Australian Rugby / RA

[noscrumnolife]

Part of the reason we have no crowds at Super games is because on a Saturday, rugby people would prefer to be on the lash at their clubhouse then go watch a dross uncompetitive product. Who are these vast vast majorities of people you know who attend Super Rugby in the first place?

 

[stillmissit]

Queensland Reds
NSW Waratahs
Western Force
ACT Brumbies

Forget the bloody stupid add-ons. There might be an argument IF we had more than one Super Rugby team in each state but to claim that we are already ID'ing the Super Rugby clubs with states is blind stupidity..It's about bloody marketing, which we are piss poor at. If we had got the marketing right and then structures of RA pathways, player ID and support/coaching we wouldn't be in the shit we are in.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Part of the reason we have no crowds at Super games is because on a Saturday, rugby people would prefer to be on the lash at their clubhouse then go watch a dross uncompetitive product. Who are these vast vast majorities of people you know who attend Super Rugby in the first place?

This right here.

A lot of people spend their day at Junior, School & Club Rugby. The last thing they feel like doing is spend a couple hundred bucks by the end of it. They would rather spend it with mates at the Club, Pub or god forbid the family at home. A lot of people who play Rugby also have more interest in the NRL on a Saturday than the Rugby sadly.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Part of the reason we have no crowds at Super games is because on a Saturday, rugby people would prefer to be on the lash at their clubhouse then go watch a dross uncompetitive product. Who are these vast vast majorities of people you know who attend Super Rugby in the first place?

This. Like fuck me there are so many rugby fans who just dont give a toss about the tahs.

People in Sydney identify much more to their local area than their state. Thats a fact.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

I'm sorry to be sydney centric, but sydney is the main financial and talent base rugby in Australia has.

I said it before and i'll say it again. The majority of league fans aren't fans of the sport, their fans of the clubs.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Tbf I don't think it's a Tahs thing as much as a Sydney thing. When winning the sides pull crowds.

Sydney Kings have got 18,000 at games this year.

 

[LeCheese]

Part of the reason we have no crowds at Super games is because on a Saturday, rugby people would prefer to be on the lash at their clubhouse then go watch a dross uncompetitive product. Who are these vast vast majorities of people you know who attend Super Rugby in the first place?

Pulling everyone out of clubhouses and carting them off to Suncorp would get maybe an extra couple thousand bums on seats? Hardly the 10-20k that have gone missing over recent years.

Of family and friends, I'd know maybe ~30 people who either still do or have previously regularly attended (more than a couple of times per season) Super matches. Of these, maybe only 5-10 have strong affiliations to club rugby.

 

[Bullrush]

QLD Reds Attendance and Membership figures in early-mid 2010's

Season	Average Attendance	Members
2011​	33,254​	15,626​
2012​	34,217​	32,640​
2013​	31,848​	36,014​
2014​	28,190​
2015​	20,199​
2016​	21,780​

Not bad given how lacking in tribalism Super Rugby is and all the people who would prefer to spend Sat nite at home or at the rugby club watching NRL.

 

[noscrumnolife]

There is also an irony to every man and their dog saying we need to spend more money on the grassroots for the last 15+ years. But the moment someone proposes a competitive structure which is built around our grassroots (and therefore delivers money into their pockets) everyone shits the bed and says we just need to keep tinkering with Super Rugby. The competition we spend every season crapping on for being rubbish.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Thats true but the fact is when a aussie rugby team loses a game, especially against an NZ team its considered a loss for an australian rugby in general. IF we create a more localised comp. When teams win or lose its a win or loss just for that team.

I barely have a connection to any SS club. Played 3 colts games for one club, ages ago. But if that clubds occupied the highest level of australian rugby i would watch and support win lose or draw. Its not the same for the tahs.

 

[Bullrush]

There is also an irony to every man and their dog saying we need to spend more money on the grassroots for the last 15+ years. But the moment someone proposes a competitive structure which is built around our grassroots (and therefore delivers money into their pockets) everyone shits the bed and says we just need to keep tinkering with Super Rugby. The competition we spend every season crapping on for being shit.

I don't think anyone has said that.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

I do agree that the Australian sides in super rugby have more of sense of tribalism, but the NZ sides don't. Might sound stupid but I think super rugby would be more appealing if 8 NPC sides made up the KIWI teams. Would make us more competitive too.

 

[John S]

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.

The thing is also that "club rugby" extends beyond Sydney and Brisbane's boundaries. For example, I follow the Shoalies - who play in the Illawarra comp - I have a passing interest in the Shute Shield - I've got no "tribalism" for this level of comp. But I will get up for the Waratahs.

 

[John S]

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.

Actually, I care about the Tahs, and I have never had any playing membership for a Rugby team, I've just grown up watching it, and supporting my local team by going to games when I can. Maybe I'm the exception that proves your rule?

 

[Braveheart81]

Part of the reason we have no crowds at Super games is because on a Saturday, rugby people would prefer to be on the lash at their clubhouse then go watch a dross uncompetitive product. Who are these vast vast majorities of people you know who attend Super Rugby in the first place?

What do you think the weekly Shute Shield crowds are? Barring a couple of blockbuster games like Warringah vs Manly, most games are lucky to have a couple of thousand people in attendance.

Lots of people attend school games but that's hardly relevant. They don't help things if they don't switch to paying to attend a professional game.

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.

There's a minimum viable level for professionalism though. If you can't pay people enough to be full time professionals and/or attract any players of the quality that are currently Super Rugby starters then what's the standard of the competition?

Clearly Shute Shield and Qld Premier Rugby aren't high enough quality to become a national competition that attracts a growing number of fans and can become the base for growing the game here. The quality has to be significantly higher than that.

 

[Braveheart81]

There is also an irony to every man and their dog saying we need to spend more money on the grassroots for the last 15+ years. But the moment someone proposes a competitive structure which is built around our grassroots (and therefore delivers money into their pockets) everyone shits the bed and says we just need to keep tinkering with Super Rugby. The competition we spend every season crapping on for being rubbish.

This is not grassroots though. It's about creating a new 18 team professional competition.

1st grade in the Shute Shield and Qld Premier Rugby isn't grassroots.

 

[LeCheese]

Forget the bloody stupid add-ons. There might be an argument IF we had more than one Super Rugby team in each state but to claim that we are already ID'ing the Super Rugby clubs with states is blind stupidity..It's about bloody marketing, which we are piss poor at. If we had got the marketing right and then structures of Rugby Australia pathways, player ID and support/coaching we wouldn't be in the shit we are in.

The 'add-ons' are the exact opposite of poor marketing - there is a reason that basically every team in the recent history of professional sporting competitions has had a name in the format of [Region] [Mascot / Descriptor]. It's all about identity and marketing.

Referring to every team across every code simply as 'QLD' instead of Reds, Bulls, Firebirds, (FKA) Roar, etc. would be extremely tedious and severely limit recognition.

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

The quality will become signifcantly higher with wallabies and super players playing. I don't this hypothetical comp would include every SS or QRU team either.

Only teams who could find enough financial backing would be admitted.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

What do you think the weekly Shute Shield crowds are? Barring a couple of blockbuster games like Warringah vs Manly, most games are lucky to have a couple of thousand people in attendance.

Lots of people attend school games but that's hardly relevant. They don't help things if they don't switch to paying to attend a professional game.


There's a minimum viable level for professionalism though. If you can't pay people enough to be full time professionals and/or attract any players of the quality that are currently Super Rugby starters then what's the standard of the competition?

Clearly Shute Shield and Qld Premier Rugby aren't high enough quality to become a national competition that attracts a growing number of fans and can become the base for growing the game here. The quality has to be significantly higher than that.

500-2000 would be my guess at an average.

Probably a game a week that gets 5000-8000 when Manly v Warringah, Gordon v Norths, Easts v Randwick

 

[noscrumnolife]

There's a minimum viable level for professionalism though. If you can't pay people enough to be full time professionals and/or attract any players of the quality that are currently Super Rugby starters then what's the standard of the competition?

Clearly Shute Shield and Qld Premier Rugby aren't high enough quality to become a national competition that attracts a growing number of fans and can become the base for growing the game here. The quality has to be significantly higher than that.

Our revenue is almost entirely generated by the Wallabies. If you took all that revenue and invested it in a club competition and didn't keep bailing out the states, and let Ikitau, Tupou, Kellaway, Bell, Petaia, Marky Mark (Nawaqanitawase), Frost, Valetini (just examples) access higher salaries and better coaching than we can ever give them in France, we would have money to invest.

It might not be able to fund 18 teams, that seems fanciful. But you would actually have more players on professional salaries than we currently have, at a higher standard (because the lower level Super players would enter this club game).

I don't think you can make the economics work for a club competition without letting the top earners earn top salaries overseas, however.