Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Badger]

The Thunder haven't had great attendance, which is why I only mentioned the G

OK...got a bit lost in translation!

Maybe they could try double headers with the teams splitting the gate.

 

[Pfitzy]

I think you'd be surprised if you headed over to a NRL or AFL forum they certainly do slag off their games, much more than we do. Even in main stream media some key commentators and journos do the same.

But, as I've said elsewhere, they are criticising little aspects of the game, not the core of the game the way it's being played.

Origin could be the worst three games of the year, but point that out to a league fan and they'll arc up to fuck, defending it like it was their firstborn to their second girlfriend.

 

[mst]

I think you'd be surprised if you headed over to a NRL or AFL forum they certainly do slag off their games, much more than we do. Even in main stream media some key commentators and journos do the same. It shouldn't effect the negotiations Specifically IMO, however it does reinforce the negativity about our game which doesn't attract new supporters.

Good, points but I worry that that AFL and the NRL are far more robust and will always have a far bigger war chest, thus able to dig out of bigger shit-holes. Two key points though, NRL and AFL are critical about the administration, ref's, prices, services and players, but rarely attack the actual game unlike Rugby supporters. Did you see what happened in the AFL the other week with the "ban from the bump"? Did the supporters not protect the game first? To the other codes its about the game - it why advertisers and TV can see the value ($$$) unlike in soccer and rugby where we fight internally over politics, power and provincialism.

Also they NRL and AFL are in touch with their supporters - no recycled used failed marketing campaigns, and the ability to realise the that exit of "pretty boys" out of the game recently has helped the games image (remember Cipraini and JOC (James O'Connor)!) so why would you go there (hairdresser for a pretty boy?) noting its clearly what is not wanted in the game?

We need to be careful as we are vulnerable and almost begging for survival so ever single negative comment, tweet etc is a dollar or supporter lost and and inch towards oblivion. Most business and companies have learned that its best not to promote the negative things about them. Negative thing can and will happen, but why would you ever bring attention to it if its an inevitable part of your business.

I also think its time Rugby made a concious effort to split from just being another footy code in to a game that is truly international sport that is very inclusive (NRC, club grades. 7's, womens in both forms and even gay comps as well as a strong safe junior setup) and evokes national pride as it is a international game -that's if we can ever get over the provincialism!

I bet at time the AFL and NRL would love to have some of the things Rugby has, like a truly international competition, a real WC, a massive 7's comp for men and women (also international) an established gay team etc. But I bet there are even happier that we have arguably better and more product yet we soil it by constantly shitting in our own nest.

 

[terry j]

sort of get you, but we cannot express disappointment at a poor game ever?

They happen, in any sport. You can have an exciting game of tiddleywinks, and a bad game of tiddleywinks.

The brumbies and sharks game was dire, and we had every right to boo both figuratively and literally. BUT there were some damned good games on that same weekend too!

So if I were Pulver I would simply hand those guys a copy of the good games, in the same round, and point out that his silly comments on rugby were nothing more than a bargaining gambit and that his bluff was being called.

 

[mst]

sort of get you, but we cannot express disappointment at a poor game ever?

They happen, in any sport. You can have an exciting game of tiddleywinks, and a bad game of tiddleywinks.

The brumbies and sharks game was dire, and we had every right to boo both figuratively and literally. BUT there were some damned good games on that same weekend too!

So if I were Pulver I would simply hand those guys a copy of the good games, in the same round, and point out that his silly comments on rugby were nothing more than a bargaining gambit and that his bluff was being called.

Close but not quite. Feel free to criticise a game, I do like most do. But just a quick question, did the shit game from the AFL or NRL dominate the forums or get articles and opinion pieces published in main stream media about how "dire"it was? No, yet like every sport they have boring games that don't do much for promoting their product but they just aren't stupid enough to bang on publicly about it one day then try sell it the next.

As you said, there were some damn good game over the weekend. Um, which ones? I don't see the reporting in the papers. Do you? I do know what the fringe supporters have been reading. They certainly know all about the negatives of the game and how boring and dire our games are to watch.

So, tell me, when you buy a car, if its been dented and then repaired, does it have the same value as one that had never been damaged and needed repairs? Even its a perceived devaluation we don't have much bargaining power. I bet Bill also dreams of doing what you said, about handing over tapes of the good game, and the networks come back with overflowing bags of cash. The problem is the networks aren't so gullible and will know every good bad and otherwise for the last few years, the same things you would try to find out bout when you buy anything of significant value.

This is about how the networks value the product, and I can tell you they are not going to ask the seller - you and me and the rest us the rusted what we think its worth, they will be asking that guy that recently read that article in the Sydney Morning Herald that said "If there is any justice from the rugby gods, neither the Brumbies nor Sharks will win the Super Rugby title".

So what do you think he will say its worth?

So I ask only one question to the rusted on: In the last few days our great game has been publicly ridiculed and criticised - why are you not outraged and defending the game you love?

 

[terry j]

Close but not quite. Feel free to criticise a game, I do like most do. But just a quick question, did the shit game from the AFL or NRL dominate the forums or get articles and opinion pieces published in main stream media about how "dire"it was? No, yet like every sport they have boring games that don't do much for promoting their product but they just aren't stupid enough to bang on publicly about it one day then try sell it the next.

Firstly, have not got a clue whether any bad games from AFL or ARL was discussed on forums, don't read them. I can hazard a guess that they would not read here either. I don't read stupid papers, so have no idea what was written there.

But on that, (if I read a paper sadly it is the bloody telegraph, the missus buys it for the soduko or however it is spelled) that paper has a hard on to diss rugby at every chance. I imagine that flows onto the editorial decisions about what articles to publish, so in a paper that at best might have one page allotted to rugby, sure enough a rugby writer talking about 'the implications of jakeball' (a worthy rugby topic to discuss) is going to get 'front page'.

A bad game in league? I bet they happen, and pretty often, but that will get lost in the other ten pages.

So with the tiny amount of rugby space available, no bloody wonder the general public have no idea of the other, majority, of games on the weekend that ARE good advertising for the game.

Seems to me then the only way to never have bad publicity is to never have bad games, a patently ridiculous and impossible to achieve goal for any human endeavor.

I DO defend the game, but that is not to say that I am ridiculous about it, that the game is so good that a bad one never happens. That is as illogical as the hater, determined to never look rationally at it, will only ever use bad games as illustration and ignore the good ones. Each of those stances are equally idiotic.

 

[Rob42]

Those average viewer figures from the article about the BBL are strange. From the TV ratings thread, the Super rugby ratings have consistently been higher than the A League, and yet both Sydney FC and WSW have higher average figures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Those average viewer figures from the article about the BBL are strange. From the TV ratings thread, the Super rugby ratings have consistently been higher than the A League, and yet both Sydney FC and WSW have higher average figures.

They're only comparing Sydney teams here.

 

[mst]

Firstly, have not got a clue whether any bad games from AFL or ARL was discussed on forums, don't read them. I can hazard a guess that they would not read here either. I don't read stupid papers, so have no idea what was written there.

But on that, (if I read a paper sadly it is the bloody telegraph, the missus buys it for the soduko or however it is spelled) that paper has a hard on to diss rugby at every chance. I imagine that flows onto the editorial decisions about what articles to publish, so in a paper that at best might have one page allotted to rugby, sure enough a rugby writer talking about 'the implications of jakeball' (a worthy rugby topic to discuss) is going to get 'front page'.

A bad game in league? I bet they happen, and pretty often, but that will get lost in the other ten pages.

So with the tiny amount of rugby space available, no bloody wonder the general public have no idea of the other, majority, of games on the weekend that ARE good advertising for the game.

Seems to me then the only way to never have bad publicity is to never have bad games, a patently ridiculous and impossible to achieve goal for any human endeavor.

I DO defend the game, but that is not to say that I am ridiculous about it, that the game is so good that a bad one never happens. That is as illogical as the hater, determined to never look rationally at it, will only ever use bad games as illustration and ignore the good ones. Each of those stances are equally idiotic.

You raise some good points. but lets understand a few influencing factors and be clear about the issues.

Firstly this is about getting maximum positive exposure to increase the value of the product to assist with its growth and get some security.

So, lets be clear here, every sport has its negative aspects. I am not sure how you managed to argue yourself in to deducing that a rhetorical argument about opposites that is nothing more than a balanced reality and an undeniable fact can be equally idiotic, but I suppose there is some rationality in to you illogical hater description.

Anyway, Your comment is absolutely on the money: "So with the tiny amount of rugby space available, no bloody wonder the general public have no idea of the other, majority, of games on the weekend that ARE good advertising for the game."

So why do we end up banging on about the negatives. We should want to mature this argument and compare how other sports manage negative aspects of their sport that may endanger their game. To do this lets take a leaf out of the A-League book who are constantly trying to deal with the elephant in the room of crowd violence.

So how do they deal with it? QUIETLY and with positive adversing about the positives of their game. Do the A-League still have crowd violence issues? Yes. Did you hear about the average audience of 334,000 that tuned into Fox Sports 2 to watch the game live, with numbers peaking at 524,000 in the final minute of extra time, surpassing last year’s decider? If only Super Rugby could get this right?

Sorry my ADD kicked in now crowd violence um...............

Now this is the misconception we need to over come; "Seems to me then the only way to never have bad publicity is to never have bad games, a patently ridiculous and impossible to achieve goal for any human endeavor".


No- the game of rugby is the same world wide. I am not a fan of northern hemisphere style of rugby but I don't attack the "game". This is about how it was played and that is a personal preference, and most understand that is also dictated by many factors including, weather, nerves, skill sets, style and comparative game plans. the list goes on.

So lets get to the point. Was this a one off? - based on the evidence of the rest of the season - yes. The evidence suggest that the Brumbies are one of the highest try scores this season, can play expansive rugby as demonstrated by the Chief's game and are at the top of the table.

So where is this criticism of one game coming from? Maybe I will have to mount my mythical Unicorn and head off to Atlantis on a quest to find the mystical expansive running rugby that is apparently the Holy Grail and savoir of Australian rugby that we all now worship blindly that doesn't seem to be working out so well for some teams. While I am there I will grab some more "X" factor!

 

[terry j]

not quite sure how to respond, seems we agree on it yet we don't?

Maybe not quite a one off, but for the sake of discussion let's say (thank god) that style is a rarity in the super rugby. As you say, 'northern hemi stuff'.

AS it is a one off, most would like to comment on it (agreeing with thee and me) lamenting the consequences if it ever became something more than a one off.

Yet we cannot all deride that game (supporting our argument) because it highlights that game?

I think I am missing something??

Anyways, yes, agree with you fully that games like that are not a good look for our code.

Which is why we scream loudly.

 

[Polynesian Warriors]

I had expected more from Pulver when he went off to the SANZAR meeting and I know he and ARU holds all the cards if they wanted to change the face of SH or even Australian rugby. NZRU has no legs to stand on if the ARU decided to go it alone and put tenders out for NZ teams to join them in an Australian competition. I'm so tired of the NZRU stance on the Pacific Island nations I just wish Australia go it alone and includes the Pacific Islands in any expansion.

 

[Braveheart81]

I had expected more from Pulver when he went off to the SANZAR meeting and I know he and ARU holds all the cards if they wanted to change the face of SH or even Australian rugby. NZRU has no legs to stand on if the ARU decided to go it alone and put tenders out for NZ teams to join them in an Australian competition. I'm so tired of the NZRU stance on the Pacific Island nations I just wish Australia go it alone and includes the Pacific Islands in any expansion.

I don't know that this is really true at all.

The ARU has no money so they're not really in a position to go it alone.

 

[Polynesian Warriors]

I don't know that this is really true at all.

The ARU has no money so they're not really in a position to go it alone.

Your right the ARU don't have the money yet to go it alone but the NZRU will be foolish to ignore the plight of rugby in Australia in favour of the South Africans. South Africa can afford to go it alone as well and will Australia in the future but NZ small population and sponsorship market will be to small for professional rugby and will depends on a Trans Tasman comp to survive. Yes, the ARU holds more power than they think in regards to the future of the professional game for the two countries.

 

[Pfitzy]

I don't know that this is really true at all.

The ARU has no money so they're not really in a position to go it alone.

At this point, no. But its clear that out of the four markets in SANZAR, NZ and RSA are pretty much maximised. Argentina and Australia have more potential for growth, and of all the countries, Australia has the healthiest economy, and by far the best GDP per capita.

 

[Polynesian Warriors]

At this point, no. But its clear that out of the four markets in SANZAR, NZ and RSA are pretty much maximised. Argentina and Australia have more potential for growth, and of all the countries, Australia has the healthiest economy, and by far the best GDP per capita.

Cheers Pfitzy, exactly what I was trying to say. South Africa has alot of potentials as well to expand its market to include Zimbabwe and Namibia or even Kenya but it doesn't look that great for NZ unless they expand into the Australian market which is the reason why I mention the ARU having the final say.

 

[Pfitzy]

It was very apparent that during negotiations, each of the parties were behaving something like this:

South Africa: Howzit bru? Me and the okes were talking over a braai and if we don't get a lekker deal with at least 6 teams we'll take our money and vokk off ah?

Australia: We need more money - please can we get more money? We've got years of mismanagement to pay for!

Argentina: Buen dia my friends! We are just so happy to be here - anybody want steak?

New Zealand: [thinks] just sit here, smile, and shut up. Don't say anything controversial. Just take the money on offer and start planning that game in the USA. Oh SHIT Australia is looking at me. They're going to come over here and want to get rid of the Saffers. . . OK just get up and go to the toilet and then go talk to someone else instead...

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I had expected more from Pulver when he went off to the SANZAR meeting and I know he and ARU holds all the cards if they wanted to change the face of SH or even Australian rugby. NZRU has no legs to stand on if the ARU decided to go it alone and put tenders out for NZ teams to join them in an Australian competition. I'm so tired of the NZRU stance on the Pacific Island nations I just wish Australia go it alone and includes the Pacific Islands in any expansion.

Given that NZRU allows an unlimited number of NZ-born & developed players to choose to play for Samoa or Tonga & remain exempt from the foreign player restrictions imposed on Super Rugby & ITM Cup teams, and given also that those players are not presented with a contract for $x with releas clauses for Int'l duty & another for $x+y with no release clauses, I'm not entirely sure what part of NZRU's stance on the PI teams it is you're objecting to.

With regard to Australia going it alone, you cannot be serious: the game here is, sadly, next to bankrupt with money-spinning fixtures v NZ & SA, lose those & what happens? Also I suspect that NZRU might not like their Super Rugby and/or ITM Cup teams being enticed to join a non-sanctioned comp & that the resulting legal action (NZRU has deeper pockets than ARU right now) might be the straw that breaks ARU's back. IRB might be a tad miffed, too.

Finally, with reagard to greater PI involvement, bring it on. But based where? Neither Samoa nor Tonga have the resources or infrastructure & why would either ARU or NZRU risk bankrupting the Waratahs, Reds or Blues by allowing such an entity to set up shop in Western Sydney, Southside Brisbane or South Auckland when the existing franchises, in which they have more than a passing interest in terms of their long-term viability, are struggling as it is.

A trans-Tasman comp with PI involvement may one day be viable. But not by 2016.

 

[Omar Comin']

When people suggest Australia should go it alone we are talking about domestic level - not test level. Australian rugby loses money on Super Rugby. It is propped up by the Wallabies. It's a pretty bad model. The status quo is what's sending the ARU and the super rugby teams bankrupt.

A trans-tasman competition, or an Asia-Pacific competition would be viable today. The problem is the NZRU are against it as all they care about are the All Blacks. It'll all be fine for the ARU so long as the next SANZAR broadcast deal is massively bigger than the current one. But if it's not then going along with it for another 5 years wouldn't be in the best interests of Australian rugby.

The Waratahs fan base in Western Sydney is tiny. Rugby fans and potential fans in Western Sydney don't identify with the Waratahs so to suggest a team in WS would bankrupt them is laughable. If anything the impact on the Waratahs would be positive as it would be a team they could draw a big crowd against and develop a genuine cross-town rivalry with.

That said I wouldn't want to see a Western Sydney team be exclusively PI. It would be better if it was mixed, but with substantial spots for PI players.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

When people suggest Australia should go it alone we are talking about domestic level - not test level. Australian rugby loses money on Super Rugby. It is propped up by the Wallabies. It's a pretty bad model. The status quo is what's sending the ARU and the super rugby teams bankrupt.

A trans-tasman competition, or an Asia-Pacific competition would be viable today. The problem is the NZRU are against it as all they care about are the All Blacks. It'll all be fine for the ARU so long as the next SANZAR broadcast deal is massively bigger than the current one. But if it's not then going along with it for another 5 years wouldn't be in the best interests of Australian rugby.

The Waratahs fan base in Western Sydney is tiny. Rugby fans and potential fans in Western Sydney don't identify with the Waratahs so to suggest a team in WS would bankrupt them is laughable. If anything the impact on the Waratahs would be positive as it would be a team they could draw a big crowd against and develop a genuine cross-town rivalry with.

That said I wouldn't want to see a Western Sydney team be exclusively PI. It would be better if it was mixed, but with substantial spots for PI players.

You can't have it both ways: pull out of Super Rugby but expect to remain part of SANZAR come Test season. See how much revenue you get from playing the PI, Japan etc c.f. AB & 'boks & the effect that has on the ARU' already precarious finances.

Of course NZRU want what's best for their #1 earner, the AB. That includes a proper domestic comp & Super Rugby to develop the next generation(s) of AB. They will absolutely not tolerate anyone trying to undermine either comp.

Is it the Waratahs fan/potential fan or rugby fan base that's tiny in WS? No doubt there's a massive potential rugby fan & talent base out there but who's gonna prop up a WS side until that potential is realised? In the absence of a sugar daddy it has to be at the expense of the 'Tahs, even if indirectly by way of them losing sponsors to the new entity.

 

[Polynesian Warriors]

Given that NZRU allows an unlimited number of NZ-born & developed players to choose to play for Samoa or Tonga & remain exempt from the foreign player restrictions imposed on Super Rugby & ITM Cup teams, and given also that those players are not presented with a contract for $x with releas clauses for Int'l duty & another for $x+y with no release clauses, I'm not entirely sure what part of NZRU's stance on the PI teams it is you're objecting to.

With regard to Australia going it alone, you cannot be serious: the game here is, sadly, next to bankrupt with money-spinning fixtures v NZ & SA, lose those & what happens? Also I suspect that NZRU might not like their Super Rugby and/or ITM Cup teams being enticed to join a non-sanctioned comp & that the resulting legal action (NZRU has deeper pockets than ARU right now) might be the straw that breaks ARU's back. IRB might be a tad miffed, too.

Finally, with reagard to greater PI involvement, bring it on. But based where? Neither Samoa nor Tonga have the resources or infrastructure & why would either ARU or NZRU risk bankrupting the Waratahs, Reds or Blues by allowing such an entity to set up shop in Western Sydney, Southside Brisbane or South Auckland when the existing franchises, in which they have more than a passing interest in terms of their long-term viability, are struggling as it is.

A trans-Tasman comp with PI involvement may one day be viable. But not by 2016.

The NZ born players of PI origins can do what they like and choose who they play for but as soon as they choose to play for the Islands there NZ contracts aren't so certain anymore. It use to be an open books and any NPC teams can have as many PI players they wanted with no strings attach.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11253049

The ARU are loosing money as a result of the SANZAR deal which favours SA and NZ. I don't know where you got that games against SA sides are money spinners here in Australia but its far from it. The local derbies between the Australia sides rates higher on Foxsports and gets more people at the stadium follow by games against the Kiwi sides. Argentina played in the Championship Cup last year without even been part of SANZAR or the current tv deal so I don't think the Championship is at stake just super rugby. I didn't said the ARU will go behind the NZRU backs and just signed up their franchises if they go it alone, but the NZRU will have no other options cause SA time zone and distance won't be attractive to NZ broadcasters.

I don't think the Reds, Blues or the Waratahs will have any problems if a Pacific Island team is based in their back yard and will probably be good to have a local town rivalry between the two teams. You get more supporters as well who don't usually see the reds, Tahs and Blues as their team and more will be watching on TV. It seems to work for cross towns teams in the NRL and AFL.