Australian Rugby / RA

[Quick Hands]

Actually the main reason they remain on FTA is the Anti Siphoning legislation that came in when Pay TV first appeared in AUS. That guaranteed that sports that were always on FTA remained on FTA. Hence NRL, AFL & Cricket & Test Rugby remain on FTA today.

Unfortunately this pre dated the advent of Super Rugby and it wasn't covered by the AS legislation. This allowed Fox to have exclusive rights to all live Super Rugby matches. Great for Fox as it was a subscription driver for what is a wealthy and not price sensitive demographic.

Whilst you say there is no interest in Super Rugby by any of the FTA broadcasters and imply that that the product is not a commercial proposition for a FTA broadcaster. You could well be right, but we dont know what audience it might attract on FTA because it has NEVER been tried (that is LIVE Super Rugby matches).

The one thing that Raelene Castle was doing that I was prepared to forgive all her other mistakes was attempting to get Super Rugby Live on FTA. I was 100% behind her for this as I believe the biggest handbrake on the game has been the Foxtel Paywall. And I am certain it was her attempts to get a match onto FTA was the reason there was a coordinated attack on her by Fox/News leading to her demise.

At the end of the day if Fox hold the Pay rights, I dont really care. The key to me in these media rights is the live Super Rugby match on FTA.

Let's agree to disagree.

Your view seems to be based on plenty of assumptions and at least some of them are emotional rather than logical.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes, however my understanding is that the rights are pooled and distributed to the nations based on number of teams after the costs to run the competition (travel, accom, refs etc) are deducted.

But we aren't supplying any teams, so on what basis to we get any share?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I prefer to think of him as the hopefully inimitable KE but each to their own . Being from WA I imagine you killed the sheep with your bare hands, skinned it with your teeth & tanned the hide by pissing on it?

Hahaha, but of course! I actually grew up in the wheat and sheep farming districts of WA and SA, so clearly made of the kind of stern stuff that would make this an every day occurrence.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Let's agree to disagree.

Your view seems to be based on plenty of assumptions and at least some of them are emotional rather than logical.

I said that your view may well be right. My point is that is that it has never been tried so we dont know. Yes could well flop like A League no mater how much it is promoted. But it might find an audience (like Womens sport has after years of being assumed of being unwatchable/ not rating). I fully supported Raelene Castles efforts to get Super Rugby Live on FTA.


Anti Siphoning Legislation is a real thing, the current schedule of events that must air on FTA. You will note the absence of any mention of Super Rugby.

Schedule


1 Olympic Games
(1) Each event held as part of the Summer Olympic Games, including the Opening Ceremony and the Closing Ceremony.
(2) Each event held as part of the Winter Olympic Games, including the Opening Ceremony and the Closing Ceremony.
2 Commonwealth Games
Each event held as part of the Commonwealth Games, including the Opening Ceremony and the Closing Ceremony.
3 Horse racing
Each running of the Melbourne Cup organised by the Victoria Racing Club.
4 Australian rules football
Each match in the Australian Football League Premiership competition (including the Finals Series).
5 Rugby league football
(1) Each match in the National Rugby League Premiership competition (including the Finals Series).
(2) Each match in the National Rugby League State of Origin Series.
(3) Each international rugby league test match that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team; and
(b) is played in Australia or New Zealand.
(4) Each match of the Rugby League World Cup that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team; and
(b) is played in Australia, New Zealand or Papua New Guinea.
6 Rugby union football
(1) Each international test match that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by the Australian Rugby Union; and
(b) is played in Australia or New Zealand.
(2) Each match of the Rugby World Cup tournament that involves the senior Australian representative team selected by the Australian Rugby Union.
(3) The final of the Rugby World Cup tournament.
7 Cricket
(1) Each test match that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia.
(2) Each test match that:
(a) involves both:
(i) the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(ii) the senior English representative team; and
(b) is played in the United Kingdom.
(3) Each one day cricket match that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia.
(4) Each Twenty20 cricket match that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia.
(5) Each match of the International Cricket Council One Day International World Cup that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia or New Zealand.
(6) The final of the International Cricket Council One Day International World Cup if the final is played in Australia or New Zealand.
(7) Each match of the International Cricket Council World Twenty20 tournament that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia or New Zealand.
(8) The final of the International Cricket Council World Twenty20 tournament if the final is played in Australia or New Zealand.
8 Soccer
(1) Each match of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup tournament that involves the senior Australian representative team selected by the Football Federation Australia.
(2) The final of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup tournament.
(3) Each match in the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup Qualification tournament that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by the Football Federation Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia.
9 Tennis
(1) Each match in the Australian Open tennis tournament.
(2) Each match in each tie of the International Tennis Federation Davis Cup World Group tennis tournament that:
(a) involves an Australian representative team; and
(b) is played in Australia.
(3) The final of the International Tennis Federation Davis Cup World Group tennis tournament if the final involves an Australian representative team.
10 Netball
(1) A semi‑final of the Netball World Cup if the semi‑final involves the senior Australian representative team selected by the All Australian Netball Association.
(2) The final of the Netball World Cup if the final involves the senior Australian representative team selected by the All Australian Netball Association.
11 Motor sports
(1) Each race in the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile Formula One World Championship (Grand Prix) held in Australia.
(2) Each race in the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme Moto‑GP held in Australia.
(3) Each Bathurst 1000 race in the V8 Supercars Championship Series.

 

[dru]

^^^I didn’t think Super existed when that legislation was written.

 

[The Honey Badger]

^^^I didn’t think Super existed when that legislation was written.

exactly ; this is how Fox were able to secure exclusive rights way back at the beginning. Super Rugby has been behind a paywall ever since.

Raelene Castle was attempting to change this before she was torpedoed by the Fox/News Allies

 

[Derpus]

Well, that's your right to do so. Of course, if you eliminate a major competitor from buying your produce, you realise that the value of the product diminishes and you're less likely to get top money?

Nah see im gunna play it clever like and pretend to participate in good faith with Foxtel in negotiations then BAM! Optus deal.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

But we aren't supplying any teams, so on what basis to we get any share?

They are still using the Super Rugby banner. I dare say Australia will be in a similar place a few weeks later and after this series their might be some sort of cross conference. Essentially they are trying to fill the requirements of their broadcast agreements. So if Australia 2, NZ 2 and SA 3 that actually fits.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ there's a chance of some trans-Tasman footy, sure, but I'd be shocked if we see our Sethfricken friends playing away games this year.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^I didn’t think Super existed when that legislation was written.

exactly ; this is how Fox were able to secure exclusive rights way back at the beginning. Super Rugby has been behind a paywall ever since.

Raelene Castle was attempting to change this before she was torpedoed by the Fox/News Allies

But interstate rugby was, i.e. the annual games between NSW and Qld which at the time were important in a rugby sense. Those games were never put on the anti-siphoning list because there wasn't the demand.

The list talks of the National Rugby League, which wasn't founded until December 1997 after the end of the Super League war, so the list has clearly been amended during the time of Super Rugby and nobody thought to ask for it to be included. The FTA networks could of had they smelt a deal and a chance to access games.

A bit of research has also discovered that it's usually the sports themselves which want items taken off the anti-siphoning list so that they can generate more money from the rights.

Also that FTA stations only broadcast live about 16% of things which were on the list in the first place.

I also note that both Foxtel AND Optus were opposed to any extension of the list and in fact argued against the list.

I get that you don't like Rupert Murdoch or News/Fox, but I think that you'll find that sports administrators were the ones agitating for things to be TAKEN OFF the list rather than being PUT ON.

But please don't think that Optus will be any less vigilant in protecting their rights.

I've copies come parts of a more lengthy document and think link is below.

on the other hand, sporting organisations have changed their views of anti siphoning. Organisations which receive little free-to-air coverage were most concerned in 1994 that their sports were not placed on an anti siphoning list, as they believed it would be detrimental to their development. In 2009, however, they appeared more willing to evaluate anti siphoning from a whole of sport perspective and to conclude overall in favour of either substantially shortening the list or abolishing it. For example, Basketball Australia suggested the list should include only the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games.[158]
In opposition to their previously ambivalent stance on anti siphoning, popular sports such as cricket and rugby league, wanted to see the demise of the list.[159] Cricket Australia cited a number of reasons for this, but principally its stance was motivated by the belief the list restricted the power of its administrators to negotiate the best deal for its product.[160] In support of its argument, Cricket Australia contended removing the Ashes from the British anti siphoning list had resulted in increased revenue for cricket from the sale of rights to the series. This additional revenue had then been used to support the grass roots game.[161] This argument was of course in direct opposition to the free-to-air focus on audience loss for the Ashes, which also resulted from the move. The Australian Rugby League (ARL) agreed with Cricket Australia’s approach to anti siphoning. It claimed that the existence of an anti siphoning list had had a major negative impact on ARL revenues, and any expansion of the scheme would have equally adverse implications for the provision of grass roots programs
In general, sporting groups appeared less than supportive of the free-to-air broadcasters and agreed with pay television that free-to-air operators should not be allowed to multi channel prior to the switch off of analogue broadcasts. In addition, sports groups identified the opportunities the rise of new media presented for them to repackage and redistribute their products. They agreed with the view that new media coverage complemented traditional sports broadcasting.
Three of Australia’s football codes were of the opinion in 2006 that it was indeed their right to decide who televised their games, and not that of any government.[169] Understandably, this view is about the codes wanting to maximise the returns they can make from selling television rights. From this perspective, as a number of sports have argued, the existence of an anti siphoning scheme influences their bargaining position and unfairly advantages free-to-air broadcasters in relation to their dealings with sporting organisations. The football codes have maintained it is vital for sports to be able to achieve this balance between exposure and revenue so they are able to invest at the grass roots level.[170] This view has been supported by a number of studies and reports,
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...y_Library/pubs/rp/rp0910/10rp14#_Toc253579038

 

[KOB1987]

Nah see im gunna play it clever like and pretend to participate in good faith with Foxtel in negotiations then BAM! Optus deal.

You sneaky bugger. Amazing RA thought of it before you.

 

[Lorenzo]

Wonder if there were any discussions around the Aus Super Rugby teams playing in the NZ Super Rugby comp. You'd think with quarantine and hotels you could make that work? (I know NZ has closed borders)

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ way to soon for that. Maybe next year.

Edit: by which I mean a full-on trans-Tasman comp. Still a chance for some post-season action this year if RA and/ or GRR can get something off the ground. Almost certainly some kind of Bledisloe in October/ November on the cards.

 

[KOB1987]

Wonder if there were any discussions around the Aus Super Rugby teams playing in the NZ Super Rugby comp. You'd think with quarantine and hotels you could make that work? (I know NZ has closed borders)

Discussions maybe. Just had a Zoom meeting with our local club and we basically decided to pull the pin on any participation in our regional comp this year. Logic being that even if restrictions are relaxed, things might flare up again, fan engagement is dodgy at best, etc, etc. Lower level I know, but there is just way too much uncertainty to plan out of your immediate zone at this stage.

 

[gel]

^ way to soon for that. Maybe next year.

Edit: by which I mean a full-on trans-Tasman comp. Still a chance for some post-season action this year if RA and/ or GRR can get something off the ground. Almost certainly some kind of Bledisloe in October/ November on the cards.

Dammit, this was gonna be the year where we didn't lose the Bledisloe series.

 

[The Honey Badger]

But interstate rugby was, i.e. the annual games between NSW and Qld which at the time were important in a rugby sense. Those games were never put on the anti-siphoning list because there wasn't the demand.

The list talks of the National Rugby League, which wasn't founded until December 1997 after the end of the Super League war, so the list has clearly been amended during the time of Super Rugby and nobody thought to ask for it to be included. The FTA networks could of had they smelt a deal and a chance to access games.

A bit of research has also discovered that it's usually the sports themselves which want items taken off the anti-siphoning list so that they can generate more money from the rights.

Also that FTA stations only broadcast live about 16% of things which were on the list in the first place.

I also note that both Foxtel AND Optus were opposed to any extension of the list and in fact argued against the list.

I get that you don't like Rupert Murdoch or News/Fox, but I think that you'll find that sports administrators were the ones agitating for things to be TAKEN OFF the list rather than being PUT ON.

But please don't think that Optus will be any less vigilant in protecting their rights.

I've copies come parts of a more lengthy document and think link is below.

on the other hand, sporting organisations have changed their views of anti siphoning. Organisations which receive little free-to-air coverage were most concerned in 1994 that their sports were not placed on an anti siphoning list, as they believed it would be detrimental to their development. In 2009, however, they appeared more willing to evaluate anti siphoning from a whole of sport perspective and to conclude overall in favour of either substantially shortening the list or abolishing it. For example, Basketball Australia suggested the list should include only the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games.[158]
In opposition to their previously ambivalent stance on anti siphoning, popular sports such as cricket and rugby league, wanted to see the demise of the list.[159] Cricket Australia cited a number of reasons for this, but principally its stance was motivated by the belief the list restricted the power of its administrators to negotiate the best deal for its product.[160] In support of its argument, Cricket Australia contended removing the Ashes from the British anti siphoning list had resulted in increased revenue for cricket from the sale of rights to the series. This additional revenue had then been used to support the grass roots game.[161] This argument was of course in direct opposition to the free-to-air focus on audience loss for the Ashes, which also resulted from the move. The Australian Rugby League (ARL) agreed with Cricket Australia’s approach to anti siphoning. It claimed that the existence of an anti siphoning list had had a major negative impact on ARL revenues, and any expansion of the scheme would have equally adverse implications for the provision of grass roots programs
In general, sporting groups appeared less than supportive of the free-to-air broadcasters and agreed with pay television that free-to-air operators should not be allowed to multi channel prior to the switch off of analogue broadcasts. In addition, sports groups identified the opportunities the rise of new media presented for them to repackage and redistribute their products. They agreed with the view that new media coverage complemented traditional sports broadcasting.
Three of Australia’s football codes were of the opinion in 2006 that it was indeed their right to decide who televised their games, and not that of any government.[169] Understandably, this view is about the codes wanting to maximise the returns they can make from selling television rights. From this perspective, as a number of sports have argued, the existence of an anti siphoning scheme influences their bargaining position and unfairly advantages free-to-air broadcasters in relation to their dealings with sporting organisations. The football codes have maintained it is vital for sports to be able to achieve this balance between exposure and revenue so they are able to invest at the grass roots level.[170] This view has been supported by a number of studies and reports,
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...y_Library/pubs/rp/rp0910/10rp14#_Toc253579038

Interesting article, but I suspect outdated.

I can see how the relationship with Fox worked in the beginning. There was enough interest and crowds turned out to watch and many of us were forced to subscribe to watch this great comp. Money flowed to Fox and money flowed to Rugby.

But the product started going south especially when the saffers started messing with the format. Now we have a dog of a product that has lost a huge amount of supporters. Quickly becoming non viable economically, hence the cutting of franchises.

IMO the balance between exposure and Revenue was wrong for rugby from the outset. It was all about revenue.

Now we are paying the price.

Castle understood we need the exposure to reset and grow the game.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I am bit pissed with peter Wigg resigning...as if resigned because could not push Carroll apt without any due process just dissappointing.

 

[Quick Hands]

Nah see im gunna play it clever like and pretend to participate in good faith with Foxtel in negotiations then BAM! Optus deal.

Or you could just negotiate in good faith with all parties and then go with the deal which is most beneficial to the sport free of any personal prejudices.

 

[formerflanker]

Concerns over Rugby Australia’s solvency have been raised by its accountants KPMG due to an additional $7 million owed to former sponsor HSBC, as a result of a currency hedging strategy. (The Australian)
How does a risk-avoidance strategy cause such a large debt? Please type slowly.

 

[I like to watch]

Or you could just negotiate in good faith with all parties and then go with the deal which is most beneficial to the sport free of any personal prejudices.

Free of any personal prejudices............

in rugby officialdom?