Australian Rugby / RA

[cyclopath]

Hoiles can get bent. Also, rubbish argument about QLD/NSW producing most of the players. Yes, literally majority of the players originate from those states - but both, in particular QLD, are well known for being shite at developing their players professionally when they make it to super level. Many have to leave to upskill, typically to the Brumbies. More professional teams = more professional pathways.

Sidenote: Melbournian Valetini was an absolute weapon tonight.

Yeah, the argument about where the players come from is a bit silly.
But the relevant bit is that Qld or NSW cannot develop all the potential players from that state given the numbers - there will always be players with potential who don't show it early, do better in another environment, just plain get better or whatever. It should be a good thing that they get a chance elsewhere and take it, not necessarily a negative that they didn't do it earlier. The Brumbies have done well over the years at spotting and developing players.

 

[cyclopath]

People didn't think that the Big Bash would work either. We have to have a crack. We just have to.

And we'll have to go backwards to go forwards - smaller salary caps etc. for first few years, meaning we lose some more players overseas, but we can't keep rolling along like we currently are.

If we go any further backwards, pro Rugby in Aus will disappear up its own arse.

 

[RebelYell]

If we go any further backwards, pro Rugby in Aus will disappear up its own arse.

The game is great. It's booming in the north. People will still watch it. This current administration are so concerned that they'll be the ones who kill the game, that they're not actually trying to save it. And even if it doesn't die on their watch, they're complicit if it dies on the next lot's.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Tell them to fly over us, and see how long that lasts. I'm sure Tasman/North Harbour would be very interested in joining the type of competition you suggested, and the SA teams are still hedging their bets and considering going North. It's time for bravery

They'll actually go the other way. As there are direct flights from Auckland to BA and now BA to Jo'burg. As for the likes of Harbour/Tasman etc. The issue with that is they'd need to blessing of the NZRU. Cannot see them being too keen on that if we pulled the plug.

I do think we could evolve Super Rugby toward a completely different model. One that would also integrate the Top League under a two phased competition. The first would feature a 4 x 8 'league' structure playing home and away for 14 games. It would feature the Top League and the teams in their restructured 1st Div. The Aus league featuring our 5 plus Fiji, HK and AP Dragons. The NZ league featuring the 1st Div from the ITM Cup plus Kafiga Samoa and the SA league featuring 7 SA provinces plus the Jaguares.

Ratings in the original three SANZAAR nations are highest for games played against in country rivals so this would look to capitalise on this. The league phase would help determine teams rankings 1-8 in each league before the were split into the 8 x 4 'championship' phase were the teams ranked 1st in each league are joined by the teams ranked 3, 5 and 7 and the 2nd ranked teams are joined by the 4,6 and 8. So each pool in the 'championship' phase would feature a team from one of the 4 leagues. This would once again be home and away for 6 games with the top ranked team in each pool going into a sudden death Super 8 to determine the overall Champion.

This would feature a minimum of a 20 game season with 10 home games a piece. It would also allow for between 8/9 of those away games to be in much more convenient time zones in general while requiring overall less travel all round.

 

[cyclopath]

The game is great. It's booming in the north. People will still watch it. This current administration are so concerned that they'll be the ones who kill the game, that they're not actually trying to save it. And even if it doesn't die on their watch, they're complicit if it dies on the next lot's.

I know the game is great. Hence, GAGR.
It matters not one bit if the game is going gangbusters up north if they aren't going to pay for us to have a comp. But it matters in another, worse way. They will pay for our better players to go there.
I know people don't want to talk about it, but the money thing is huge. Unless someone has a great idea where to find it, we will shrink to semi-pro at best.
RA have to cop the blame for a big part of this, part is down to shifting financial factors with broadcasting and sponsorship too.

 

[Gnostic]

Wonderful counter argument. There have many times this season when heaps of people have commented on the higher quality of the Aussie teams. Recency theory will hinder that perspective as will the fact the Rebels clearly have a systemic cultural issue down there that needs resolving.



But there have been wins and performances this year far better than we could have done with 5 teams.

I think you are as usual grasping at straws to support your ever fawning adulation of the administration.

The break out victories you are holding onto came pretty soon after injuries to already depleted Kiwi sides. Notice how those sides like the Chiefs without significant senior players who have moved on and others who out injured have adjusted and developed and are genuine finalists, unlike the Australian teams.

We can also show how those sides when they rest their key ABs do not ship 100+ points in two weeks. I do not think that the culling of the Force produced any net benefit in terms of actual performance, those couple of results are a bit of a Furphy.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Because there will not be enough money in it to pay the players enough that they won't go to Japan or Europe, not even close. With broadcasting revenues shrinking, what prime time TV is going to pony up real money for it? I get where you're coming from, though.

From my understanding traditionally speaking there's been very little actual value in Super Rugby when it comes to the TV negotiations and the vast bulk of the revenues are generated by the Test component of the deals. Additionally, the ratings suggest that the derby games are the highest raters in Aus and NZ. Going from the ratings the picture is rating highest to lowest it goes Aus/Aus, Aus/NZ in Aus, Aus/SA in Aus, NZ/Aus in NZ, NZ/NZ, SA/Aus in SA, SA/NZ in SA and finally SA/SA in SA. And the Aus/SA games only get up over the NZ/Aus games thanks to the Aus/SA games usually being in the 7:30 slot while the NZ/Aus games being the 5:30 slot on both Fri and Sat.

Taking these into account an argument could be made that a TT league would deliver an all round higher average ratings. Which are used by broadcasters to determine value.

 

[cyclopath]

From my understanding traditionally speaking there's been very little actual value in Super Rugby when it comes to the TV negotiations and the vast bulk of the revenues are generated by the Test component of the deals. Additionally, the ratings suggest that the derby games are the highest raters in Aus and NZ. Going from the ratings the picture is rating highest to lowest it goes Aus/Aus, Aus/NZ in Aus, Aus/SA in Aus, NZ/Aus in NZ, NZ/NZ, SA/Aus in SA, SA/NZ in SA and finally SA/SA in SA. And the Aus/SA games only get up over the NZ/Aus games thanks to the Aus/SA games usually being in the 7:30 slot while the NZ/Aus games being the 5:30 slot on both Fri and Sat.

Taking these into account an argument could be made that a TT league would deliver an all round higher average ratings. Which are used by broadcasters to determine value.

But Super Rugby, for what it's worth, has a history upon which decisions to even broadcast something are based. if SANZAAR folds what of the Rugby Championship and the revenue it might bring? A new comp will need to prove somehow that it is worth backing. And the amount they pay for these products is falling overall. Not sure how streaming services might compare, I'll admit. The above might support a semi-pro type comp (more NRC than Super Rugby), but not something at the level required to produce, say, a really competitive Wallaby team for instance.
If someone can make your idea happen, great. I'm sceptical.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I was at my son's school game this morning and bumped into an old work colleague, who played first grade here in Perth and Oz rep footy too back in the day. His boy plays 1st XV and he's still plugged into the club scene here in the West. He said something a bit troubling, in that the participation rate is starting to drop off here. I'd have to believe the dropping of the Force was a big contributor to that. A lot of good rugby people in WA feel like the code has abandoned them.

I have a hard time agreeing with Stephen Hoiles on the number of sides too. Are we trying to grow the game or not? Just when the pathways over here in WA were producing elite level players, we get the rug pulled. I know the argument about QLD being poached from at the beginning and accept that, but at the same time, we're in a competition with other codes in our own country and in the same code with other countries. God forbid we'd try to build something outside of QLD and NSW.

I cannot speak for Hoiles reasoning but an argument could be made that in order to build greater audience interest we need teams that are genuine contenders far more regularly than they currently are. Greater levels of competitiveness and success would in theory lead to higher overall ratings. The key to this however would be the requirement that Super Rugby adopted a double round robin format as that would deliver more overall content than the current planned reversion to 14 teams playing a single round robin. Which would mean our 4 would collectively have a combined 26 home games as opposed to 3 in a double round robin format which would deliver 33 at potentially a higher overall average ratings. Which would be worth more than the proposed 26.

If we were then able to use that level of greater competitiveness and hopefully success we could leverage any growth in the ratings to garner more value out of future deals. After all, if you have 26 games averaging 55-57k opposed to 33 games averaging 76-80k it's pretty clear to see the growth in value. This in theory would then allow for more money to flow into the game and for it to potentially grow.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

But Super Rugby, for what it's worth, has a history upon which decisions to even broadcast something are based. if SANZAAR folds what of the Rugby Championship and the revenue it might bring? A new comp will need to prove somehow that it is worth backing. And the amount they pay for these products is falling overall. Not sure how streaming services might compare, I'll admit. The above might support a semi-pro type comp (more NRC than Super Rugby), but not something at the level required to produce, say, a really competitive Wallaby team for instance.
If someone can make your idea happen, great. I'm sceptical.

There are a lot of variables involved. That is for sure. I'm just pointing out that the argument around there not being the level of interest for a TT from a spectator perspective isn't supported by the numbers. The facts are that the games featuring SA teams outside of those competing against Aus teams in Aus drag the average down. Quite significantly. The issue is whether or not the will exists. Which I suspect it doesn't.

 

[kiap]

The above might support a semi-pro type comp (more NRC than Super Rugby), but not something at the level required to produce, say, a really competitive Wallaby team for instance.

I take it you're not part of the “Shute Shield won us two World Cups” brigade then, Cyclo?

 

[Gnostic]

I know the game is great. Hence, GAGR.

​

​

It matters not one bit if the game is going gangbusters up north if they aren't going to pay for us to have a comp. But it matters in another, worse way. They will pay for our better players to go there.​

​

I know people don't want to talk about it, but the money thing is huge. Unless someone has a great idea where to find it, we will shrink to semi-pro at best.​

​

RA have to cop the blame for a big part of this, part is down to shifting financial factors with broadcasting and sponsorship too.​

​

​

This is spot on, and the shrinking started back in 2003 when the golden egg was cracked and formed into an omelette for a few who benefitted at the expense of the long term prospects of the game. Lets not forget that to get the sole rights to that RWC JON jumped on the opportunity to take on those sole rights like a seagull on a chippy. The fruits of that betrayal, even if the Kiwis set the scene for it themselves continues to be reaped.

No from that great windfall we have nothing at all to show for the massive once in a lifetime, perhaps once ever, windfall that the Lions tour then RWC brought in. As a certain ARU CEO accused the Clubs of doing, the ARU pissed that cash up the wall on over priced League recruits, poorly structured "2nd tier" competitions that had (and still have) no real viable support base on which to even launch (and it is impossible to grow organically off a plastic base), and a CEO that required a Bankers salary and produced a bankers results ie send the company broke and resign with a golden handshake.

My completely subjective experience in my remote little corner of the country is the game is as strong if not stronger at a club level, whilst at the same time I'd also say that 95% of those involved have little to no interest in the pro game, and those that do have an interest, its treated a bit like a faintly embarrassing hobby that one shouldn't be discussing in public, like being a member of a Saturday Night Fever re-enactment club or something.

As posted earlier, I think we may well have past the point of no return and the Pro game is in its final throws.

 

[cyclopath]

I take it you're not part of the “Shute Shield won us two World Cups” brigade then, Cyclo?

Ha! Well, you could argue 1991 was down to Shute Shield and Brisbane Club Rugby, maybe, but no, I am not.
I would love to have a structure similar to NZ (although on it's own, it too would struggle for revenues outside of AIG / Adidas and what the AB brand generates).
Sadly, I think we passed the tipping point to make it happen.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Ha! Well, you could argue 1991 was down to Shute Shield and Brisbane Club Rugby, maybe, but no, I am not.
I would love to have a structure similar to NZ (although on it's own, it too would struggle for revenues outside of AIG / Adidas and what the AB brand generates).
Sadly, I think we passed the tipping point to make it happen.

I don't know if that's entirely the case just yet. I think we could still go down the TT plus PI route. But it would require the rights push for it to happen. And it would likely require using similar variations to that of GRR as a means of enhancing the better aspects of the game.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I take it you're not part of the “Shute Shield won us two World Cups” brigade then, Cyclo?

No. But the Shute Shield alongside the Brisbane comp certainly won us the 1991 RWC and fed the Super 12 sides that helped us win the 1999 RWC.

 

[kiap]

Looking back, the Qld and NSW provinces, & others, did exist before 1990 (as we know). They were in the mix, playing NZ and international sides, in building to the top. Some credit to the premier club comps as part of the picture, also, for sure. Not sufficient on their own, though.

On the road ahead, the Sanzaar model (4N + assorted tests subsidising Super) is past the use by date now. Steve Tew, I think, has timed his exit well.

Like it or not, a new way is needed. There are some possibilities, IMO.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Looking back, the Qld and NSW provinces, & others, did exist before 1990 (as we know). They were in the mix, playing NZ and international sides, in building to the top. Some credit to the premier club comps as part of the picture, also, for sure. Not sufficient on their own, though.

On the road ahead, the Sanzaar model (4N + assorted tests subsidising Super) is past the use by date now. Steve Tew, I think, has timed his exit well.

Like it or not, a new way is needed. There are some possibilities, IMO.

Yeah, but back in those days NSW and QLD were proper state reps teams that played relatively few games each year. And in 1999 most of those guys came up through the club scene. So it did have a role to play in it.

There are definitely other possibilities. The issue is whether there is the will at the top of the respective SANZAAR Unions to make the necessary changes. I personally think that the way it competes among itself needs to change. Particularly at the level below Test Rugby.

A TT/PI league operating under GRR variations in my opinion would be a compelling option. But for it to work I genuinely believe there needs to a be a separation of the pro game from the national bodies at the admin level. They certainly should have a seat at the table but the franchises should be allowed to determine the commercial decisions that best suit the competition ability to grow it's overall base.

 

[kiap]

Yeah, but back in those days NSW and QLD were proper state reps teams that played relatively few games each year.

You might be surprised. Don't forget the early pro seasons typically had 11 games per team up to 2005.

Weren't far off that back in the deep dark eighties.

They also toured back then. Queensland, for instance, played Leinster, and Italy et al., (or the likes of Tucuman) away in the 80s in addition to the South Pacific Championship; I reckon maybe a dozen Qld caps for someone like Lynagh in '89.

These guys would play overseas teams and know how to match them. Enough of the past, tho. It's another country now!

 

[RebelYell]

From my understanding traditionally speaking there's been very little actual value in Super Rugby when it comes to the TV negotiations and the vast bulk of the revenues are generated by the Test component of the deals. Additionally, the ratings suggest that the derby games are the highest raters in Aus and NZ. Going from the ratings the picture is rating highest to lowest it goes Aus/Aus, Aus/NZ in Aus, Aus/SA in Aus, NZ/Aus in NZ, NZ/NZ, SA/Aus in SA, SA/NZ in SA and finally SA/SA in SA. And the Aus/SA games only get up over the NZ/Aus games thanks to the Aus/SA games usually being in the 7:30 slot while the NZ/Aus games being the 5:30 slot on both Fri and Sat.

Taking these into account an argument could be made that a TT league would deliver an all round higher average ratings. Which are used by broadcasters to determine value.

But the Kiwis and SA teams don't want to play more local derbies - they want to play less, which they will get if the round-robin 14 team competition goes ahead as planned. What did we get out of that new deal that suits us, in the most competitive sporting market on the planet? Oh that's right, nothing. Our Administrators aren't up to it.

 

[wamberal]

NSW Country used to be bloody strong. Times change.


The Shute Shield is still by far the strongest domestic competition in the nation. I would hate to imagine the state the game would be in without it.


The haters should try watching it. Might learn something.