Australian Rugby / RA

[Tomikin]

Who are these ‘many’ you refer to though? I haven’t met many in rugby who don’t realise the depths that rugby has sunk, you sometimes talk as though you’re the only one who can see these issues, yet I’d be surprised if there wasn’t anyone in the rugby community who didn't acknowledge rugbys decline. I think the wailing wall comment resonates here… The problem isn’t identifying the issues, that’s easy and it doesn’t take much effort to reflect back on and identify pivotal moments where rugby went wrong.

The problem now is identifying credible solutions. More importantly it’s identifying a solution that operates with the same variables and market forces that rugby union in Australia does. Whilst it’s great to point out leagues like the MLS, it also needs to be balanced with consideration to the significantly different market and variables it operates within.

Great view..

@half we aint against your view, you have an ideal state that I think we all want.. Some just don't see how we get there. Keep posting , just stip with the we are against you...

No one is ... I'll say it again, No one is.. you have had the same opinion for a long time and it's valued.. '''

I think a lot of us are more in the space of what Rugby will actually do, not what they should do.. e.g. we don't think your idea will ever happen.... not a bad idea.. just so unlikely we are working with what we think can happen.

 

[half]

Half, I don't think I disagreed with any of that and generally I like your thinking. It's just a conversation which is so circular we are drilling holes.

Agree and like I did some time ago, for me its better to time out and see what happens, I kinda timed out at the appointment of the current heads as they seemed to be making the right noises. Came back sometimes and more recently got vocal again.

Its just I have been arguing Australian Rugby needs to change systems since the late 90's, have believed for a long while Australian Rugby needed to development a nation wide competition, always believed it would take five years to set up, two years to develop and get all key stakeholders in place, two years to implement and one year to settle in.

All is not lost, and with a bit nay a lot of effort, Australian Rugby does have a small window now and for maybe another two to three years, I posted a link a couple of pages back from yahoo finance, its here again

'Quality over quantity': How Apple wants to lure sports fans to its streaming service

Apple has indicated it wants sports — but not just any sport.

finance.yahoo.com

Its well worth the read and hit continue reading roughly a third into the article, and sorry in advance to all in part it talks about the success of the MLS, but thats why Australian Rugby should be interested in it. The article is mostly about Formula 1.

I have copied bits that should have AR people on the plane today, and knocking heads together in Australia. Bits of interest, well I think so.

""" But while Apple has indicated it wants sports, it doesn't seem to want just any sport. Rather, the company seems focused on sports that can deliver on three standards: exclusive, global, and premium."""" This SCREAM's Australian Rugby broadcast to Europe and the US and Japan

"""" "Apple is looking for [sports] that, not only they could get the dedicated rights to, but a sport where they have the ability to grow," he said. """""

 

[noscrumnolife]

""" But while Apple has indicated it wants sports, it doesn't seem to want just any sport. Rather, the company seems focused on sports that can deliver on three standards: exclusive, global, and premium."""" This SCREAM's Australian Rugby broadcast to Europe and the US and Japan

"""" "Apple is looking for [sports] that, not only they could get the dedicated rights to, but a sport where they have the ability to grow," he said. """""

We are in agreement here half. Prime, Netflix, Apple TV are the sorts of partnerships we should be looking to cultivate moving forward. It might be too early for investment in the next broadcast cycle. But we should read the way the winds are blowing and as good as it is for rugby die-hards, acknowledge that Stan is pretty crummy low-hanging fruit in the wider media context. Streaming has changed the landscape of broadcast television, sports is the next frontier. Look to Amazon's broadcasting of Thursday Night Football in the NFL, for example.

 

[shanky]

What?

This is just a bizarre take.

Bizarre, you say?

next you’ll be telling me he isn’t responsible for us not winning RWC’23

 

[half]

We are in agreement here half. Prime, Netflix, Apple TV are the sorts of partnerships we should be looking to cultivate moving forward. It might be too early for investment in the next broadcast cycle. But we should read the way the winds are blowing and as good as it is for rugby die-hards, acknowledge that Stan is pretty crummy low-hanging fruit in the wider media context. Streaming has changed the landscape of broadcast television, sports is the next frontier. Look to Amazon's broadcasting of Thursday Night Football in the NFL, for example.

Take the brave step set up a local competition, say 8 teams to start, played over 28 weeks yes 4 rounds, and stuff international breaks if they interfere with the competition.

Say 17 million dollar salary cap and buy all blacks and NZers to play. To spilt NZ allow two of there teams only in the competition.

In time as revenue increases get the best English and French players so it becomes the EPL of rugby.

If we don't, someone else will and my guess it will be a European country, and they will simply buy our players.

Thats why the window of time is short. Also don't think that SA & Euro think tanks are not thinking this.

The maths, say each team cost 22 million to run with 8 teams thats 176 million.

Using the MLS example with Apple, $ 100, per year sub, with 1.2 million subs plus ads Apple get there money back,

When you advertise to the world as the premium product, you will easily the subs, at two million subs you are laughing.

But time is tight, if little old half understands this then millions of others do as well.

 

[half]

Call out to anyone who read the yahoo article on Formula 1 above an what they tho of the article.

 

[Wilson]

Take the brave step set up a local competition, say 8 teams to start, played over 28 weeks yes 4 rounds, and stuff international breaks if they interfere with the competition.

Say 17 million dollar salary cap and buy all blacks and NZers to play. To spilt NZ allow two of there teams only in the competition.
...
The maths, say each team cost 22 million to run with 8 teams thats 176 million.

This is around 5x increase on our current Super Rugby total player wage bill and similarly a 5x increase in the broadcast rights without a cent to spare to spend on the Wallabies, 7s, Wallaroos/women's or community game. It's a lovely pipe dream to think that money is available right now but there's no evidence to suggest it is. If Apple were to be bidding on Australian rugby on the basis of wanting "exclusive, global and premium" content their focus here is going to be on the Wallabies brand, so the idea of not having international breaks to run a 4 round comp won't be particularly appealing to them.

Similarly I can't see New Zealand ever being happy signing up to have two teams in a comp with most of the All Blacks playing in Australia when they already aren't particularly interested in having any of them play in Australia under the current settings.

By all means we should be exploring new media partnerships and alternative competition structures, but they need to be based in reality and actually achievable. If you want something "exclusive, global and premium" that likely comes from a Heineken cup style competition built around the pacific that keeps talent at least as focused as it is now but brings in more teams from Japan, South America, etc.

 

[The Red Baron]

Take the brave step set up a local competition, say 8 teams to start, played over 28 weeks yes 4 rounds, and stuff international breaks if they interfere with the competition.

Say 17 million dollar salary cap and buy all blacks and NZers to play. To spilt NZ allow two of there teams only in the competition.

In time as revenue increases get the best English and French players so it becomes the EPL of rugby.

If we don't, someone else will and my guess it will be a European country, and they will simply buy our players.

Thats why the window of time is short. Also don't think that SA & Euro think tanks are not thinking this.

The maths, say each team cost 22 million to run with 8 teams thats 176 million.

Using the MLS example with Apple, $ 100, per year sub, with 1.2 million subs plus ads Apple get there money back,

When you advertise to the world as the premium product, you will easily the subs, at two million subs you are laughing.

But time is tight, if little old half understands this then millions of others do as well.

What's the point of centralising all of the high performance and aligning it to the national team if you are just going to say "stuff international breaks"? Like it or not, the international game is the attraction. Either way, good luck with ignoring the international window.

Were was all of this money coming from again anyway?

 

[half]

Who are these ‘many’ you refer to though? I haven’t met many in rugby who don’t realise the depths that rugby has sunk, you sometimes talk as though you’re the only one who can see these issues, yet I’d be surprised if there wasn’t anyone in the rugby community who didn't acknowledge rugbys decline. I think the wailing wall comment resonates here… The problem isn’t identifying the issues, that’s easy and it doesn’t take much effort to reflect back on and identify pivotal moments where rugby went wrong.

The problem now is identifying credible solutions. More importantly it’s identifying a solution that operates with the same variables and market forces that rugby union in Australia does. Whilst it’s great to point out leagues like the MLS, it also needs to be balanced with consideration to the significantly different market and variables it operates within.

Back in the late 90's early 0000"s everyone believed I was wrong.

I do take you very valid point about """How do we solve the Problems we have Today"""

Over the last 3 months or so I have said a few times I no longer know how to solve as we have slide a tad to far.

Further I have said that given we have so little income we must use Super Rugby to fund the change, which I no longer can suggest a solution.

In posts above I posted a yahoo finance article about Apple wanting to buy Formula I. The article constantly refers to Apples only other sports deal the MLS and how successful that has been.

Meaning if we follow the logic in that article that if Australia does not produce lets for want of a better word call it the EPL of rugby then someone else will.

The key is juniors and quality juniors combined with quality coaching. Then hold on until it starts to pay off. How we do this especially if someone else gets an Apple type deal I have no idea, except to say to sit and do nothing will ensure our demise.

 

[half]

This is around 5x increase on our current Super Rugby total player wage bill and similarly a 5x increase in the broadcast rights without a cent to spare to spend on the Wallabies, 7s, Wallaroos/women's or community game. It's a lovely pipe dream to think that money is available right now but there's no evidence to suggest it is. If Apple were to be bidding on Australian rugby on the basis of wanting "exclusive, global and premium" content their focus here is going to be on the Wallabies brand, so the idea of not having international breaks to run a 4 round comp won't be particularly appealing to them.

Similarly I can't see New Zealand ever being happy signing up to have two teams in a comp with most of the All Blacks playing in Australia when they already aren't particularly interested in having any of them play in Australia under the current settings.

By all means we should be exploring new media partnerships and alternative competition structures, but they need to be based in reality and actually achievable. If you want something "exclusive, global and premium" that likely comes from a Heineken cup style competition built around the pacific that keeps talent at least as focused as it is now but brings in more teams from Japan, South America, etc.

What's the point of centralising all of the high performance and aligning it to the national team if you are just going to say "stuff international breaks"? Like it or not, the international game is the attraction. Either way, good luck with ignoring the international window.

Were was all of this money coming from again anyway?

OK, this was said in relation to two factors, what can we do today, and the changes in the US taking place in sports broadcasting, in particularly Apple TV.

The funding would be if it can be pulled off by convincing an Apple to fund Australia developing a mega rugby competition.

My predication is someone will, whether our admins have the talent, intellect, and structures in place to make it work is debatable.

Is it possible, yes, do I think Australia can pull it off, with the current admins no,

 

[Slim 293]

I hope somebody at Rugby Australia is wise enough to approach Apple and ask for a gazillion dollarydoos before any of the other unions think of it...

 

[half]

I hope somebody at Rugby Australia is wise enough to approach Apple and ask for a gazillion dollarydoos before any of the other unions think of it...

Its a screaming obvious question, they want

Exclusive
Quality
Premiere

I doubt we will get it and its all hypothetical anyway,

But that someone will approach and make an offer, its a cert.

 

[noscrumnolife]

Quality and Premiere are not exactly words you could associate with Australian Rugby.

 

[Wilson]

OK, this was said in relation to two factors, what can we do today, and the changes in the US taking place in sports broadcasting, in particularly Apple TV.

The funding would be if it can be pulled off by convincing an Apple to fund Australia developing a mega rugby competition.

My predication is someone will, whether our admins have the talent, intellect, and structures in place to make it work is debatable.

Is it possible, yes, do I think Australia can pull it off, with the current admins no,

You say someone is going to do it so why shouldn't we get in first, but on that same note why would Apple pay for an entirely new competition based in a smaller market when they could get an established competition in a larger market like the UK or France?

For example Premiership rugby currently gets about 50 million US$ per year for broadcast rights, Apple could easily snap that up for the sort of money you're talking about with a lot less risk on their part.

If we want to compete there we need a point of difference - the only thing we have there is the Wallabies and the fact that we can package them with the domestic product. Realistically though it would need to be more still - Apple wants global broadcast rights, not just one market, so we need to put together some sort of full SANZAAR package that necessarily leans into the current super rugby structures, rather than away from them. Even then the success of that would likely be dependent on the global league structures and any sort of domestic rugby would potentially be an afterthought.

 

[noscrumnolife]

IMO

Let's go global ASAP. Let the best players go overseas to Japan, France, URC. Good luck to the NRL if the Top 14 start raiding Rugby League and Union schoolboys. The best ideas, players and coaches are in the North because its where the most money is. Its where the stars will develop as well and it does not deny our best players access to their full potential. The Wallabies will get much better for it and be cared about by the country. The allure of playing in a great Wallabies team around the world + $1+ million contracts in Europe and Japan will be mighty appealing to top end talent.

In the 2018 Football World Cup final 2 French players from the winning team played in France. From Argentina 1 22 year old who was on loan from Man City. Brazil, Argentina, Portugal did not start getting bad at soccer when their best players stopped playing in the country. They just reinvest their enormous transfer fees into good development programs and academies and remain very good.

Our coffers will be full and we won't have big contracts in Super Rugby anymore. We will have lots of money to spend on the clubs that already exist in our country and have done for generations. If the game had been professional since conception, Shute Shield and Hospital Cup would be the vehicles around which union was built.

 

[hoggy]

What's the point of centralising all of the high performance and aligning it to the national team if you are just going to say "stuff international breaks"? Like it or not, the international game is the attraction. Either way, good luck with ignoring the international window.

Were was all of this money coming from again anyway?

This is the problem facing Australian rugby in a nutshell. The International game does fund everything. But that in itself is also it downfall. You are trying to fund everything through the Wallabies.

But in doing so you compromise the domestic level of the games ability to become more financial.

And as we have seen over the last 20 years you are putting ever greater pressure on the Wallabies to generate more income, but at the same time the games popularity has steadily declined as wallaby losses have increased, because you do not have growth domestically to make up for that.

The double whammy has then been the growth of its football competitors AFL/NRL who have dominated the available market share, that Wallaby pot of gold is forever shrinking, yet with the Women's game, 7's grassroots it has more mouths than ever to feed, the NRC is a classic example of another mouth to feed but with no more money.

And as the games popularity declines it will be harder for the Wallabies to remain competitive, what happens to that revenue if the Wallabies start losing more Tests against 2nd Tier countries, at what years consecutive losses does the Bledisloe value start to decline.

I don't know what the answer is.
But I do honestly think that sooner or later RA will have to take domestic growth more seriously, because if they don't then that Wallaby brand will just slowly cease to exist, and all that International money will go with it.

 

[The Red Baron]

This is the problem facing Australian rugby in a nutshell. The International game does fund everything. But that in itself is also it downfall. You are trying to fund everything through the Wallabies.

But in doing so you compromise the domestic level of the games ability to become more financial.

And as we have seen over the last 20 years you are putting ever greater pressure on the Wallabies to generate more income, but at the same time the games popularity has steadily declined as wallaby losses have increased, because you do not have growth domestically to make up for that.

The double whammy has then been the growth of its football competitors AFL/NRL who have dominated the available market share, that Wallaby pot of gold is forever shrinking, yet with the Women's game, 7's grassroots it has more mouths than ever to feed, the NRC is a classic example of another mouth to feed but with no more money.

And as the games popularity declines it will be harder for the Wallabies to remain competitive, what happens to that revenue if the Wallabies start losing more Tests against 2nd Tier countries, at what years consecutive losses does the Bledisloe value start to decline.

I don't know what the answer is.
But I do honestly think that sooner or later Rugby Australia will have to take domestic growth more seriously, because if they don't then that Wallaby brand will just slowly cease to exist, and all that International money will go with it.

I'm not suggesting that Rugby Australia don't take domestic growth more seriously, I was more taking issue with the 'stuff the international break' comment. We absolutely need to have a strong domestic comp, but it needs to be aligned to the high performance objectives RA sets, and a lot of those objectives are international - Lions, Bledisloe, World Cup, etc.

 

[HogansHeros]

IMO

Let's go global ASAP. Let the best players go overseas to Japan, France, URC. Good luck to the NRL if the Top 14 start raiding Rugby League and Union schoolboys. The best ideas, players and coaches are in the North because its where the most money is. Its where the stars will develop as well and it does not deny our best players access to their full potential. The Wallabies will get much better for it and be cared about by the country. The allure of playing in a great Wallabies team around the world + $1+ million contracts in Europe and Japan will be mighty appealing to top end talent.

In the 2018 Football World Cup final 2 French players from the winning team played in France. From Argentina 1 22 year old who was on loan from Man City. Brazil, Argentina, Portugal did not start getting bad at soccer when their best players stopped playing in the country. They just reinvest their enormous transfer fees into good development programs and academies and remain very good.

Our coffers will be full and we won't have big contracts in Super Rugby anymore. We will have lots of money to spend on the clubs that already exist in our country and have done for generations. If the game had been professional since conception, Shute Shield and Hospital Cup would be the vehicles around which union was built.

Its an interesting idea and I understand where you're coming from, exposure to lots of high quality rugby can only be good for a player. However you're not the first but the comparison to soccer always baffles me. Its a completely different game, is there any examples of this being pulled off in Rugby? Are any of the most successful teams all playing overseas in different comps and teams and only coming together for international tournaments?
The only example I can think of is Fiji, and they have always struggled to put together a complete performance, however the team is full of some of the most elite athletes in Rugby. That is until the Drua have been playing together and created that base for Fiji to work with, and have seen some success this WC. Could be coincidence ...

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Domestically I just feel like you habe to create something with SS and QRU clubs. Super Rugby has zero appeal. It will hurt a lot in the short term. I'm not sure if the SRU would be on-board even, but if we could get something going surely we open it up too private equity. For all the shit australian rugby cops for being a game for the upper classes. Theres got to be a more than a few rich investors willing to put their hand up.

To offset the cost for these private investors, the we will still have the top stars contracted to Rugby Australia. Ill reiterate again, it will be painful. There won't be enough money for all SS and QRU clubs to have a space in the comp, but as young aussie rugby fan this is the only way forward.

Have mid-week Champions League style comp against NPC and Japanese teams as an extra money maker.

The super rugby teams could have their place at the end of the season as state of origin or all star sides who play a short and sweet comp.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Don't really know the ins and outs of the hospital cup but the Sydney sides who I would assume would have enough support would be - Manly, Eastwood, Easts, Randwick, Two-Blues (hopefully).

Some clubs would need to merge. If I could pick, it would be Gordon-Norths, Manly and Warringah would be ideal for a merger but I doubt it would happen. Other clubs I feel are too far away for a merger. Maybe West Harbour and Two-Blues could?

I know this leaves large swathes of Sydney unrepresented, but Rugby needs to cater to its base. Which it is rapidly losing. Honestly which is all we need to be healthy, plus casual fans who tune into the wallabies. Thoughts? Any Brisbanites willing to throw their two cents and speculate on which sides could potientially take part in this comp?