Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Braveheart81]

Hoggy are you really suggesting that we should go down the 'private money' path again? That 'maybe we should try that' - really did the Melbourne Rebels private ownership fiasco that was Andrew Cox escape you?

I think we need investors with much deeper pockets than Andrew Cox. Mostly we need people who want to own a team as a lifestyle asset rather than buying it because they think it will make money.

You want someone who is willing to lose several million dollars a year as the owner. I don't think that was ever part of the plan with the ownership of the Rebels.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I think we need investors with much deeper pockets than Andrew Cox. Mostly we need people who want to own a team as a lifestyle asset rather than buying it because they think it will make money.

You want someone who is willing to lose several million dollars a year as the owner. I don't think that was ever part of the plan with the ownership of the Rebels.

Roman Abramovich but with a love for rugby. Twiggy is up there but that $50m offer came with strings you couldn't even dream about.

 

[hoggy]

I think we need investors with much deeper pockets than Andrew Cox. Mostly we need people who want to own a team as a lifestyle asset rather than buying it because they think it will make money.

You want someone who is willing to lose several million dollars a year as the owner. I don't think that was ever part of the plan with the ownership of the Rebels.

yes, I agree with this. The rebels thing was a fiasco, but the point is why was it. private owners run sporting clubs all over the world. The problem here was relinquishing control, RA or really SANZAAR wanted it both ways , give us the cash and we still pull the strings. No thank-you.

There are many owners willing to lose $million of dollars (as happens world wide), but you don't give them a list of conditions when there parting with lots of cash.

 

[hoggy]

I really struggle to see the appeal of the Super Rugby franchises as investment vehicle for PE to be honest. I'd rather see us move to a far more centralised model. Where everything other than the respective HP squads are run out of a single office. An even those beyond the day to day training etc. would be coordinated centrally. Depending on where we end up come TV rights might be necessary anyway.

It's the only way I can see us surviving regardless of whether we stay is Super Rugby or started our own thing. Definitely the only way we do our own thing.

look I see your point but the issue I have is, if you don't have private investment and even if you move to a centralist model, the competition still somehow has to generate income or interest, without that you are still relying on funding the whole code through your national team, when the level below that has no value or ability to attract any income.

 

[Pfitzy]

"The issue with rugby that’s a challenge is the sense of self-entitlement from rugby itself," Mr Williams said in an interview on Wednesday with The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. "Rugby seems to deem itself as inherently worthy and therefore deserving of mountains of money and that’s a major difference to the reality."

Sounds like a perfect match for Foxtel, actually.

 

[Pfitzy]

I just read on twitter that Sean Maloney was dropped from Fox - a shame - he was good for digital engagement.

Yeah but we'll keep the Kearnses and Martoes of this world to retain an idiot factor, and maybe throw in a Gregan for dialtone personality or Kafe for a chalkboard or two.

Maloney would be great in club land - have his own YouTube show and get around to Premier, Subbies, Juniors etc. away from the private school and golden pathway shit.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

look I see your point but the issue I have is, if you don't have private investment and even if you move to a centralist model, the competition still somehow has to generate income or interest, without that you are still relying on funding the whole code through your national team, when the level below that has no value or ability to attract any income.

I understand that I was suggesting it as a means of dealing with the reduction in schedule that appears to be on the books and thus revenues from ticketing etc. Reduced duplication and overheads etc. as a means of ensuring professional survival and sustainability.

As it stands now the value of Super Rugby is minimal as it's more of the same really. I have come to the conclusion that at the end of S12 we pushed for the wrong kind of expansion. We should have stuck with 3 and pushed for a full home and away schedule. Only look to expand to 4 in the last 5 seasons.

But it's also the model I think we should adopt even if we were going it alone or ideally in my mind mending the fences and joining GRR.

 

[hoggy]

I understand that I was suggesting it as a means of dealing with the reduction in schedule that appears to be on the books and thus revenues from ticketing etc. Reduced duplication and overheads etc. as a means of ensuring professional survival and sustainability.

As it stands now the value of Super Rugby is minimal as it's more of the same really. I have come to the conclusion that at the end of S12 we pushed for the wrong kind of expansion. We should have stuck with 3 and pushed for a full home and away schedule. Only look to expand to 4 in the last 5 seasons.

But it's also the model I think we should adopt even if we were going it alone or ideally in my mind mending the fences and joining GRR.

yes agreed, the thinking after S12 was wrong, the money never came from the value of the product, it was just all expansion. Look at the Sunwolves (it was fucking laughable), why did we do that.

My point is Castle may have no choice but to sign up to whatever they can get, but where is the strategy moving forward, what do we do in 2025, just sign up again, with 3 men & a dog watching, there will only ever be alternatives if the RA pursue them. They are the ones leading the code, yet they act like a bunch of civil servants protecting there pay packets. ???????

Okay what about this, We go back to 2 Super rugby sides NSW/QLD, say have Super 10 real quality (and allows you to contract a few core players).

But below that we work with the NRC/GRR and maybe even Mitre 10 to create a sustainable league suited to local conditions, open it up to private investment, seed some of that control to private investors, bend to the marketplace.

Just do something other than sign up to another broadcast deal that suits no-one except a privilege few.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

yes agreed, the thinking after S12 was wrong, the money never came from the value of the product, it was just all expansion. Look at the Sunwolves (it was fucking laughable), why did we do that.

My point is Castle may have no choice but to sign up to whatever they can get, but where is the strategy moving forward, what do we do in 2025, just sign up again, with 3 men & a dog watching, there will only ever be alternatives if the RA pursue them. They are the ones leading the code, yet they act like a bunch of civil servants protecting there pay packets. ???????

Okay what about this, We go back to 2 Super rugby sides NSW/QLD, say have Super 10 real quality (and allows you to contract a few core players).

But below that we work with the NRC/GRR and maybe even Mitre 10 to create a sustainable league suited to local conditions, open it up to private investment, seed some of that control to private investors, bend to the marketplace.

Just do something other than sign up to another broadcast deal that suits no-one except a privilege few.

Could you see the Brumbies going down without kicking up an unholy shit storm. Because I don't.

I've suggested this before but we could put forth a proposal to go back to 3 and encourage SA to send another north in order to bring the numbers back to 12. I know. Shrinking to greatness and all. But to do this we go under the caveat that we move to a full H/A schedule. Meaning 22 rounds plus a 6 teams finals series.

This would give each team 11 home games for 33 in total (7 more than what we would have with the reversion to 14 teams and a single round robin) plus from our perspective another at least another 15 games in workable time zones. As opposed to another 8 in the other set up. So 48 games to 34. Already better.

This wouldn't quite be balanced but SA would get the payoff of being able to dip another toe in the NH pool and NZ gets to have the most teams and maintain the SA link. So things would square up.

The issue from there would be what to do with Melbourne. Simplest solution would be to run a representative side in the NRC alongside inviting Samoa and potentially Tonga to join. That would give them 8/9 games. The other would be to open them and potentially a 3rd place to PE and provide them with the ok to jump across GRR. Make it clear that they can recruit from O/S including Aussie players and arrange a loan scheme to farm out our best non-Super Rugby starting U20s to each of the three Aus GRR teams.

At the end of the respective seasons we could have a Super Rugby vs GRR game to determine supremacy and Wallabies selection.

That or we could rebuild the bridge burnt in the Force fiasco and join GRR completely. SA and NZ alongside the Jaguares could maintain Super Rugby. We have GRR and we meet up with the other three in the RC.

 

[hoggy]

A

Could you see the Brumbies going down without kicking up an unholy shit storm. Because I don't.

I've suggested this before but we could put forth a proposal to go back to 3 and encourage SA to send another north in order to bring the numbers back to 12. I know. Shrinking to greatness and all. But to do this we go under the caveat that we move to a full H/A schedule. Meaning 22 rounds plus a 6 teams finals series.

This would give each team 11 home games for 33 in total (7 more than what we would have with the reversion to 14 teams and a single round robin) plus from our perspective another at least another 15 games in workable time zones. As opposed to another 8 in the other set up. So 48 games to 34. Already better.

This wouldn't quite be balanced but SA would get the payoff of being able to dip another toe in the NH pool and NZ gets to have the most teams and maintain the SA link. So things would square up.

The issue from there would be what to do with Melbourne. Simplest solution would be to run a representative side in the NRC alongside inviting Samoa and potentially Tonga to join. That would give them 8/9 games. The other would be to open them and potentially a 3rd place to PE and provide them with the ok to jump across GRR. Make it clear that they can recruit from O/S including Aussie players and arrange a loan scheme to farm out our best non-Super Rugby starting U20s to each of the three Aus GRR teams.

At the end of the respective seasons we could have a Super Rugby vs GRR game to determine supremacy and Wallabies selection.

That or we could rebuild the bridge burnt in the Force fiasco and join GRR completely. SA and NZ alongside the Jaguares could maintain Super Rugby. We have GRR and we meet up with the other three in the RC.

With the Brumbies, get them to show the financials to show they have the support, and then they come back with give us a competition that allows us to provide those financials. But all good points maybe what you have will work.

My point ultimately is do something, tell us, this is where were heading. This is gonna happen, don't just sign up to another 4 years of the same old shit with some f_____g stupid mission statement about achieving goals and harmony.

 

[Lorenzo]

My point is Castle may have no choice but to sign up to whatever they can get, but where is the strategy moving forward, what do we do in 2025, just sign up again, with 3 men & a dog watching, there will only ever be alternatives if the RA pursue them. They are the ones leading the code, yet they act like a bunch of civil servants protecting there pay packets. ???????

I like an anti management rant as much as the next man, but what the he'll are you on about?

You've absolutely no way of knowing whay kind of proposals RA has received from or submitted to various parties in relation to alternative competitions.

If RA had been in discussions with, say, DAZN about pulling out of SANZAAR (or at least withdrawing from the Soup) and starting their own thing, do you really think they can just announce that shit to the public before it's a an actual deal?

The reality RA faces is that they don't have the financial headroom in order to take any kind of risk. Which means that, unless people are ok with extreme austerity measures (like no more players on anything close to 7 figures a year and therefore there's a fairly swift migration OS of basically anyone that can get a job), they need to partner someone (like Foxtel but probably not, given their own precarious finances) that takes on the risk. Until the last couple of years there hasn't been any real viable alternatives to Foxtel but that is slowly changing as the OTT market develops.


I don't like Super either, but I don't think we should put a bomb under it without a viable sustainable plan actually in place, and you should know that doing shit like boning two more teams and partnering with the Mitre 10 cup are a lot more complicated than just bashing out a forum post on the topic.

 

[dru]

I don't like Super either, but I don't think we should put a bomb under it without a viable sustainable plan actually in place

First the onus is on the Super advocates to prove it is a viable sustainable plan. For Australian rugby.

 

[Lorenzo]

I think the fact that a) its the existing competition and b) there's at least some demonstrated commercial demand for the product should explain why it is the default option.

 

[dru]

I think the fact that a) its the existing competition and b) there's at least some demonstrated commercial demand for the product should explain why it is the default option.

Does not answer my query. I'd really like to hear how Super is viable and sustainable for Australia.

 

[Lorenzo]

Well as it's been going since 1996, I'd say it has a track record of both sustainability and viability, unlike literally any alternative. Interest has definitely waned, so it might not be sustainable past the next contract.

Do you have any alternatives that are demonstrably (i.e that you are able to 'prove' as you put it) viable and sustainable?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Dru, I'm with Lorenzo on this. It really isn't up to Super Rugby to prove it is viable and sustainable. It must be up to potential replacement competitions to prove they are at least as viable and sustainable. We haven't yet heard from any reputable or convincing alternative proponent a proposal that could be described in those terms. Until we do, it looks like Super will remain the competition of choice while-ever both SA and NZ indicate their willingness to continue.

 

[half]

that are demonstrably (i.e that you are able to 'prove' as you put it) viable and sustainable?

Then we will never change if every change has to be beyond doubt, in gilt edge, guaranteed to work, and be of benefit.

We are on our knees dying and any change must satisfy a series of test that Super Rugby cannot guarantee long term.

My humble suggestion, this idea of guaranteed success before we make a move guarantees nothing will ever get done. Moreover lets opportunities slip bye.

how is this from the Fin Review

Billionaire Lang Walker admits to being more a rugby union fan, but he says he can see a good business reason for backing a bid for a new A-League soccer club in Sydney's south-west.

https://www.afr.com/companies/sport...new-club-in-sydneys-southwest-20180607-h112nh

 

[Lorenzo]

Steady on there mate. I was responding to a post that took issue a post of mine where I said "I don't think we should put a bomb under Super without a viable sustainable plan actually in place"

And I stand by that post. No one here is averse to progress or change, but the reality for RA is that they do, as custodians of the game, need some financial certainty in the short term and that for now that seemingly means SANZAAR and the Super comp. I don't even thing 'long term' is especially relevant. At this stage we seem to be working 5 years at a time and given the media market, that is probably right.

I can't access the full article. I would think that Lang Walker referring to himself as a rugby fan simply indicates that he sees a business opportunity (rather than a pet project) in soccer. I don't really know how that is relevant.

Has Lang put money into a GRR side?

If you think the current situation is "We are on our knees dying" then you should want to avoid a situation where we've lost 30% of our revenue because we left SANZAAR on the basis that Super Rugby wasn't perfect.

 

[half]

Steady on there mate. I was responding to a post that took issue a post of mine where I said "I don't think we should put a bomb under Super without a viable sustainable plan actually in place"

And I stand by that post. No one here is averse to progress or change, but the reality for RA is that they do, as custodians of the game, need some financial certainty in the short term and that for now that seemingly means SANZAAR and the Super comp. I don't even thing 'long term' is especially relevant. At this stage we seem to be working 5 years at a time and given the media market, that is probably right.

I can't access the full article. I would think that Lang Walker referring to himself as a rugby fan simply indicates that he sees a business opportunity (rather than a pet project) in soccer. I don't really know how that is relevant.

Has Lang put money into a GRR side?

If you think the current situation is "We are on our knees dying" then you should want to avoid a situation where we've lost 30% of our revenue because we left SANZAAR on the basis that Super Rugby wasn't perfect.

I think you miss my point, and many many many have in the past. Maybe its me being incapable of explaining myself.

Let me start by saying IMO for any sport to work in Australia it needs a National Domestic Competition, to develop if nothing else a pathway for players and grassroots to aspire too. However I think it goes much further than that.

RA or the ARU or whatever name its called itself has largely relied on other people doing the heavy lifting and rugby has been riddled with in fighting between NSW & QLD.

In the 60's rugby was the main winter sport in NSW state schools, today you could count on your hands the number of state school teams, never mind schools.

Rugby admins have been not only lazy in research and business analysis but neglectful in the administration of rugby. Today in private schools there are more soccer players than union players.

The trend lines, and recent history will continue and our slide is guaranteed. So some accept this and hope they can see out the good times, others hope the trend will reverse , others like me say get some capital both in money and intercultural otherwise the slide will continue.

 

[Lorenzo]

I still miss your point, at least to the extent that it has any relationship with the thread title.