Exit from Super Rugby?

[Ignoto]

The ITM was a separate deal (4 years @ ~NZ$25m or ~US$20m at the time, IIRC). That revenue – and more – is spent on the ITM. It's a separate component to Super Rugby.

Oh I agree that the ITM is a seperate component, BUT in the deed signed between Sky/Fox and NZRU/ARU the ITM is part of the 96million and 82million that each broadcaster is paying the host nations.

There may be seperate deals for other expenditure, but I can assure that the deal struck between the paid tv broadcasters included: Tri-Nations, Super Rugby, June Tests, ITM, Lions Tours and a couple other things. There's not 5-6 seperate agreements between the broadcasters and the host nations for each type of event - just one price with a breakdown of how much the broadcaster is paying for each event.

The headline figure for the full 5-year SANZAR deal (Super Rugby + TRC) was US$400m, which is worth about US$27m per union per annum (it's actually quite a small deal). Take out about ~$4m per union p.a. for the travel pool and do a test/super split from there.​

​

If you're talking about the new deal being struck up and just at Super + TRC then 27 million will be a substantial increase to the ARU budget. They'd then get a few million for Wallaby games and potentially the National Comp.​

From 2011-2015 at the start of each year, the ARU is only getting 16 million from Fox.​

 

[Braveheart81]

Whats the point of having a competitive Wallabies when no one is watching, compared to the other three codes in Australia rugby union is well and truly now running last. And all this so that the wallabies are competitive. And please exactly how can the finacial situation get any worse, the ARU are broke.

The higher up the chain you go, the more spectators there are both live and on TV.

What makes you think that ditching Super Rugby and having an Australian only competition as the second tier won't destroy Australian rugby altogether?

 

[hoggy]

I think it could be argued it has helped MAINTAIN the dominance of SA and the ABs, and the relatively modern dominance of the Wallabies. SA and NZ have traditionally dominated the world of Rugby with only the Welsh challenging that really, in the now distant past.

Since 1982 onwards Europe was left behind by Aust. and NZ (and SA when they returned in 1992). This evidenced by the numbers of appearances at RWC Quarter Finals and Finals.

Without SANZAR I think that the Boks, Wallabies and ABs may have come back to the pack a bit since 1995 but now with the French clubs now dominating the market so thoroughly I do not see any significant threat to that dominance in the near term, simply because of structural issues regarding the conditioning and release/access to players for test sides.

It may seem like semantics to argue the point, but it is significant in terms of philosophy and why we would seek to keep SANZAR.

I personally think the ARU is %$#$ financially and unless something miraculous happens restructure on a Greek level will be forced upon the Australian Rugby public in the near future. That being said all options have to be explored.

I personally think the ARU is %$#$ financially, agreed and that is after 20 years of Super rugby.
So to keep a competitive Wallabies we have sacrificed playing numbers, Spectator numbers are declining, Test rugby is being watched by less people, we have no free to air, rugby in Australia is labelled the "invisible code" by mainstream media. Junior teams have to pay $200 just to bail out the ARU. We face three football code competitors all cashed up and ready to pounce. And the only plan the ARU have is for the Wallabies to win everything.
And you want to sign up for more.

 

[hoggy]

The higher up the chain you go, the more spectators there are both live and on TV.

What makes you think that ditching Super Rugby and having an Australian only competition as the second tier won't destroy Australian rugby altogether?

The higher up the chain yes agreed, But you just can't prostitute the Wallabies for 20 games a year for revenue. playing the All Blacks 3-4 times a year ain't working, theres nothing special about it any more. The AFL produce over 200 games for the domestic market, we get just on 40 with Super rugby, and people wonder why they get $250 million.
99% of succesful sporting competition are domestic based. Yet for some reason in Australia we only think it would work if we have teams from other continents involved.
Look i don't know whether ditching Super rugby is the answer. But surely something is better than the slow death that is happening to rugby in Australia now.

 

[Train Without a Station]

There is the school of thought that because we think it's good that we plan international provincial teams that it is what will make people watch rugby. Clearly it isn't. Clearly our views do not align with the majority, evidenced by the success of the AFL and NRL in our market. That appears to be what the majority of spectators want.

 

[Blue]

There is the school of thought that because we think it's good that we plan international provincial teams that it is what will make people watch rugby. Clearly it isn't. Clearly our views do not align with the majority, evidenced by the success of the AFL and NRL in our market. That appears to be what the majority of spectators want.

Either that or they want a a "working class man's game" and / or a home grown, parochial sport.

Probably a good smattering of both.

 

[Pfitzy]

I had my Tahs jersey on in the restaurant before the game. The nice young man behind the counter asked "Who are the Tahs playing tonight?"

"The Bulls" I said as I punched in my PIN.

<blank look>

"From South Africa"

<clarity>

A lot of my mates who are AFL or NRL fans first, foremost, and usually only, have this as one of their biggest criticisms: who the fuck are all these teams, and who do they represent?

Which is weird, because the NRL has been pursuing a policy of franchise names WITHOUT any location information in them for years. All the official memorabilia is about the associated mascot, and rarely their physical origin.

Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs -> Bulldogs
Parramatta Eels -> Eels

And so on. Its so the NRL has the option of moving franchises around, or organising mergers when something goes wrong. The fans still call them "Parra" or "Manly" or whatever, but its not the official name any more.

History gives credibility, and Super Rugby doesn't have much history.

 

[Joe King]

My (long term) wish is for SANZAR to shorten Super Rugby to have it finish before the June Tests, then play The Rugby Championship over July and August, and make available all the Test players for their respective domestic competitions in September and October.

By finishing Super Rugby before the June Tests, it gives Super Rugby a clear window without disruption. The competition can keep its momentum instead of the current stop-start situation. It would also allow the international season to flow from the June Tests into The Rugby Championship.

While there would be a decrease in content and potential revenue from Super Rugby, hopefully having the test players available for their respective national domestic competitions would drive up revenue for these, and help balance the potential loss. There would also be a significant decrease in travel costs for Super Rugby.

To finish Super Rugby before the June Tests, and with 18 teams expected to be part of Super Rugby, there would not be enough time to have a simple round robin format.

Instead, I would have three conferences, with 6 teams each. Each team would play all the other teams in its own conference only once (five weeks). After this, the top two teams in a particular conference would play the bottom two teams in the other two conferences.

At the same time, the two middle teams in a particular conference would play the two middle teams in the other two conferences. And at the same time, the two bottom placed teams in a particular conference would play the top two teams in the other two conferences.

This means that each team would play four cross-conference games – two home and two away (4 weeks). Then the top eight teams on the overall table would move through for the finals using the same finals system as the AFL and NRL (four weeks). Add in a bye week, and the competition would run for 14 weeks.

While there would be less conference derbies, the conference derby games would also become a lot more meaningful because they would determine who you have to play from the other two conferences at the next stage. Players and fans would be a little more excited to win their conference derbies to get an easier run to the finals. This should attract a few more spectators to the conference derby games. Even if a particular team is unlikely to finish in the top two in their conference, there is still the motivation to win their conference games in order to finish in the middle two teams and still end up with an easier run to the finals.

If your team is in the top two teams in your conference, the interest from a fan’s perspective is that you have a real shot at making the final eight and will want to track your team’s progress as they play teams from the other two conferences.

If your team is in the bottom two in your conference, the interest from a fan’s perspective is that you still have a chance of making the final eight and you will be playing the best teams from the other two conferences!

It would also make the rugby calendar more defined and less messy in the Southern Hemisphere. Super Rugby would start on the last weekend in February or the first weekend in March every year. The June Tests would then follow after the completion of Super Rugby.

The Rugby Championship would then start on the first weekend in July every year, and finish at the end of August. This would leave the Test players available for their respective national domestic competitions.

A simpler and more interesting Super Rugby format. An international season which flows from the June Tests into The Rugby Championship. And a stronger national domestic competition for each country.

 

[kiap]

Oh I agree that the ITM is a seperate component, BUT in the deed signed between Sky/Fox and NZRU/ARU the ITM is part of the 96million and 82million that each broadcaster is paying the host nations.

Okay, thanks. Well in that case, it seems like the purported $400m headline might be wrong. Or maybe that includes cash and non-cash (e.g. advertising) components. What do you have as the fully rolled-up figure for the 2011-2015 deal?

If you're talking about the new deal being struck up and just at Super + TRC then 27 million will be a substantial increase to the ARU budget. They'd then get a few million for Wallaby games and potentially the National Comp.​

From 2011-2015 at the start of each year, the ARU is only getting 16 million from Fox.​

Nah, I was talking about the existing period. So if Fox are paying $16m a year, then the ARU would be getting another $10-12m p.a. from other broadcasters (FTA for the other tests, and so forth).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

My (long term) wish is for SANZAR to shorten Super Rugby to have it finish before the June Tests, then play The Rugby Championship over July and August, and make available all the Test players for their respective domestic competitions in September and October.

By finishing Super Rugby before the June Tests, it gives Super Rugby a clear window without disruption. The competition can keep its momentum instead of the current stop-start situation. It would also allow the international season to flow from the June Tests into The Rugby Championship.

While there would be a decrease in content and potential revenue from Super Rugby, hopefully having the test players available for their respective national domestic competitions would drive up revenue for these, and help balance the potential loss. There would also be a significant decrease in travel costs for Super Rugby.

To finish Super Rugby before the June Tests, and with 18 teams expected to be part of Super Rugby, there would not be enough time to have a simple round robin format.

Instead, I would have three conferences, with 6 teams each. Each team would play all the other teams in its own conference only once (five weeks). After this, the top two teams in a particular conference would play the bottom two teams in the other two conferences.

At the same time, the two middle teams in a particular conference would play the two middle teams in the other two conferences. And at the same time, the two bottom placed teams in a particular conference would play the top two teams in the other two conferences.

This means that each team would play four cross-conference games – two home and two away (4 weeks). Then the top eight teams on the overall table would move through for the finals using the same finals system as the AFL and NRL (four weeks). Add in a bye week, and the competition would run for 14 weeks.

While there would be less conference derbies, the conference derby games would also become a lot more meaningful because they would determine who you have to play from the other two conferences at the next stage. Players and fans would be a little more excited to win their conference derbies to get an easier run to the finals. This should attract a few more spectators to the conference derby games. Even if a particular team is unlikely to finish in the top two in their conference, there is still the motivation to win their conference games in order to finish in the middle two teams and still end up with an easier run to the finals.

If your team is in the top two teams in your conference, the interest from a fan’s perspective is that you have a real shot at making the final eight and will want to track your team’s progress as they play teams from the other two conferences.

If your team is in the bottom two in your conference, the interest from a fan’s perspective is that you still have a chance of making the final eight and you will be playing the best teams from the other two conferences!

It would also make the rugby calendar more defined and less messy in the Southern Hemisphere. Super Rugby would start on the last weekend in February or the first weekend in March every year. The June Tests would then follow after the completion of Super Rugby.

The Rugby Championship would then start on the first weekend in July every year, and finish at the end of August. This would leave the Test players available for their respective national domestic competitions.

A simpler and more interesting Super Rugby format. An international season which flows from the June Tests into The Rugby Championship. And a stronger national domestic competition for each country.

I agree regarding the continuity perspective. They current set up tends to be very disjointed for fans. However, I don't know if your model with the 6 team conferences would work in terms of general revenue and developing players.

In your model some teams would only play a total of 9 games with only 4 or 5 home games depending on the schedule. That wouldn't be enough to run professional organisations. Certainly not likely enough to offer the current salary levels for players.

A better model would be to look to prioritize each nations domestic competition so that it includes all national players and look to set up an additional Cup competition similar to that played in Europe.

Using the NRC as an example. We could play it over a home and away format equaling 16 weeks plus a final four series totaling a maximum 18 weeks.

Regarding the Cup competition, they could do either look to run it either during or after the regular seasons. With the ambition to look north to Asia it could also be a good options in including the Top League into the equation. The top two teams from each competition go into two pools playing each other home and away with the top 2 progressing to elimination semi's played at the higher ranked team venue (Pool A 1st place v Pool B 2nd) leading into a tow leg final.

Regarding the June internationals. The answer is to do as League does with Origin. Play them mid-week during the season so that the domestic competitions just keep running regardless.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think Super Rugby should become a pool based cup competition including teams from SANZAR, Argentina, Japan and whoever else they want to invite to the party. It shouldn't last more than about 6 weeks. The primary focus of the competing teams should be in domestic leagues played ENTIRELY in their own time zone. If NZ and SA aren't willing to do this the ARU have to be prepared to go it alone.

Who says we couldn't get a really good deal for a 8-10 team A-League style competition? The FFA get $40 million a year! And their matches rate considerably worse than ours. The key is the amount of content they provide at ideal times. We could replicate that.

Australia is a big enough market to support more than 5 fully professional rugby teams. We might not have the player base to support many more, but there is a world of talent out there and I don't think Australians have a problem supporting foreigners playing for their teams at all. If anything it adds to the vibrancy of the competition.

Rugby is popular among high net worth people and there are many thousands of them in Australia. Perhaps a few of them would be interested in owning new rugby teams at the highest domestic level. Maybe the ARU should untangle themselves from this current loss making situation (Super rugby in its current form), and do something different.

Remember that other time Australian rugby went off on its own and hosted the 2003 world cup? That went pretty well for us. This would too.

 

[Omar Comin']

WCR, forget linking up with the Top League. Those company teams have little fan support in Japan (and can you blame them? I certainly wouldn't support Suntory or Toyota unless I worked for them). Plus the Japanese talent is spread too thinly for those teams to be competitive.

If we're to include Japanese teams in any sort of competition it should be one or two sides with their strongest players. And the teams should be separate from the Top League. There'd be no interest anywhere in seeing the Reds or Waratahs hammer Toshiba. But perhaps a strong Tokyo team, with the best Japanese players and maybe a handful of marquee foreigners could be interesting. They'd also be a much better chance of gaining decent support in Japan.

 

[Bardon]

I'd echo what Omar said about the lack of support for Rugby in Japan. The teams there are little more than the playthings of the big Japanese companies.

My girlfriend worked for one of them for many years, up to last year, and employees would be "encouraged" to attend the games and give their support to the team. They would then spend their time looking over the wall at the high school baseball games going on in the stadium next door.

If you think Rugby in Australia has it bad it's nothing compared to the apathy for Rugby in Japan when compared to the big sports like baseball and football.

But rugby is a sport that can make an impact in Japan once you can get the Japanese people to actually give it a go. But the way it's structured at the moment means that's not likely to happen at least until after 2019 when the RWC should give it a real boost.

The Wales game last year was a real shot in the arm for the sport. I brought my girlfriend, to it as my brother and his girlfriend were over to visit at the time. It was an amazing game and the crowd were really into it. No one paid any attention to the baseball game next door that day.

The Japanese players hung around with the crowd for a long time after the game and there was a real party atmosphere in the bars around the area that night. The kind of atmosphere you normally only get after big baseball or football games. My girlfriends favourite sport is still baseball but she's now also a rugby fan.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'd echo what Omar said about the lack of support for Rugby in Japan. The teams there are little more than the playthings of the big Japanese companies.

My girlfriend worked for one of them for many years, up to last year, and employees would be "encouraged" to attend the games and give their support to the team. They would then spend their time looking over the wall at the high school baseball games going on in the stadium next door.

If you think Rugby in Australia has it bad it's nothing compared to the apathy for Rugby in Japan when compared to the big sports like baseball and football.

But rugby is a sport that can make an impact in Japan once you can get the Japanese people to actually give it a go. But the way it's structured at the moment means that's not likely to happen at least until after 2019 when the RWC should give it a real boost.

The Wales game last year was a real shot in the arm for the sport. I brought my girlfriend, to it as my brother and his girlfriend were over to visit at the time. It was an amazing game and the crowd were really into it. No one paid any attention to the baseball game next door that day.

The Japanese players hung around with the crowd for a long time after the game and there was a real party atmosphere in the bars around the area that night. The kind of atmosphere you normally only get after big baseball or football games. My girlfriends favourite sport is still baseball but she's now also a rugby fan.

It was just a suggestion. Could use teams from the Compenato de Argentino instead.

 

[Omar Comin']

It was just a suggestion. Could use teams from the Compenato de Argentino instead.

They're amateur teams.

If we're going to include teams from Argentina and Japan in any sort of competition they should be new professional entities.

 

[Bardon]

I said in another thread that I think the difficulty faced by the Super Rugby competition is that it's trying to fill two roles as a premier domestic club competition and an international club competition.

The advantage that the club games has up here is that we have 3 domestic leagues that provide all the derbies fans could ever want. Then we have the European Cup for that step up that provides the special match ups.

There's real excitement around seeing who your team are drawn with in the pool stages. The fact that you might not play a particular team for 3 or 4 years makes for special match ups. While in Super Rugby you don't have that as you play pretty much every team every year.

Then in the PRo12 we've also now got the added excitement of qualifying for the European Cup. Hopefully in a few years we'll have Pro12-2 and have the excitement of relegation battles too.

Super Rugby is trying to be all things to all men with each country trying to shape it to fit the needs of their domestic needs. Then the inevitable compromises produce something where not everyone is happy.

A format where each nation had their own national competition through which teams qualified for a Super Rugby competition would be more exciting and more marketable.

But then what do you do with the existing Super Rugby franchises? Break them up and have elite players spread over more teams? Parachute them into the domestic competitions as is?

It's a very difficult task faced by each of the SANZAR nations over the next 10 or so years to develop in a way that's sustainable at all levels.

 

[Omar Comin']

But rugby is a sport that can make an impact in Japan once you can get the Japanese people to actually give it a go. But the way it's structured at the moment means that's not likely to happen at least until after 2019 when the RWC should give it a real boost.

Bardon, do you think there would be a chance of gaining a decent following for a Tokyo based team in some sort of Asia-Pacific Super Rugby comp or conference?

Say if it was pretty much the Japanese national team with a couple of marquee foreigners.

Given Japan did beat Wales in one of those matches (albeit without their Lions players), I think they'd be competitive with most super rugby teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

A format where each nation had their own national competition through which teams qualified for a Super Rugby competition would be more exciting and more marketable.

But then what do you do with the existing Super Rugby franchises? Break them up and have elite players spread over more teams? Parachute them into the domestic competitions as is?

It's a very difficult task faced by each of the SANZAR nations over the next 10 or so years to develop in a way that's sustainable at all levels.

A Trans Tasman competition would be more feasible than 2 separate leagues in Australia and NZ.

But what you suggest (or something along those lines) is what a lot of people, including myself are crying out for.

It wouldn't be difficult to have a trans tasman competition with the current 10 teams plus a couple of others with the top X number of teams qualifying for a pool based super rugby comp alongside the best South African teams (playing in their own domestic league) plus rep teams from the likes of Argentina and Japan. Or the Japanese team could just play in the trans tasman comp and it could become an Asia-Pacific comp. That would work okay because the time zones are similar.

 

[Bardon]

Bardon, do you think there would be a chance of gaining a decent following for a Tokyo based team in some sort of Asia-Pacific Super Rugby comp or conference?

Say if it was pretty much the Japanese national team with a couple of marquee foreigners.

Given Japan did beat Wales in one of those matches (albeit without their Lions players), I think they'd be competitive with most super rugby teams.

You could definitely get a competitive team based in Tokyo but I'm not sure that would be good for domestic development. The concentrated franchise system used in Super Rugby seems to have undermined domestic competition and I'm not sure it's a mistake that should be repeated when expanding the competition.

You can definitely get more competitive teams with that approach but I'm not sure that foisting a flawed system on countries with a less developed rugby scene is a sustainable long term solution.

For me the long term solution would be to leverage the 2019 RWC (there will be games in HK and Singapore also) to create a pan-Asian/PIs club tournament from which teams could qualify for a streamlined Super Rugby competition. This would create essential local/regional rivalries and not increase travel expenses.

It would also mean that new franchises are given time to find their feet against opposition at a similar level rather than being the whipping boys for the big Super Rugby teams. No one wants to see their team conceding 70-80 points every few weeks.

Then over that time develop the Aus domestic competition so it becomes the means for qualification while NZ and SA adapt their domestic comps to achieve a similar result.

This approach would underpin Super Rugby with strong domestic competitions which would appeal to fans and broadcasters.

But the problem is doing things like that takes a very long time and in the modern world people wants to see results now. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a throw lots of money at new franchises approach.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't think Japanese rugby should wait until after the 2019 world cup to do anything. They need to be developing the sport before the world cup so that the world cup itself is a success (in terms of interest in Japan) and so that Japan can be as competitive as possible. It'll be awful for the game if matches are played in half empty stadiums.

I tend to think it'd be better to start with 1 or 2 new Asian franchises now and then build up to the point where you could have a separate Asian league or conference after 2019. Prove the theory before going all in.