Australian Rugby / RA

[Inside Shoulder]

My understanding is that the whole TV shebang doesn't work without Australia.
That is the only thing keeping us in this.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

My understanding is that the whole TV shebang doesn't work without Australia.
That is the only thing keeping us in this.

Are you saying that without us Super Rugby is D.O.A in terms of being a viable TV product?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not only am I coming to agree with this, but I'd go further. There is a real problem if serious B Planning isnt happening. It is mot by any way preferred, but should NZ continue to demand SA over Aus, and SA continue to believe they are entitled to through weight around, we need to be ready with alternate thoughts.

Agreed. The ARU should be talking to Foxtel about the value of upgrading the NRC to a full domestic league. The likes of the Brumbies, Force and Rebels could easily enough keep their branding. Or the value of taking the current 5 and adding the two Country's to the fold. Add Fiji and we have an 8 team league right their. The Country squads could be based in Sydney and rotate games around to different centres.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Are you saying that without us Super Rugby is D.O.A in terms of being a viable TV product?

That was my understanding from the last TV deal and each time the crunch comes SA and NZ recognise this fact.
I think we need to face the fact that all that is keeping us in the top tier is Super Rugby if we turn inward and try to compete that way we will be swamped by AFL and NRL - get no coverage and possibly eventually succumb to the FFA if we haven't already.
Running a turbo charged NRC is not going to bring in any $$$ or raise the game's profile.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Which brings up an interesting question. If say the ARU cans the Rebels, should they look to relocate the Brumbies who are struggling in a single small market to Melbourne as their primary base while splitting games between AAMI and GIO? And would both sets of fans still support them.

This would provide the organisation with an overall deeper pool of players. And potentially fans. A larger overall market and two NRC squads to directly feed into the organisation.

Wouldn't that cause a ruckus amongst fans of other sides if the Vikings and Rising were to form one club for the NRC?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Wouldn't that cause a ruckus amongst fans of other sides if the Vikings and Rising were to form one club for the NRC?

Wasn't suggesting they merge. They would continue to run bpth squads as a pathway for each competition.

 

[dru]

Agreed. The ARU should be talking to Foxtel about the value of upgrading the NRC to a full domestic league. The likes of the Brumbies, Force and Rebels could easily enough keep their branding. Or the value of taking the current 5 and adding the two Country's to the fold. Add Fiji and we have an 8 team league right their. The Country squads could be based in Sydney and rotate games around to different centres.

Agree, BUT. You can list me as an SRU "hater", I'm plastered with it so what the hell. BUT if we go domestic, the NRC thing (which I love) needs reconsideration, and the role of Premier Rugby needs to be gelled into that Plan B. We're going to need the tribalism to push forward.

Personally, I'd find that a hard pill to swallow, but B Plan needs some thinking that could pull some warring parties together. And it would need to.

NOT my preference. But its a plan that needs working on.

Double it with streaming and podcasts as a launch platform. FTA is just a place for advertising. Its 2017 not 1997.

 

[Rebels3]

That was my understanding from the last TV deal and each time the crunch comes SA and NZ recognise this fact.
I think we need to face the fact that all that is keeping us in the top tier is Super Rugby if we turn inward and try to compete that way we will be swamped by AFL and NRL - get no coverage and possibly eventually succumb to the FFA if we haven't already.
Running a turbo charged N:RC is not going to bring in any $$$ or raise the game's profile.

We hold a lot more power than we believe. Yes we provide the smallest chuck of the pie but we are pivotal to NZ and SA.

SA holds the financial muscle but this is reliant on content. Their general concern is that they don't want any more local derbies, as it canabalises the Currie cup. Now ridding Australia would either lead to a small content range or more derbies to make up the missing content, therefore canabalising the Currie cup or smaller revenue, both negatives. The continued threats to join Europe are unfounded as their seasons don't match and the distance to Europe is just as far as it is to aus. European teams with a high fixture list wouldn't fancy eliminating 2 days from their preparation to play a South African team. Increasing the amount of games against nz would only increase the biggest issue they have had, travel. Which would lead to more players leaving and have a massive negative influence on nz players leaving nz.

NZ would have a massive issue with sky, as the content available at reasonable times would be dramatically reduced. Therefore reducing the pie offered on the table. My thoughts would be it would be a matter of season before sky practically demands the inclusion of Australian teams to fulfill this void.

As for the international front the highest rating game for nz and SA is SA v nz. Increasing content between the two would increase familiarity between the two leading to a reduction in novelty factor.

I think it's time to make a powerplay for our own good before it gets too late, unless there is a proper grand plan to get the best out of everyone.

 

[TOCC]

.
SA holds the financial muscle but this is reliant on content. Their general concern is that they don't want any more local derbies, as it canabalises the Currie cup. Now ridding Australia would either lead to a small content range or more derbies to make up the missing content, therefore canabalising the Currie cup or smaller revenue, both negatives. .

South Africa doesn't hold the financial muscle, as a byproduct of their time zone, European broadcaster are willing to pay more for the overall Super Rugby rights, it's not the South African broadcasters bankrolling the tournament. It's the value of game played in the South African time slot.

South African matches on their own don't rate highly to Europe, it's when then Aussie and Kiwi teams play in RSA that spikes the interests of European broadcasters. South Africa is equally indebted to Aus/NZ as we are to them when it comes to deriving value from Europe.

 

[dru]

South Africa doesn't hold the financial muscle, as a byproduct of their time zone, European broadcaster are willing to pay more for the overall Super Rugby rights, it's not the South African broadcasters bankrolling the tournament. It's the value of game played in the South African time slot.

South African matches on their own don't rate highly to Europe, it's when then Aussie and Kiwi teams play in RSA that spikes the interests of European broadcasters. South Africa is equally indebted to Aus/NZ as we are to them when it comes to deriving value from Europe.

The problem is a) much of SA is a basket case and b) NZ have a key driver that involves them.

That derived value argument is good, but its not helping getting Twickenham to share with SA NZ Aus when we play there. Let alone Fiji.

 

[Omar Comin']

South African matches on their own don't rate highly to Europe, it's when then Aussie and Kiwi teams play in RSA that spikes the interests of European broadcasters.

Have you actually seen Super Rugby ratings in the UK? I've always wondered if the games in South Africa really do rate a lot better than the games held in Australia at 7:30 AEST. At least on Saturdays.

The South African games may be on in the afternoon but they always clash with the big local sports, especially the football, but also the local rugby. On the other hand, while the games held here are on in the morning over there, they're not at terrible times (8:30 or 10:30am depending on daylight savings) and they don't clash with anything. So they really fill out the live sports scheduling for the likes of Sky Sports. I imagine they must have some value and it's not just all about the South African games.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agree, BUT. You can list me as an SRU "hater", I'm plastered with it so what the hell. BUT if we go domestic, the NRC thing (which I love) needs reconsideration, and the role of Premier Rugby needs to be gelled into that Plan B. We're going to need the tribalism to push forward.

Personally, I'd find that a hard pill to swallow, but B Plan needs some thinking that could pull some warring parties together. And it would need to.

NOT my preference. But its a plan that needs working on.

Double it with streaming and podcasts as a launch platform. FTA is just a place for advertising. Its 2017 not 1997.

If that were to occur I'd look to keep the Rams, Rising, Spirit and Vikings. Then open 4 spots for both teams from the Shute Shield and Brisbane. This would give us a 12 team league over 22 rounds.

 

[dru]

If that were to occur I'd look to keep the Rams, Rising, Spirit and Vikings. Then open 4 spots for both teams from the Shute Shield and Brisbane. This would give us a 12 team league over 22 rounds.

Works for me.

Noting that it's not a preference, but necessary alternate planning.

 

[Slim 293]

Have you actually seen Super Rugby ratings in the UK? I've always wondered if the games in South Africa really do rate a lot better than the games held in Australia at 7:30 AEST. At least on Saturdays.

The South African games may be on in the afternoon but they always clash with the big local sports, especially the football, but also the local rugby. On the other hand, while the games held here are on in the morning over there, they're not at terrible times (8:30 or 10:30am depending on daylight savings) and they don't clash with anything. So they really fill out the live sports scheduling for the likes of Sky Sports. I imagine they must have some value and it's not just all about the South African games.

Marinos was just recently spruiking the viewing numbers...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...per-rugby-it-is-still-the-premium-competition

 

[stoff]

I suppose one difference is that the Bears had a long history in the sport. Our franchises are but pups, and very young ones at that.

To give you my perspective on my short lived franchise, if they get cut the ARU and Australian rugby can go jump. I'll watch my local club and throw some money over the bar. I'll drop my Foxtel as I won't need it. If I want some higher level stuff I can watch European rugby on the net.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Beat]

And

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/aru-nswru-qru-to-attend-australian-club-rugby-forum/

 

[stoff]

If that were to occur I'd look to keep the Rams, Rising, Spirit and Vikings. Then open 4 spots for both teams from the Shute Shield and Brisbane. This would give us a 12 team league over 22 rounds.

I think you would need one generic team in each of NSW and QLD. To give an example, North Ballarat Football Club are likely about to go broke in the VFL (second tier AFL in vic). They have a good size market, but are hated by probably 80% of their catchment. They have failed to attract new fans as they moved from local to state league. There are rumours of a complete rebrand to try and fix this. The tribal rivalries are a strength, but also a weakness if not managed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think you would need one generic team in each of NSW and QLD. To give an example, North Ballarat Football Club are likely about to go broke in the VFL (second tier AFL in vic). They have a good size market, but are hated by probably 80% of their catchment. They have failed to attract new fans as they moved from local to state league. There are rumours of a complete rebrand to try and fix this. The tribal rivalries are a strength, but also a weakness if not managed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the point of maintaining the Rams.

 

[TOCC]

To give you my perspective on my short lived franchise, if they get cut the ARU and Australian rugby can go jump. I'll watch my local club and throw some money over the bar. I'll drop my Foxtel as I won't need it. If I want some higher level stuff I can watch European rugby on the net.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't blame you, fans have invested money, time and emotion into these teams and then to have them cut because SANZAAR screwed up the expansion is a real kick in the guts.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

To give you my perspective on my short lived franchise, if they get cut the ARU and Australian rugby can go jump. I'll watch my local club and throw some money over the bar. I'll drop my Foxtel as I won't need it. If I want some higher level stuff I can watch European rugby on the net.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel the same way about the Force. If they get the chop I won't be shelling out any more cash to watch the Wallabies. It'll be club rugby only for me.