Australian Rugby / RA

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I just wonder about time. All these things would need a 2 year (relatively successful) stint at each. With no hiccups it makes him older than Schmidt now and be a 60+ rookie international coach.

I'm not being 'ageist' or writing off coaches with vast experience but they usually have some Test experience by that stage if they are going to be hired again.

 

[stillmissit]

I just wonder about time. All these things would need a 2 year (relatively successful) stint at each. With no hiccups it makes him older than Schmidt now and be a 60+ rookie international coach.

I'm not being 'ageist' or writing off coaches with vast experience but they usually have some Test experience by that stage if they are going to be hired again.

We are in a similar situation with our coaches and our players. Both need to step up but the question is can they?

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I just tend to think the path he'd need to walk is one of perfection.

It would rely on great results, then a good team opening and wanting him. It can't be a div 3 japanese club or european like Benetton. Clubs like the Wild Knights are unlikely to chase a guy from below and always go after current or recent Test coaches. Win there and then get a Super job and do a good job there. Then face the criticism I'm guilty of which is probably unfair that he has no international experience...

You got to get a job to get experience I guess and maybe I'm being delusional thinking Aus is still one of those nations that you need runs on the board. Are we now a place for the entry level Test coach and we hope to get a gem?

I'd like to see coaches like Peter Hewat back in Aus and Daniel Halangahu one day. Cron still a good prospect but faces a big year with the Force. He's going into year 3?? He's a guy that gets all the wraps from those around him but hasn't truly shown he's any more than a good Club coach yet.

 

[Ignoto]

Manenti has the technical skills, and players who've come from 7s to Super Rugby consistently seem to be well developed around basic skills, etc. He's obviously well versed in the Australian system. Walsh might be a longer shot, but he's just as good a motivator as Cheika.

John Mitchell and Richard Graham were touted for their technical skills coaching.

It did not translate well to a HC roll even at super rugby. That's even with Richard being gifted the easiest run into being successful; slowly introduced to the role with Ewen still there to be called on, a well established, successful and team full of leaders along with the best talent coming out of the country.

 

[stillmissit]

I'd like to see coaches like Peter Hewat back in Aus and Daniel Halangahu one day. Cron still a good prospect but faces a big year with the Force. He's going into year 3?? He's a guy that gets all the wraps from those around him but hasn't truly shown he's any more than a good Club coach ye

I think the problem is the requirements of Super Rugby, we play mostly against NZ teams and have not been competitive across the board ever! Our skills, fitness and talent is below what they produce but we have great skills in our faster players. The focus on a competitive pack has been improving but there is still a way to go.
Samson is another good coach who would have made a better coach than Foote IMO. Still, it hangs on us getting more out of what we have and that seems to be a barrier to improvement. I think we have set our ceiling too low for continual improvement and focused more on being the best Super Rugby team in Aus and the Brumbies have mainly held that for a long time.

 

[stillmissit]

John Mitchell and Richard Graham were touted for their technical skills coaching.

It did not translate well to a HC roll even at super rugby. That's even with Richard being gifted the easiest run into being successful; slowly introduced to the role with Ewen still there to be called on, a well established, successful and team full of leaders along with the best talent coming out of the country.

We have a talent for dragging down any coaching talent we produce.

 

[oztimmay]

So, things are going well on the TV broadcast negotiations, specifically on Shute Shield coverage.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_TWT&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fsport%2Frugby%2Frugby-australia-news-2024-shute-shield-clubs-consider-breaking-away-from-rugby-australia-after-insulting-offer-for-broadcast-rights%2Fnews-story%2F8d39e15751b879a10d54cc53f713605a&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=ULTRALOW-Segment-1-SCORE

 

[Strewthcobber]

It's a Jamie P special, but some interesting (and concerning) numbers in that article.

“The deal we previously signed with Stan means that all Shute Shield games are now broadcast on TV. That has made it even more difficult for us to get supporters to our grounds, which is a big part of our revenue generation.

RA offered $40,000 per club.

It’s understood that the offer is an increase on what the clubs received this year, and RA based the figure on statistics that suggest the average Shute Shield match gets one-sixth of the broadcast audience of a Super Rugby game.

Nine is offering $4,200 per game

 

[Strewthcobber]

So.....does that means the Super Rugby broadcast deal is worth $4200 * 6 * 83 games a year = $2.1m a year?

 

[Wilson]

So.....does that means the Super Rugby broadcast deal is worth $4200 * 6 * 83 games a year = $2.1m a year?

No, Nine has not valued the individual components, RA has. The article says this (may have since been updated?):

The offer across 12 Shute Shield clubs, for 108 regular season games and six playoff matches, essentially means Nine is offering $4200 per game. There will be additional money given to SRU for operational costs.

So all it really means is that RA is offering the Shute Shield clubs $480k for 114 matches (~$4.2k per game). Beyond that I really don't think we can infer a linear relationship between the the value of a game and the average audience at those levels jumping across the two comps.


Not exactly sure what the Shute Shield clubs think their TV rights are worth either - RA is offering them $480k + some expenses per year (so ~ $500k), the last time the rights were sold (to RA) it was for half that ($250k):

The Shute Shield has previously broken away from Rugby Australia. Their rights were purchased by businessmen John Murray and Nick Fordham, who on-sold it to the Seven network after it was dropped by the ABC.

But when then-RA chief executive Raelene Castle made the decision to take the broadcast rights from Fox Sports to Nine and Stan, the organisation paid Murray and Fordham $250,000 to secure the Shute Shield rights and fold it all into one package.

 

[Adam84]

That is pretty stupid posturing by Shute Shield... when they last went to market on their own with Murray and Fordham, pretty sure they ended up having to pay for their games to be broadcast. Blaming TV broadcast on reduced crowds is wilfully naive; maybe people just don't find the shute shield interesting as they did years ago

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

As someone who was flying the club rugby flag. I have to agree. Badly stupid by the SRU.

I feel like anyone who would be a regular in attendance before shute shield was Stan, would go to the games anyway rather than watching on stream.

 

[SouthernX]

What is FOX offering?

love my club rugby on Stan. Wish we got 2 commentators on every broadcast but it’s such an improvement when qld reds were running all matches like on YouTube but only one camera angle and no audio.

Is the Shute shield powerbrokers receptive to a national club competition? Phil Waugh floated it but now RA wants to land on a 4 team super rugby comp in spring - perhaps it’s the shute shield leadership being difficult with the concept

 

[stoff]

It could be done as long as clauses in any long term contract protected RA from brutal pay outs.

It’s either a long term contract or not. If one party can terminate at will the other is able to do so as well. It’s a risk if the coach is performing and gets a better offer.

 

[stoff]

“The offer put to us isn’t sustainable, there is not enough to keep our club afloat and the other clubs clearly feel the same.

“The deal we previously signed with Stan means that all Shute Shield games are now broadcast on TV. That has made it even more difficult for us to get supporters to our grounds, which is a big part of our revenue generation.

It’s understood that the offer is an increase on what the clubs received this year,

“Some clubs also have to hire equipment if their grounds are not built to support television cameras, that’s an additional cost they must absorb on game day.

There will be additional money given to SRU for operational costs.

Maybe they need to acknowledge broadcast isn’t for them if it isn’t sustainable.

 

[Rob42]

Bloody hell, who'd want to be the RA employee who has to listen to this garbage from SRU. I'd be telling them "sorry to see you go, hope BarTV can give you a better deal than Stan..." Or maybe the club Facebook stream.

 

[Slim 293]

Hmmmmmmmmm........ fuck 'em?

 

[Strewthcobber]

That is pretty stupid posturing by Shute Shield... when they last went to market on their own with Murray and Fordham, pretty sure they ended up having to pay for their games to be broadcast. Blaming TV broadcast on reduced crowds is wilfully naive; maybe people just don't find the shute shield interesting as they did years ago

Each club was paying $30k per year to Bar TV. They onsold this content to 7mate

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Love to know how many people watch the Club Rugby anyway in QLD and NSW. Most of your fans go or just watch their side. Only sickos on here flick through them all and even watch the interstate games.

It makes Stan look like they have more product then they do even if the Southern Districts v Eastwood game has 467 views.

 

[Slim 293]

Each club was paying $30k per year to Bar TV. They onsold this content to 7mate

It was actually 7Two, and only live into NSW/ACT... maybe Queensland some weeks?