Australian Rugby / RA

[Adam84]

Yep… 2nd division….. not A-League

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Easts had $613k of sponsorship revenue in 2022 and $542k in 2021.

Yes and that just for a local rugby comp. The money would be higher if they where played in the main domestic rugby comp in Aus. As I said before, most NRL fans aren't league fans. Theyre fans of their clubs.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Yep… 2nd division….. not A-League

With eventual plans for promotion and relegation.

 

[LeCheese]

The top SS clubs, if they played in the highest possible level of rugby in Australia could expect 8-10k crowds I'd say.

So, sweet fuck all then?

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

So, sweet fuck all then?

lol better than what most aussie clubs are getting now. That atleast 4-5 clubs in sydney I'd expect to reach crowds like that.

 

[LeCheese]

lol better than what most aussie clubs are getting now. That atleast 4-5 clubs in sydney I'd expect to reach crowds like that.

8-10k crowds are no where near enough to sustain 'the highest level of Australian rugby', as you are proposing

 

[Wallaby Man]

We need to clarify a few things. What constitutes development? A large percentage of SS players play for these clubs for opportunity and had very little to do with them at a young age. They go through these clubs because that’s the next stepping stone, not because they are products from 5yrs of age.

As someone that’s lived overseas, Randwick doesn’t have the recognition of the Rebels or Force. Infact all 3 are hardly recognised even in rugby communities but because the Force and Rebels have some exposure through Super Rugby, they have multiple times the brand recognition. In fact I don’t think many sports fans outside if Sydney know what Randwick is but might of heard of the Force/Rebels.

We really have some crazy comments at times

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest issue here though is how professional is this competition?

We already have a significant issue where it is very hard to keep anyone who is at a level where they have options overseas.

You can't suddenly expect Super Rugby starting level players to be playing for $100k a year at a maximum.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

8-10k crowds are no where near enough to sustain 'the highest level of Australian rugby', as you are proposing

Same amount that the english premiership gets.

 

[LeCheese]

Same amount that the english premiership gets.

The same premiership that has seen several clubs collapse recently?

 

[noscrumnolife]

The biggest issue here though is how professional is this competition?

We already have a significant issue where it is very hard to keep anyone who is at a level where they have options overseas.

You can't suddenly expect Super Rugby starting level players to be playing for $100k a year at a maximum.

This is the challenge, and why I propose that it can only be done by allowing our best players to go overseas.

For me, there is also a labour rights issue at the heart of it: why should the best Wallabies not be allowed to access the best salaries in the world (available in France) simply because Australian Rugby was beholden to NewsCorp at the turn of professionalism and invented a Super Rugby structure that is ill-suited to the country.

Let the best talent play in the best competitions. We can't compete with the NRL. But the Top 14 certainly can. And not having the best players be in Australia evidently wouldn't result in a decline in Australian Rugby. They would remain in the hearts and minds of youngsters if they were allowed to play for the Wallabies, and it is not as if Super Rugby is creating inspiring stars for the next generation.

 

[stillmissit]

Look I think its comes down to this when evaluating why Super Rugby has to gone sh!t:

1. Fans don't really like or identify with their super teams. There is no tribalism or connection. Half of the people who like NRL aren't fans of the sports itself. They're engaged in the tribalism behind it. Rugby needs to harness this.

Agree with this bolded assessment. Why the hell they named Super Rugby teams after the stupid American/nrl method is a form of madness. It should have been Qld, NSW, Victoria and Western Australia.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Obviously I'm not in the drivers seat at Australian rugby. But this is an option that needs to be explored. I'm sure they would be a few rich benefactors who would put up money.

 

[Bullrush]

The top SS clubs, if they played in the highest possible level of rugby in Australia could expect 8-10k crowds I'd say.

 

[LeCheese]

Look I think its comes down to this when evaluating why Super Rugby has to gone sh!t:

1. Fans don't really like or identify with their super teams. There is no tribalism or connection. Half of the people who like NRL aren't fans of the sports itself. They're engaged in the tribalism behind it. Rugby needs to harness this.

A new comp with new artificial teams will not help at all. Harness our strengths and get these clubs with popular following in a comp which is the highest level. With comp like this Rugby fans will not lament the demise of the Wallabies as much cause they will care about their club team just as much. You talk about International rugby being the be and all of the rugby eco-system. Well lets work away from that.

I think you're also significantly overestimating how many people are actually connected to and identify with club rugby. Many rugby fans, particularly the 'casual' fans who actually make up the bulk of numbers, couldn't give a shit about established prem clubs.

Unquestionably, the number of people who identify with to state / regional teams (both currently and looking at a 'ceiling' of supporter numbers), would be much, much higher.

 

[Dctarget]

Honestly reckon we could get a 2nd franchise called Kiwi Melbourne. There's 20k fans that come to the Melbourne Bledisloe that don't come to the Rebels.

 

[noscrumnolife]

I think you're also significantly overestimating how many people are actually connected to and identify with club rugby. Many rugby fans, particularly the 'casual' fans who actually make up the bulk of numbers, couldn't give a shit about established prem clubs.

Unquestionably, the number of people who identify with to state / regional teams (both currently and looking at a 'ceiling' of supporter numbers), would be much, much higher.

Where is the evidence for this? Almost all fans of Rugby are involved in the game on a playing/club basis. I don't know anyone who cares about their Super team without having a connection (i.e. membership!) to a club in their city. Sure, the total number of people who care about the Tahs is higher than any one Shute Shield team. But that's just a matter of division. The total number of engaged consumers is probably identical.

 

[LeCheese]

Agree with this bolded assessment. Why the hell they named Super Rugby teams after the stupid American/nrl method is a form of madness. It should have been Qld, NSW, Victoria and Western Australia.

Queensland Reds
NSW Waratahs
Western Force
ACT Brumbies

 

[Bullrush]

No one thought the Reds were lacking in tribalism or fan connection in the early 2010's. Or the Waratahs in 2014. As I understand, the Brumbies used to pull decent crowds back in the day.

 

[LeCheese]

Where is the evidence for this? Almost all fans of Rugby are involved in the game on a playing/club basis. I don't know anyone who cares about their Super team without having a connection (i.e. membership!) to a club in their city. Sure, the total number of people who care about the Tahs may be higher than any one Shute Shield team. But that's just a matter of division. The total number of engaged consumers is probably identical.

I personally have no affiliations or connections with any particular club - neither do the vast, vast majority of people I know who support and attend Super and Wallabies games.

I would say it's a pretty safe bet that a random poll of people at Super and Wallabies matches would find the majority of attendees do not either.