Exit from Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

Which demonstrates the growth in the league.Sure it's not huge but when you consider its ranking in terms of worldwide Soccer leagues its not that bad.

It still demonstrates that you can build new leagues with new entities in today's sporting market. Tradition isn't the defining factor. It's nice, it provides a history but for many its about the quality of sport played not how long the team/competition has existed.

As for the BBL, I think the growth of its crowds and viewership can be attributed largely to not necessarily the Ashes series but it's arrival on a platform where everyone can access it. The product in which it presents is strong and provides a high entertainment value. That would have more to do with drawing in fans then the Ashes. I know people who lament Test Cricket who happily watch the BBL.

The A-League is 10 years old now. People are talking about it as if it is a brand new competition still. It also emerged out of the National Soccer League which has been going for a very long time.

Their crowds have ebbed and flowed and are now in quite a good relative position thanks mostly to the culling of two absolute dud teams, Gold Coast and North Queensland and the introduction of West Sydney. This works two fold because WSW get a pretty good average home crowd and there is a blockbuster game at the Sydney Football Stadium twice a year which gets 40k+. This is the sole reason why Sydney FC's crowds have jumped by 6k per game following the introduction of West Sydney.

It would be crazy to think that a rugby union team in western Sydney to challenge the Waratahs would draw even a fraction of the interest that the West Sydney Wanderers draw.

The Big Bash League has a game every night in prime time during a time of year when there is no competition from other sport and as it is a traditional non-ratings period, doesn't go up against many blockbuster shows. It is not possible for rugby to hold a tournament that has any similarities to the BBL in terms of creating a similar product.

I think the biggest furphy out of the whole discussion is the premise that the A-League are getting a lot more for their TV rights. I think it is mostly a reflection that their deal is more recent and rugby will get a substantially bigger deal next time around, particularly if we can get one game a week on FTA.

 

[boyo]

Maybe the poor food & drink service at the SFS has a larger effect on crowd numbers for the Waratahs than is realised.

 

[hoggy]

The A-League is 10 years old now. People are talking about it as if it is a brand new competition still. It also emerged out of the National Soccer League which has been going for a very long time.

Their crowds have ebbed and flowed and are now in quite a good relative position thanks mostly to the culling of two absolute dud teams, Gold Coast and North Queensland and the introduction of West Sydney. This works two fold because WSW get a pretty good average home crowd and there is a blockbuster game at the Sydney Football Stadium twice a year which gets 40k+. This is the sole reason why Sydney FC's crowds have jumped by 6k per game following the introduction of West Sydney.

It would be crazy to think that a rugby union team in western Sydney to challenge the Waratahs would draw even a fraction of the interest that the West Sydney Wanderers draw.

The Big Bash League has a game every night in prime time during a time of year when there is no competition from other sport and as it is a traditional non-ratings period, doesn't go up against many blockbuster shows. It is not possible for rugby to hold a tournament that has any similarities to the BBL in terms of creating a similar product.

I think the biggest furphy out of the whole discussion is the premise that the A-League are getting a lot more for their TV rights. I think it is mostly a reflection that their deal is more recent and rugby will get a substantially bigger deal next time around, particularly if we can get one game a week on FTA.

WOW Braveheart all I can say is I bet the AFL are glad that 20 years ago they had people with a bit more vision than you.

 

[Slim 293]

WOW Braveheart all I can say is I bet the AFL are glad that 20 years ago they had people with a bit more vision than you.

eh?

 

[Braveheart81]

WOW Braveheart all I can say is I bet the AFL are glad that 20 years ago they had people with a bit more vision than you.

I'm bet the AFL were glad that they had over 100 years of history behind it before they changed the name from the VFL to the AFL and added a couple more teams.

It's not a question of lacking vision, it's looking at the situation we're currently faced by and trying to come up with something that is achievable, sustainable and doesn't carry a huge amount of risk.

Some of the ideas mooted in this thread would send the ARU to the wall if they weren't a resounding success in their first year.

Seemingly I'm considered negative because I think that the ARU is wise to work on the smaller goals of getting the NRC off the ground and making it sustainable and making sure there is a FTA game each week in the next Super Rugby TV rights deal.

As far as I can gather, the plan from the people criticising me is:

Step 1: Ditch Super Rugby and start a new competition
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.

 

[Tip]

Step 1: Ditch Super Rugby and start a new competition
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.

Step 2 is to include Asian teams and bank on interest skyrocketing on the back of 7's at Rio and the RWC'19 in Japan.

 

[Braveheart81]

Step 2 is to include Asian teams and bank on interest skyrocketing on the back of 7's at Rio and the RWC'19 in Japan.

I'd be wanting these teams to exist before a brand new competition brought them in.

I think it would be more logical for Super Rugby to expand into Asia in 2016 and then any consideration of breaking away from South Africa to happen the next time around.

An awful lot is being made about how playing two games in South Africa each year at bad time slots is ruining the broadcast content and that there aren't enough games in prime time. I really don't think this is the case. Two games on Friday Starting with one game on FTA in prime time would be a huge step and over time that could increase if things go well.

The NRL is worth a lot to Channel 9 and they show three games a week. Realistically, only two of these slots are important to them (the two games on Friday night effectively fill one prime time TV slow; a 7:30 game involving Brisbane and another game for Sydney audiences at the same time. There isn't a lot of viewership for the later game they show on delay). Their other key slot is Sunday afternoon.

 

[Omar Comin']

It would be crazy to think that a rugby union team in western Sydney to challenge the Waratahs would draw even a fraction of the interest that the West Sydney Wanderers draw.

I think the biggest furphy out of the whole discussion is the premise that the A-League are getting a lot more for their TV rights. I think it is mostly a reflection that their deal is more recent and rugby will get a substantially bigger deal next time around, particularly if we can get one game a week on FTA.

To the first point, why do you think that? If the Western Force could attract 20k+ members and average crowds in its first few seasons then why would it be unrealistic for a team in a more populated area, with more rugby tradition, and likely more existing rugby fans to attract 15k to about 8 games per year?

There are a lot of rugby fans in Sydney that don't like the Waratahs. I know quite a few that support the Brumbies or the Reds because of it. The Waratahs are seen by many as very much an establishment, private school, North Shore/Eastern Suburbs team. I think a cross-town rival in Sydney would do the sport a lot of good. First, it would mean a game every weekend in the biggest market, second it would embrace the larger population of Sydney, 3rd it would create more stories and keep rugby in the news, 4th it would create some tribalism, especially if the new team had a very different culture to the tahs. A Sydney derby would be fantastic.

2nd paragraph, what makes you think we're on track for a substantially bigger deal? If that were the case I don't think there would be all this angst among the likes of RUPA and the Australian Super Rugby team CEO's. To match the A League deal the ARU's share of any new deal will have to increase by over 60%...given Super Rugby's crowds and ratings (not to mention test matches) have been at best stagnant over the last 5 years, I'm not sure how likely that is. And under the proposed new SANZAR expansion (Super 17/18) there will be no change in the amount of domestic content provided, while costs will increase.

I'm not sure why you think getting a game on FTA each week is going to substantially increase our deal. If anything we might have to cop a smaller deal in order to get a game on FTA. Fox pay for exclusivity.

Those of us proposing something new are only doing so because the current structure, and the proposed expansion of Super Rugby are predicted to lead to Australian Rugby going broke. The current path we're on is headed down. It's worth taking a calculated risk to get off it.

Also, for the record my preferred model, like the ARU is for a trans tasman competition linked with Asia. The ARU just need to have a plan B (like the original article on this thread suggests) so it can really push for this. The NZRU would be foolish not to side with Australia if push came to shove. But if they didn't, at least initially, we need something else to fall back on that isn't the status quo.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

To the first point, why do you think that? If the Western Force could attract 20k+ members and average crowds in its first few seasons then why would it be unrealistic for a team in a more populated area, with more rugby tradition, and likely more existing rugby fans to attract 15k to about 8 games per year?

There are a lot of rugby fans in Sydney that don't like the Waratahs. I know quite a few that support the Brumbies or the Reds because of it. The Waratahs are seen by many as very much an establishment, private school, North Shore/Eastern Suburbs team. I think a cross-town rival in Sydney would do the sport a lot of good. First, it would mean a game every weekend in the biggest market, second it would embrace the larger population of Sydney, 3rd it would create more stories and keep rugby in the news, 4th it would create some tribalism, especially if the new team had a very different culture to the tahs. A Sydney derby would be fantastic.

2nd paragraph, what makes you think we're on track for a substantially bigger deal? If that were the case I don't think there would be all this angst among the likes of RUPA and the Australian Super Rugby team CEO's. To match the A League deal the ARU's share of any new deal will have to increase by over 60%.given Super Rugby's crowds and ratings (not to mention test matches) have been at best stagnant over the last 5 years, I'm not sure how likely that is. And under the proposed new SANZAR expansion (Super 17/18) there will be no change in the amount of domestic content provided, while costs will increase.

I'm not sure why you think getting a game on FTA each week is going to substantially increase our deal. If anything we might have to cop a smaller deal in order to get a game on FTA. Fox pay for exclusivity.

Those of us proposing something new are only doing so because the current structure, and the proposed expansion of Super Rugby are predicted to lead to Australian Rugby going broke. The current path we're on is headed down. It's worth taking a calculated risk to get off it.

Also, for the record my preferred model, like the ARU is for a trans tasman competition linked with Asia. The ARU just need to have a plan B (like the original article on this thread suggests) so it can really push for this. The NZRU would be foolish not to side with Australia if push came to shove. But if they didn't, at least initially, we need something else to fall back on that isn't the status quo.

That would be mine as well. I could take it or leave it in regards to Asian involvement at this point in time but it could add a different flavour. Who knows? Either way, I think Super Rugby is set for aggressive expansion if it continues well into the future but in order for it to be sustainable it needs to be keep to conferences that can be entirely self contained with a Cup championship at the end.

I think a TT conference would be viewed as significantly more valuable than the current set up and far more competitive in the short term. But I agree with the general sentiment of the article and those arguing for the Plan B. We need it. Whether the NZRU or SARU want to admit it we all need each other for Super Rugby to remain viable. We don't necessarily need to play against one another but we all need to be involved. Having another option gives us the bargaining chip we've never had previously.

 

[Omar Comin']

Having another option gives us the bargaining chip we've never had previously.

Exactly, we need to be able to say the proposed super 17/18 structure doesn't work for us and if it doesn't change to something that does we'll go off on our own.

Without a plan B we have no bargaining power. We can't just be forced into accepting something that is going to lead us off a financial cliff and doesn't help us grow the sport in Australia.

At the very least, if we're going into a new Super Rugby deal without changes that suit us, perhaps we shouldn't sign on for 5 years. Maybe go in for 2 years to give us a little time to sort out the NRC and hopefully build up those teams.

 

[Pfitzy]

Throw in the fact that the race Nazis at SARU are about to reintroduce the racial quota system as a blanket policy and all teams in their conference will be weaker in the short term. If we and the NZRU don't stand up to this on a human rights basis, then we are doomed

 

[wamberal]

Throw in the fact that the race Nazis at SARU are about to reintroduce the racial quota system as a blanket policy and all teams in their conference will be weaker in the short term. If we and the NZRU don't stand up to this on a human rights basis, then we are doomed

If the current SARU administrators are Nazis, what word would you use to describe the administration of rugby in SA under apartheid?


You either know nothing about history, or you are a bit of a fascist yourself.

 

[Pfitzy]

For the record: just because I didn't mention the racist wankers in the white minority doesn't mean I agree with them.

I don't think the political agendas in South Africa are any less fascist than the Apartheid movement. But their hypocrisy is much higher because of those two facts.

 

[spirit of cupertino]

I would *love* to see a team in western sydney take on the tahs.
Having just come back from a rugby tour of SAfrica, and seeing what soccer does with the plethora of different cups available to the same teams, I can see that the current superrugby has predicatably failed by copying an already outmoded Shefield Shield (Crowd often <10 individuals).
We desperately need a much better domestic competition - one that fans can commit to with passion, then those successful ones can go on and play for a cup.
Think Bledisloe cup for club sides styled as the FA Cup for club sides - forget everyone has to play everyone else World Cup style. The current system is unable to generate the sort of household passion that ARL Tigers or AFL Bulldogs can generate which is a huge shame. Let's change it before it's too late.

 

[Badger]

On Offsiders this morning, John Stensholt from the AFR, mentioned that the Australian rugby powerbrokers, including Super Rugby CEOs, were meeting in a week or so to discuss the structure and deal options they wanted to present for next SANZAR contract. He did say that pulling out of Super Rugby was an option.

 

[Dan54]

I think it pretty hopeful if anyone thinks the 'Aus will pull out' bluff will work, what TV rights do you think a local comp will have? I think the problem there might be in making many changes is the fact the Super comp this year is better than it been for a while.

 

[Ruggo]

Rugby has a small window for a promotional edge but doesn't seem to exploit it. We have a month head start on the AFL and NRL. We need to go helter skelter in getting people through the gates then. Forget about over priced tickets for a start. Give them a chance to sample it before their code starts. After school returns after the Christmas holidays have an absolute blitz of try rugby programs with some promotional incentives like free tickets. Be prepared to trade a short term financial loss for a long term social gain. A flood of cheap tickets in the first month. Suck off the other codes when the chance arrives. If the swans play in the arvo and the Tahs the same night, drop the price and try and get them into the Rugby after the footy.

Try and make rugby a wider pillar of the community.

 

[hoggy]

I think it pretty hopeful if anyone thinks the 'Aus will pull out' bluff will work, what TV rights do you think a local comp will have? I think the problem there might be in making many changes is the fact the Super comp this year is better than it been for a while.

I'm sorry dan you miss the point, Super rugby just isn't working in Australia, it simply is not getting any market penetration. We have the best year of Super rugby, but quite simply not enough people are watching. And that has got nothing to do with the quality, but the fact they are just not interested in the set up of the competition. In a developing country rugby wise, you cannot present to them a competition that has 30% domestic content.
And remember the AFL get $250 million a year, if we got 10% of that we would just as well of.

 

[Dan54]

Yep hoggy,I see what you mean, I was more meaning that no way are they going into meeting and considering pulling out of Super rugby, or do you think the CEOs are going to vote to lose their jobs? I not sure what the answer if,but if Aus decide to go alone, I wonder if they are going to get much money off Foxtel etc, as one of rugby's points of difference is that is an international game, not even going to think what it would do to Wallabies only playing other Aus teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

Yep hoggy,I see what you mean, I was more meaning that no way are they going into meeting and considering pulling out of Super rugby, or do you think the CEOs are going to vote to lose their jobs? I not sure what the answer if,but if Aus decide to go alone, I wonder if they are going to get much money off Foxtel etc, as one of rugby's points of difference is that is an international game, not even going to think what it would do to Wallabies only playing other Aus teams.

Why would they be voting themselves out of a job? They are the CEO's of the teams, and the teams would still be playing in any alternative competition.

The games that rate best in Australia are the matches played in Australia between Australian teams. With matches between Australian and kiwi teams not too far off. There just aren't enough of them.

The most international rugby competition in the world is the Top 14. And it's all played in France.