Australian Rugby / RA

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

A national club comp will kill the weaker teams in QPR/SS. Why would players ever go to perennial lower markers? QRU really tried hard this year to share the new players around. Norths picked up Cormac Daly and JTA which lifted them.

This is the natural evolution in my mind. a national club comp will build up key clubs and pick up their exposure. eventually if super goes t!ts up, we fall back on club comp which at that point is the best clubs up the east coast most likely plus a couple WA clubs and that's the basis of a domestic comp. teams with history and natural following.
isn't that basically NRL.....seems to work. maybe that club comp has 8 teams in it. cross town rivalries etc etc

That said - I think Super Rugby is largely cured by having a draft and anyone can sign for anyone and be eligible for their country. not sure what you necessarily do with Fijian Drua in this instance (maybe they can pull an ireland and make your income tax free?)

There's no problem with the teams that exist that a more even comp wouldn't fix in my mind. with south africa and Argentina gone, the hours of games are fine. the travel is totally manageable. anyone can declare eligible for the Super Draft wherever you are from and remain eligible for NZ and Aus

 

[Strewthcobber]

Sounds reasonable.

The big problem being non-Wallaby teams generating very little revenue, and hence very small wages?

 

[Dan54]

Sounds reasonable.

Yep for a comp that lasts a couple of years. The winning teams will get more support, and afford best players, the rest will go broke.
Why most comps have salary cap really isn't it?

Not sure what answer is, but private ownership is fraught with dangers! Who remembers the Gold Coast soccer team that the billionaire (can't remember his name), as soon as things went against him he pulled the plug, and team/club was gone.

 

[hoggy]

The big problem being non-Wallaby teams generating very little revenue, and hence very small wages?

But that's my point, we have created the scenario where they generate such little revenue.

NSW they have one team in Unions biggest state, but they only play 6/7 home games each year, half there away games are in another country, the season ends at the end of June basically, there is no Rugby presence in the NSW market when the Waratahs's don't play. There is not another NSW team to create tribalism and create a derby>
How does the game expect to get an uptick in revenue broadcast without providing the product to generate that revenue.

 

[Strewthcobber]

But that's my point, we have created the scenario where they generate such little revenue.

NSW they have one team in Unions biggest state, but they only play 6/7 home games each year, half there away games are in another country, the season ends at the end of June basically, there is no Rugby presence in the NSW market when the Waratahs's don't play. There is not another NSW team to create tribalism and create a derby>
How does the game expect to get an uptick in revenue broadcast without providing the product to generate that revenue.

I think the broadcasters feedback on that, if we stay with a subscription model like Stan, is that more content doesn't equal more revenue. More subscribers do.

More content means more expenses, both more payments to players, but also additional costs to produce the games. And if the additional subscribers generated are less than the extra cost of producing games, then the offer could well be lower.

Shute Shield/Hospital Cup is probably in this boat. RA accept a low broadcast deal to ensure they are on the platform

 

[hoggy]

I think the broadcasters feedback on that, if we stay with a subscription model like Stan, is that more content doesn't equal more revenue. More subscribers do.

More content means more expenses, both more payments to players, but also additional costs to produce the games. And if the additional subscribers generated are less than the extra cost of producing games, then the offer could well be lower.

Shute Shield/Hospital Cup is probably in this boat. RA accept a low broadcast deal to ensure they are on the platform

Well if that is the case then. We are truly fucked.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Well if that is the case then. We are truly fucked.

I don't think we have to be. Just pray that the Lions and WC generate a shitload of $$$, and then don't be surprised as RA spend it all through the cycle on pro rugby until the next windfall (which hopefully comes)

 

[Mr Pilfer]

I think they need to try and have domestic comps and then tap into the “champions league” type idea they do in Europe with soccer and rugby

eg

aus - 6 team comp incl Fiji - 10 rounds home and away plus grand final to decide winner

Nz - 6 team comp incl Samoa - as above

Then followed by champions league - top 3 from each comp above. Only play the 3 teams from the other comp (x 2 home and away so 6 games Top 2 into grand final

Plus second division with bottom 3 from each comp as above playing with same format.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, how stupid imagine having NSW & QLD derbies to sell to the broadcasters and building up tribalism over the years, invite private owners to help fund things I mean the RA funding everything is working out so well, I mean look at the AFL & NRL they obviously have no idea what there doing.

Who the fuck is buying this? They have club rugby on TV now and (shocker) it's not exactly the silver bullet saving the game. And who are these private owners. I assume you're talking about similar consortiums to what the rebels nearly had, who couldn't provide costings, names, or any detail at all. Or maybe you mean the private ownership model that the A-league enjoys where teams turn over their ownership every 2-3 years and still none of them make money.

None of these pie in the sky ideas have adequate funding or an obvious business case. People think we can just replicate what they do in the NRL and AFL or what they do in the UK and France and it will be guaranteed to work here - just "because".

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Yep I can see that working perhaps start it after the club season, so clubs get some of their players back? I haven't really thought about it, but certainly has an appeal doesn't it?

Doesn't have to be long. It then leaves organisations with the ability to do a tour or inbound games like they all seem to be lining up now.

This is the natural evolution in my mind. a national club comp will build up key clubs and pick up their exposure. eventually if super goes t!ts up, we fall back on club comp which at that point is the best clubs up the east coast most likely plus a couple WA clubs and that's the basis of a domestic comp. teams with history and natural following.
isn't that basically NRL.....seems to work. maybe that club comp has 8 teams in it. cross town rivalries etc etc

That said - I think Super Rugby is largely cured by having a draft and anyone can sign for anyone and be eligible for their country. not sure what you necessarily do with Fijian Drua in this instance (maybe they can pull an ireland and make your income tax free?)

There's no problem with the teams that exist that a more even comp wouldn't fix in my mind. with south africa and Argentina gone, the hours of games are fine. the travel is totally manageable. anyone can declare eligible for the Super Draft wherever you are from and remain eligible for NZ and Aus

I get the thinking that this is natural evolution but it's a different time to when the Rugby League grew into the NSWRL > ARL > NRL. Rugby wasn't professional so they had no real external pressure for talent when they could pay something on top of their jobs.

The biggest club games might get 5000 people at an absolute max and an outlier like Manly v Warringah get more when they are going well but this wouldn't grow in a national comp when suddenly Sydney Uni is playing Brothers. It really has to be a player development path to make our top sides better than a money making venture because it will be as big a pit as my old Mitsubishi Magna.

 

[SouthernX]

It’s going to be tough tapping into the community dollars from gate attendance.

up in QLD - brothers rugby is only the real venue that’s fully encloses and you can have entry points to charge for admission.

National rugby championship fixtures might need to be played at Ballymore or suburban grounds that can be profitable

 

[JRugby2]

It’s going to be tough tapping into the community dollars from gate attendance.

up in QLD - brothers rugby is only the real venue that’s fully encloses and you can have entry points to charge for admission.

National rugby championship fixtures might need to be played at Ballymore or suburban grounds that can be profitable

You can't host regular, profitable professional fixtures at suburban grounds. The occasional game you can make it work but the moment needs to be a regular thing to support a professional outfit your cooked.

There is a reason that the Rabbitohs would rather play in front of 15000 at a seemingly empty Accor than in front of 10000 at their home ground in redfern.

You can't ticket them properly, there are security issues, capacity restrictions, catering restrictions, toilets, safety - the list goes on and on.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

It’s going to be tough tapping into the community dollars from gate attendance.

up in QLD - brothers rugby is only the real venue that’s fully encloses and you can have entry points to charge for admission.

National rugby championship fixtures might need to be played at Ballymore or suburban grounds that can be profitable

Bang on. And the moment you raise a ticket price to a suburban ground game to watch mostly Club standard players you will lose attendance and then your'e circling the bowl.

 

[dru]

This conversation is sounding sadly familiar.

 

[JRugby2]

I find it utterly repugnant. "It" being NZ pushing an "agreement" that dictates Wallaby selection. Repugnant.

I don't think it's NZ pushing us anymore than us pushing them. To me it sounded like it's been a reciprocal, good faith agreement to protect the standard of Super Rugby rather than schmidty needing razors sign off on more overseas players.

 

[Omar Comin']

Who the fuck is buying this? They have club rugby on TV now and (shocker) it's not exactly the silver bullet saving the game. And who are these private owners. I assume you're talking about similar consortiums to what the rebels nearly had, who couldn't provide costings, names, or any detail at all. Or maybe you mean the private ownership model that the A-league enjoys where teams turn over their ownership every 2-3 years and still none of them make money.

None of these pie in the sky ideas have adequate funding or an obvious business case. People think we can just replicate what they do in the NRL and AFL or what they do in the UK and France and it will be guaranteed to work here - just "because".

Nothing is guaranteed, but it's "because" that's what works for all the most successful sporting leagues around the world (and in Australia). Meanwhile, the status quo strict eligibility, national team development competition hasn't been working commercially for a long time.

 

[JRugby2]

Nothing is guaranteed, but it's "because" that's what works for all the most successful sporting leagues around the world (and in Australia). Meanwhile, the status quo strict eligibility, national team development competition hasn't been working commercially for a long time.

You're literally proving my point. You're going from 'idea' to 'successful outcome' without thinking about any of the things that needs to happen in the middle, and just assuming that it'll all work out. You're saying it works for them so it'll work for us, because...........? Well - just 'because'.

This is like me having a vague idea for a phone and then asserting that Apple are definitely going to to buy it and therefore I am rich.

 

[Bullrush]

This is like me having a vague idea for a phone and then asserting that Apple are definitely going to to buy it and therefore I am rich.

It's worse.

It's like having a vague idea for a 2 tin cans and a piece of string and then asserting that Apple are definitely going to to buy it and therefore I am rich.

The NRL and AFL are the absolute pinnacle competitions of their respective sports. It is the premium product. This club competition is at least about 4 steps down from the premium rugby product.

 

[Omar Comin']

You're literally proving my point. You're going from 'idea' to 'successful outcome' without thinking about any of the things that needs to happen in the middle, and just assuming that it'll all work out. You're saying it works for them so it'll work for us, because...........? Well - just 'because'.

This is like me having a vague idea for a phone and then asserting that Apple are definitely going to to buy it and therefore I am rich.

I think you're confusing the word 'idea' with 'demonstrably successful model that is easy to copy.' It'd be more like you already manufacturing and selling phones, but not doing very well, and then incorporating some of the features that make Apple and other competitors popular, in order to sell more phones.

Keeping in mind the status quo loses money every year, and has been failing Australian rugby for a couple of decades. So it might be worth trying the demonstrably successful model that works all around the world, including in Australia, and in many different sports, including rugby union.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

If Rugby went down a national route the NRL and AFL would be bad examples. They have refined it and have money to burn (including 600m tax incentives for a shit show PNG side)

Rugby should look to the NBL and how they can get it done and have grown it from a disaster less than a decade ago to something with a buzz now.