Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
picket out front of their office?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I don't think there's any doubt that there'll be a significant reduction to broadcast revenue for RA. Even if we end up with an amount similar to FFA @$32 million, then there will be around 40%-50% less money available for player wages moving forward. The only place for this hammer to fall is for Super Rugby players as Wallaby players will still command top dollar.
We may well be moving to the Rugby Reg scenario of Wallabies and club rugby with nothing in between.
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
did you listen to the interview with Phil Parsons I posted in the Shute thread? he is saying similar, Super Rugby needs to drop and SS/Club needs to rise and where they meet is the new semi pro comp
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
rugboy
Jim Clark (26)
What makes you think there will be 40-50% less for player wages if the RA get a similar deal to FFA? While broadcast money is no doubt the most significant part of RA revenue there are additional revenue streams which may not be cut. Also the sizeable reduction of the significant travel costs will be saved without the trips to SA, Japan and Argentina. Further the 5.5 million saved from the recent staff purge at RA and a proposed reduction in staff number at super franchises will offset some of the loses. I wouldn't see cuts anywhere near 50% in reality. The game will need to remain fully professional in Australia and while there may be some correction in player salaries I cant see them being as steep as some suggest.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
The travel costs are/were all covered by the Qantas sponsorship which is "in kind" rather than cash so it is irrelevant to the issues.
Staff purge covers the current operating deficit, so it is again irrelevant as this is money which RA spent which it never had in the first place. Sacking the staff gets them back to even.
They are likely to lose 40-50% of broadcast revenue and in the Annual Report of 2018 (published in 2019) we see that broadcast revenue comprised more that 50% of revenue for RA
Broadcast revenue $60,592,000
Total revenue $119,677,000
https://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/2018_annual_report_web
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Not for Super Rugby, and inclusive to those travel costs are the accommodation costs which are scaled right down when your teams are all playing within a few hours of each other.
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
Hence the exploration of private equity. My concern is you end up with what CVC did to the Formula 1. Make money yes. A better product. Not so sure.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
If you believe that the Qantas sponsorship hasn't included the transport of Super Rugby teams then you can believe that. It flies in the face of everything that we've been told over the years, but it's pointless to argue about it.
I would point out however, that the level of the Qantas sponsorship has been reduced from $5m per year to $3m per year.
Maybe the $2m saving is from not having to transport Super Rugby teams around?
Anyway, it's another area of less funding for RA.
Australia airline Qantas is set to renew its shirt sponsorship deal with Rugby Australia at a discounted price of about A$3m (€1.8m/$2m) per year for the next two seasons.
SportBusiness understands that the previous five-year deal, from 2015 to 2019, was worth about A$5m per year, including value in kind, and that the new deal was agreed after lengthy talks between the two organisations.
https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/...irline Qantas is set,for the next two seasons.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
I don't think we've ever been told that QANTAS pay for the flights of Super Rugby teams or why there is an expectation they would, during the years in which QANTAS have sponsored the Wallabies the Super Rugby teams like the Reds have held sponsorships with Virgin Blue, and the Force held a sponsorship with Emirates. There is no QANTAS advertising on any of the Super Rugby product, which you would think would be included at least as a "Airline Partner" or the teams.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Yeah that would have been handy but this wasn't so. Sanzaar had to pay to connect up the soup.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
It's a cute question but, just to be clear, the movement of your super teams had to be paid non contra.Who funds SANZAR?
Buying regularly and in bulk will get a corporate rate from various carriers, but nevertheless for supe it was a significant cost that wasn't covered by an airline partnering sponsor.
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
https://rugbynews.net.au/shute-shie...1NJznySoQJ2yamAt3J_aG3XECJknRWKrIsrlIU-0wIkSw
Shute Shield back on Seven7 this year
Shute Shield back on Seven7 this year
Crashy
John Solomon (38)
Great news - Though I would love to know who pays who here. Didn't RA buy the rights to presumably sell them on? So do I assume that Channel 7 is therefore paying for them?
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
I thought Fox were even going to guarantee a game on FTA under the deal they were trying to strike with SRU. They were going to pay for it all.
RA got wind of this and basically offered SS a similar deal, all be it so they could sell a whole of Rugby package to a broadcaster.
So I imagine RA are now footing the bill for the FTA component.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
RA and RUPA are meeting on Thursday to thrash out a deal. Although the players union has not tabled a counter offer, one report suggested the players would agree to a 30 per cent pay reduction - averaged across the group - from October until the end of the year.
The stalemate heaps further pressure on the organisation, which is already battling to make the re-negotiated broadcast deal - worth between $8 million and $9 million, according to sources - cover competition costs and player and staff wages.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...yers-threaten-pay-revolt-20200624-p555v1.html
