you more games. You know what running Super Rugby Au. You can even sell it packaged up with Super Rugby NZ.

But one thing that running it as a standard alone comps gives you is flexibility. Oh Australia wants to add more teams. Fine... We want to invite Japan's to our Champions league.. great...

Currently we have one product that is set in stone, we have a final series with too many teams, and one final. But keep flogging super rugby that's not so super. We could even have qualification to shield / cup be based on the year before and play a longer season domestically and a cup season during it. There's so much more opportunities, and products to sell..

But hey what were doing now with super rugby's great... We get 6 games a weekend woohoo

 

[Wallaby Man]

The fallacy that Covid pumped up the viewing and attendance rates has been debunked. AFL and NRL has shown continued growth in both areas post Covid, if it was a bump then their audiences would have dropped post Covid. Super Rugby unfortunately is on the nose and has a terrible image and engagement problem. Like most things in rugby, we struggle to tell compelling stories and the sport doesn’t make stars. I’m not sure if success for any of the teams will make a difference. The Brumbies for example have been relatively successful and have continued to struggle for viewing figures and attendance.

 

[JRugby2]

Sigh... You basically losing focus on what was good about super rugby au. Convenually leave out the cross over after it. So we are selling Super Rugby Au, which more Australian's are interested in, the near sellout finals showed that. You are selling a joint venture cross over champions league/Shield plate with NZ. That gets you more games. You know what running Super Rugby Au. You can even sell it packaged up with Super Rugby NZ.

But one thing that running it as a standard alone comps gives you is flexibility. Oh Australia wants to add more teams. Fine... We want to invite Japan's to our Champions league.. great...

Currently we have one product that is set in stone, we have a final series with too many teams, and one final. But keep flogging super rugby that's not so super. We could even have qualification to shield / cup be based on the year before and play a longer season domestically and a cup season during it. There's so much more opportunities, and products to sell..

But hey what were doing now with super rugby's great... We get 6 games a weekend woohoo

I doing drawing with my nephew the other week and he drew me his dream house. It was a mansion with cookies for walls and a jelly bean bed with lasers from the roof. He was adamant that he was going to build it one day.

You have no idea how similar this situation is...

And to be clear I'm not defending super rugby as this amazing thing rather so pointing out all of the massive, gaping holes in these ideas for a domestic competition that are ignored by a large bunch of people who can't seem to think past what format it will be.

 

[Adam84]

Seems legit..