Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
My girls play at Vikings in the same team and my son is at Royals.
Your thoughts and prayers are appreciated, particularly on the minus degree celsius mornings when I'm getting my kids up to train...LOL
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Your thoughts and prayers are appreciated, particularly on the minus degree celsius mornings when I'm getting my kids up to train...LOL
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
TBH, I love it here. As I said earlier, Australia is a great country and we are grateful to live here. Although there are things I miss about NZ, I reckon this is a fantastic place to live and raise a family
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
And seafood (prawns excepted), beef & lamb (due to the different different grass etc) & of course feral pork, venison & even goat if it's prepared & cooked right. I do miss the deli meats & smallgoods, esp the awesome Gottzinger kransky. Nothing in NZ comes close.
SouthernX
John Thornett (49)
Please explain seafood?
don’t we cast our nets in the same water… are the fish that much better tasting to the east of NZ.
(Must be all the nutrients from volcanic run off)
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Absolutely. Kingfish from Bay of Islands, snapper from the Coromandel, blue cod from Cook's Strait, gurnard from anywhere north of about Taranaki... it's all good. Think I might go fishing this long weekend, get me some more Coromandel snapper...
Nothing under 30cm in that lot.
I believe the colder water plays a big part in the taste & texture of the fish: I know people who've fished in Tasmania & SA who tell me the fish down there are far firmer & tastier than the bland & mushy stuff you get further north.
Last edited:
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Pavlova.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Shots fired...
Slayer!
Herbert Moran (7)
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
I know we are looking to cut expenses but with the Rebels gone Super Rugby funding must go up and salary cap increased to be even remotely competitive in the real world. Teams also need to find another 5-10 games a year to appease the extra depth in their teams as playing club rugby just doesn’t cut it for anyone that’s serious about their career. Interesting times ahead
Steve_Grey
Jimmy Flynn (14)
"Super Rugby funding must go up and salary cap increased"
RA funded? The franchises (bar Force) can't balance their books now with the current salary cap - forget assets, it is the cashflow (or lack of) that is killing them.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Reds are OK with $5m of sponsorship a year, but Tahs and Brumbies have nowehere near that.
The broadcast deal is what it is - and has to fund plenty of other RA stuff, not just Super Rugby. Those two Super Rugby teams have to work out a way of attracting more sponsorship $$$ if the pro sport is going to survive as it is in this country.
The broadcast deal is what it is - and has to fund plenty of other RA stuff, not just Super Rugby. Those two Super Rugby teams have to work out a way of attracting more sponsorship $$$ if the pro sport is going to survive as it is in this country.
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
The broadcast deal will go down, it's way below global comparisons with other rugby comps and RA always sell them self short.
Wilson
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
More sponsorship, but more revenue in general, particularly if it drives fan engagement. In a lot of cases it comes back to that need to be playing more rugby - better utilize the players who you pay for 12 months of the year, give fans more opportunities to engage and spend on the team.
There is a bit of an added challenge for the Brumbies there though, success hasn't been enough to bring the fans back for them and they need to get more through the gate week to week. If they can do that they have a lot untapped earning potential to take advantage of.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
More modern sports analysis over the last say 15 years or so, has linked crowds with sponsors, and further on sold key details of the fan base.
The estimate is somewhere between 70 & 80% of revenue should be non broadcast related, although the broadcast helps sell things like sponsorships.. Man U in the EPL is said to be a clothing company that runs a Football team.... the big US Basketball, & Baseball teams generate massive revenue stream via crowd numbers as does US Football [gridiron]
Australian sports tend to overly rely on broadcast revenue, arguably some key decision makers in Australian sport should spent a few months in the US and England to determine how they raise revenue. Rugby in particular could look at how US sports franchises raise revenue from non broadcast areas.
The estimate is somewhere between 70 & 80% of revenue should be non broadcast related, although the broadcast helps sell things like sponsorships.. Man U in the EPL is said to be a clothing company that runs a Football team.... the big US Basketball, & Baseball teams generate massive revenue stream via crowd numbers as does US Football [gridiron]
Australian sports tend to overly rely on broadcast revenue, arguably some key decision makers in Australian sport should spent a few months in the US and England to determine how they raise revenue. Rugby in particular could look at how US sports franchises raise revenue from non broadcast areas.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Question
Need to make a number of assumptions for the question to be valid. Question at the end.
First assumption, If what the forum is suggesting and maybe RA as well, that of the 30 million contract most is for the international matches. Meaning the lost of the Rebels will not hugely effect the broadcast deal.
Second assumption, the cost of stadium hire for Super Rugby games is a considerable cost.
Third assumption, Rugby should have more teams to broaden its appeal and reach.
Now the question.
If the above assumptions are correct, why do we have Super Rugby, why not another form of competition. An example only would be,- if each state has its own competition i.e NSW Shute Shield etc, with each state champion playing off in a final series, to take on the NZ champion team. The cost saving would be huge and maybe we could have 30 to 40 teams.
Need to make a number of assumptions for the question to be valid. Question at the end.
First assumption, If what the forum is suggesting and maybe RA as well, that of the 30 million contract most is for the international matches. Meaning the lost of the Rebels will not hugely effect the broadcast deal.
Second assumption, the cost of stadium hire for Super Rugby games is a considerable cost.
Third assumption, Rugby should have more teams to broaden its appeal and reach.
Now the question.
If the above assumptions are correct, why do we have Super Rugby, why not another form of competition. An example only would be,- if each state has its own competition i.e NSW Shute Shield etc, with each state champion playing off in a final series, to take on the NZ champion team. The cost saving would be huge and maybe we could have 30 to 40 teams.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
The problem is Half, the minute you mention any sort of domestic competition, you are immediately accused of turning the game into North Korea and if we are not playing NZ teams on a weekly basis the game will turn overnight into a neighborhood park, kick along.
Sadly the game here would prefer going down with the ship clutching there Super Rugby scarf and bag of global monopoly money.
Last edited:
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Second assumption - as far as publicly available info goes on "match day" expenses and revenue, the Super Rugby teams don't lose money on stadium hire - it appears that they at least make enough money from tickets to pay the stadium. Thge Tahs get stadium rebates which improve things even more.
For the other part, for better or worse, the reason we have Super Rugby is RA believes we need a pool of fully pro players playing other fully pro players to make a competitive Wallaby team. It's the Sheffield Shield model.
Under the revenue rugby generates in Australia, they can only afford to fund
Edit: Should also add, the Super Rugby teams, as well as the Member Union who own the participation licenses would have to vote themselves out of existence to make any major changes to Super Rugby.
Last edited:
LevitatingSocks
Bill Watson (15)
Happy for the kids that get a great education and career opportunities out of the deal. I'm sure it sets them and their families up far better than the alternative.
However I can't shake the feeling that there's something weird about a national level initiative to import teenagers to play for your national team. It feels stranger than individual schools independently choosing to take on boarders to me.
The mercenary aspect of modern test rugby rubs me the wrong way and I feel similarly about van der Merwe for Scotland.
Slayer!
Herbert Moran (7)
In Australia we call that "standard immigration policy".