Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Wallaby Man]

Look out.

Exclusive: Rugby Australia tells NZ it will walk in bombshell move set to tear Super Rugby apart

Exclusive: RA tells New Zealand it will walk in bombshell move to tear Super Rugby apart

www.foxsports.com.au

I believe there is big support behind the SRAU into a Champions Cup style format from Aus sides. With Japanese/NZ involvement in that.

At worse they can get NZ to commit more money to the partnership. Which will help retain players.

 

[Adam84]

Previously all the broadcast money, which SuperSport in South Africa pumped in the most, was split equally between all three inaugural SANZAR partners. That extended to Argentina when the South Americans were included in the competition in 2016.

That is not the case today.

NZR is being paid $91m by broadcast partners Sky, which dwarfs the $29m figure RA is receiving a year.

No wonder the relationship is dire.

If broadcasters like Sky prefer and pay more for a Trans Tasman competition then they do for a domestic comp, then it’s ridiculous there is no revenue sharing agreement to reimburse the other ‘content generators’.

 

[qwerty51]

There is no way Argentina got an equal share of the revenue?????

Who on earth agreed to that.

I've said it time and time again. The need to match the AFL and NRL in comp length and games per week is the most important thing. 16 teams minimum, 20+ weeks length. No 3rd tier rubbish. Get rid of the NZ NPC and Super Rugby. Start again. 1 professional Trans-Tasman club competition (can include PIs). No Japan. Free market of players.

 

[Sword of Justice]

I'm all for giving NZR a shot across the bow for what I perceive to be years of condescension however I fundamentally do not agree with this comment from McLennan: “Some board members have strong opinions that a domestic only competition like the AFL and NRL would generate more money for the game and that is fair comment.”

I cant see how a new comp would survive long term with the existing five teams and perhaps one or two sides from the pacific and I wouldn't feel half the parochialism for a Brisbane City or QLD Country team whom I could claim ties to should they decide to go down that route.

 

[qwerty51]

I cant see how a new comp would survive long term with the existing five teams and perhaps one or two sides from the pacific and I wouldn't feel half the parochialism for a Brisbane City or QLD Country team whom I could claim ties to should they decide to go down that route.

You have to start somewhere. State teams are not sustainable. They should be representative teams.

The reason the NRC didn't work is because it's an addition to Super Rugby. It will work if they are the only professional teams.

 

[Sword of Justice]

You have to start somewhere. State teams are not sustainable. They should be representative teams.

The reason the NRC didn't work is because it's an addition to Super Rugby. It will work if they are the only professional teams.

I take your point but I'm sceptical that RA could survive any period of time where existing fans are agnostic about caring for teams. This would be the time to try however with WC and Lions coming up.

 

[Rebel man]

We need to bring back where to for super rugby

 

[LeCheese]

You have to start somewhere. State teams are not sustainable. They should be representative teams.

The reason the NRC didn't work is because it's an addition to Super Rugby. It will work if they are the only professional teams.

Does Australia, and will Australia ever, have the player base and quality (let alone the funds) to support 10+ pro-level teams though? In a perfect world full of union fanatics, yes, but we are a long way from that. I just don't see how a domestic comp is sustainable and engaging in both the short and long term.

 

[qwerty51]

Australia wouldn't have 10+

It would have 8. NZ/Fiji/Samoa/Tonga can contribute the other 10.

 

[Members Section]

Does Australia, and will Australia ever, have the player base and quality (let alone the funds) to support 10+ pro-level teams though? In a perfect world full of union fanatics, yes, but we are a long way from that. I just don't see how a domestic comp is sustainable and engaging in both the short and long term.

8 would be the ideal number, 14 games h+a the article suggests another nsw & qld side & the drua

Also remember the drua were significantly backed by the morrison govt as apart of their PacificAus Sports program so essentially 7 "aussie" teams

 

[Rebel man]

8 would be the ideal number, 14 games h+a the article suggests another nsw & qld side & the drua

Also remember the drua were significantly backed by the morrison govt as apart of their PacificAus Sports program so essentially 7 "aussie" teams

I agree 8 teams, top 4 for finals 14 games plus the champions league.

I really like that we are willing to put Australian rugby first

 

[Jamie]

Wrong call IMO, the fact is our teams got better as the season got on. We need to be playing NZ to compete, hiding in AU will do nothing for us.

Now if it is a $$$ decision, do we really have the dollars and cents to establish new teams from thin air? and that is what it will be, thin air. Don't even think about player depth just yet. It will cost money and as we know teams that don't win = Zero attendance.

As far as the Reds pulling in big numbers, yes that is true, but playing the same teams over and over again dilutes the product... look at what happened this year, we basically had an AU comp and the numbers were ok at best.

I call this article BS and another attempt to stir the pot, and by the way IF we do go our own way, don't expect the Drau to follow... the will side with NZ. and THAT would be a shame

 

[Members Section]

Wrong call IMO, the fact is our teams got better as the season got on. We need to be playing NZ to compete, hiding in AU will do nothing for us.

Now if it is a $$$ decision, do we really have the dollars and cents to establish new teams from thin air? and that is what it will be, thin air. Don't even think about player depth just yet. It will cost money and as we know teams that don't win = Zero attendance.

As far as the Reds pulling in big numbers, yes that is true, but playing the same teams over and over again dilutes the product... look at what happened this year, we basically had an AU comp and the numbers were ok at best.

I call this article BS and another attempt to stir the pot, and by the way IF we do go our own way, don't expect the Drau to follow... the will side with NZ. and THAT would be a shame

It would 100% be on which country the funding came from

 

[PhilClinton]

Why don't we just have a 5 team domestic competition and play each other 4 times a year. At the end of the season we pick our best players from those 5 teams and select a representative team to play in a Champions league type tournament against the best of NZ, SA, Japan etc.

Maybe every couple of years or so we also play a bigger tournament with those teams and some European teams.

Oh wait.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think largely this is a play to try and get a slightly more favourable deal from NZ.

The issue will be what each side sees their test rugby as being valued at versus Super Rugby and other domestic rugby.

RA's position is that we're important to NZRU making so much money from their broadcast agreement both through Super Rugby and the Bledisloe Cup and in return they should sling us a bit of cash from their side of the broadcast agreement.

 

[Dctarget]

Wouldn't mind it if Aus went to 8 teams from extra NSW, QLD etc.

Rebels might win a few more games.

How the hell would we pay 8 teams though?

 

[qwerty51]

Wouldn't mind it if Aus went to 8 teams from extra NSW, QLD etc.

Rebels might win a few more games.

How the hell would we pay 8 teams though?

By getting more broadcast revenue by creating more games and rounds...

 

[LeCheese]

So, at minimum, 2 more Aus teams (+ Drua) - 60-70 odd additional players to mostly pull out of club comps, no doubt a few bigger-name and overseas signings thrown in. Again, reckon we've got the depth and quality of player base to support that?

I'm not sure splitting an already diminishing (and overwhelmingly capital city-centric) fanbase in NSW and QLD would be wise either.

 

[Set piece magic]

Yeah it's very obviously a negotiating leverage ploy. They should scare them a bit by making it a bit more legit than just a leak to a journalist. You can also make the case that the leak is orchestrated right down to who it was given to - Nine wouldn't appreciate their own newspapers shitting on the comp they're invested in, so it has been given to Fox.

If Rugby Au want to negotiate hard they should also develop some paraphernalia that showcases what the competition would look like, some prospective teams, what their logos would look like. That will make NZ rugby think about it a bit more. But ultimately, it's clearly a ploy because it's in our long term interests to align with a Pacific Comp.

I think the point should also be made that it's not in the competitions long term interests to have such a discrepancy in financial resources available. It means that it is more likely to be continuously one-sided, which is not in the NZRU's interests. That's how you should really negotiate a more evenly distributed cash broadcast.

It's also clever base politics by the astute McLennan - shows our fans he's willing to stand up to the big boys before ultimately cutting a deal with them, makes him look strong.

 

[dru]

It's also clever base politics by the astute McLennan - shows our fans he's willing to stand up to the big boys before ultimately cutting a deal with them, makes him look strong.

If we are to negotiate with determination to ensure what is better for the game - in Australia - the threat of pulling out is only the first step. We also need the wherewithal and desire to do it. UNLESS a better deal is on the table. Not just better, but a better acceptable deal.

I'm happy with a TT but after a proper Domestic comp with a proper National champion.