Fiji into Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

I doubt that a Fijian team would be in a position to negotiate a proportionally equitable share of the broadcast revenue, but they'd be entitled to something. And as said above, money would go a lot further in Fiji. They would bring added value to any TV deal because their matches would provide more content at attractive times for Australian and NZ viewers.

 

[Dan54]

Well I a bit surprised there is so much anti re a Fijian team coming into Super rugby, I actually like the Sunwolves and Jaguares being in the comp because of the hopeful spreading the rugby word if and when it sorts itself out. Those making comments about dropping a SAFFA team, ( I think the way SA rugby going it could be 2 in a year or 2) would be probably have to look at chopping an Aussie team too, I actually think a Fijian team would be at least as competitive as the Rebels or Force, and financially wouldn't be much more of a basket case then the Force if we are to believe what we have read in papers!!

 

[Dan54]

I doubt that a Fijian team would be in a position to negotiate a proportionally equitable share of the broadcast revenue, but they'd be entitled to something. And as said above, money would go a lot further in Fiji. They would bring added value to any TV deal because their matches would provide more content at attractive times for Australian and NZ viewers.

Actually think the Fijians would get more people watching TV than the teams I named above , so would be entitled to a cut somewhere.

 

[kiap]

have to look at chopping an Aussie team too

Should chop out all five Aussie teams.

As any fule kno, the NSWRU started this thing, issuing invitations to SPC which then morphed into Super 6/10 … and onward.

In other words, we cut this thing off and start again now.

If Steve Tew wants to keep sending teams to South Africa to play 3 a.m games then let them keep doing so.

Player-wise, NZRU could even increase their participation and support 6-8 teams against the saffas and argies, although other factors will likely pull that number back.

ARU teams should be playing in our own time zone, except perhaps for a post-season Super "Champions League".

 

[TOCC]

Although I'm not 100% sure of current allocation of moneys, I do know that during Super XV, Australia, NZ & SA split the broadcast revenues 1/3 each.

I can't imagine things have changed too much since then.

No, they spilt the revenue relative to the value of the rights generated from the domestic markets, it just so happened that the value generated from each country was relatively equally split.

SARU has over the years negotiated a lesser percentage as an exchange due to some of the demands they have placed on their partners(I.e inclusion of Kings/Spears).

And this is where the argument for Fiji comes unstuck and so too this suggestion that they should share equally in the value of the rights.. domestically the value of the rights is minuscule in comparison to the SANZAAR partners. Fijian broadcasters won't contribute a 1/18 or 1/20th increase in the overall value.

Including Fiji would contribute through increased content by providing an extra round each season(although debateable whether this is good thing), but that's not worth an equal portion of the rights, SANZAAR partners would have to give up a share of their revenue if Fiji were to take equal.

 

[Tip]

It's pretty simple.

More games = more broadcast dollars.

Including Fiji puts the Super back into Super Rugby.

 

[TOCC]

Super Rugby is a broken model, simply including more teams doesn't make the quality of the competition any better, there's enough evidence to suggest that it only degrades it further.. fans, sponsors, tv viewers and crowds have voted with their feet

 

[p.Tah]

The current model is broken but a rejigged format with conferences that meet in the finals (as others have discussed many times before) is what's required and a Fijian team would balance a NZ conference with Japan in Australia's.

Build a strong Super Rugby Fijian team and in turn strengthen the national team. Then we have our own 5 nations: NZ, SA, Oz, Arg and Fiji.

Ben Ryan is referenced in the article. If he wasn't behind it he would have taken to twitter to correct the journalist as he has in the past. He actually retweeted the article so I suspect there is some substance behind it. He's not a bullshit kind of guy.

 

[TOCC]

I suspect one of those mentioned 'sponsors' was probably BLK, not just a sponsor of the Fiji Rugby Team but they also manufacturer a lot of clothing line in Fiji.

 

[Tip]

Super Rugby is a broken model, simply including more teams doesn't make the quality of the competition any better, there's enough evidence to suggest that it only degrades it further.. fans, sponsors, tv viewers and crowds have voted with their feet

Yet since the past is the only indicator we have for the future....

TV Rights revenue are, and have increased exponentially when we add teams to the competition.

I'm actually with Tew (NZRU head), expansion is Super Rugby's only viable option. We need to expand until we have enough teams to form a challenge & champions league.

 

[TOCC]

Yet since the past is the only indicator we have for the future..

TV Rights revenue are, and have increased exponentially when we add teams to the competition.

No, it actually hasn't...

In 2011 with the addition of the Rebels, the ARU share of the broadcast agreement only increased from $93million to $100million, thats for the duration of the 5 year contract. Once you factor in inflation the ARU were financially worse off under the 2011-2015 deal, and a major reason why the ARU haemorrhaged money during this period and almost went belly-up.

2016 saw an expansion in the number of teams and a bit jump in the value of the rights, but correlation is not causation, the fact that Super Rugby was expanding wasn't the sole reason for the jump in the value of the rights, the significant reason was due competition in the UK PayTV market.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The current model is broken but a rejigged format with conferences that meet in the finals (as others have discussed many times before) is what's required and a Fijian team would balance a NZ conference with Japan in Australia's.

Build a strong Super Rugby Fijian team and in turn strengthen the national team. Then we have our own 5 nations: NZ, SA, Oz, Arg and Fiji.

Ben Ryan is referenced in the article. If he wasn't behind it he would have taken to twitter to correct the journalist as he has in the past. He actually retweeted the article so I suspect there is some substance behind it. He's not a bullshit kind of guy.

Reverting back to the three conferences makes the most sense. Sth Africa's insistance on having 6 franchises throws any balance out of whack as logically you would align the Jaguares with the SA conference.

A solution could be splitting Super Rugby in divisions alongside bringing in a second Sth American franchise. The Asia-Pacific Division featuring either two 6 team conference or one 12 conference and the Atlantic conference featuring one 8 team conference.

Play 14 rounds plus finals. For the Atlantic conference its fairly simple. H/A over the 14 rounds. With the AP conference you can run H/A playing each team once and then three of them twice.

Three weeks of finals to crown a divisional champion plus an overall championship game between the winner of each division. All up 18 weeks.

Like the 5N's concept. Wouldn't actually looking at moving to a 6N's with Japan. Play each other once. Which tbh I much prefer.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

I take some of blues pills to clam me down.

I think you've already had enough chief.










ps, please pm me regarding leftover pills pick-up.

 

[Dan54]

Should chop out all five Aussie teams.

As any fule kno, the NSWRU started this thing, issuing invitations to SPC which then morphed into Super 6/10 … and onward.

In other words, we cut this thing off and start again now.

If Steve Tew wants to keep sending teams to South Africa to play 3 a.m games then let them keep doing so.

Player-wise, NZRU could even increase their participation and support 6-8 teams against the saffas and argies, although other factors will likely pull that number back.

ARU teams should be playing in our own time zone, except perhaps for a post-season Super "Champions League".

Lol Kiap so basically you saying just have the NRC, or are you advocating a Super 5 comp with just Aussie teams?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Lol Kiap so basically you saying just have the NRC, or are you advocating a Super 5 comp with just Aussie teams?

Pretty sure he means the NRC. Could just transplant the Brumbies, Rebels and Force brands. Keep the current split in NSW and Qld as well as Fiji. Sixteen rounds, home and away.

 

[GPSM]

In the current set up this is such a bad idea.

Until 2014 and from 2009, I went to Fiji to work four times a year for between two and three weeks a time.

What I can tell you it is a very poor country, with the Indian half liking soccer and the Islander half liking Rugby.

The Indians have most of the money.

In total they have a population of under 900K.

Fiji will not bring major sponsors or TV money the likely outcome is they will need to be supported.

In the name of the holy mother who is running the joint. What bring in a team that has no particular interest to the broader Australian sporting public and that team needing support from day one.

I have stayed away and not commented on this topic for some time. But we need to just get out of SANDZZAR and do it our selves.

Rant over I am holding it in but FFS a very poor broke nation that will need support from day one and its being talked about as somehow a great idea. I take some of blues pills to clam me down.

BTW I love Fiji and its people, but common sense please.

I'm with you Half.

The reality is that few of the existing Super Rugby franchises are making money and that's in first world economies with much larger populations.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Fiji team would be one of the more supported teams, particularly in Australia. They'd be exciting and bring much to the competition, but I can't see it working financially.

As for $30million in sponsorship, is that over 1, 2 or 5 years? I'd be surprised if they could generate that over 10 years.

I would love to see it.

 

[GPSM]

This is also completely different from PNG Rugby League.
- Is PNG a rugby "Brand"?
- Did PNG just win an Olympic gold medal in Rugby? (= global recognition)
- Does PNG have a long, lustrous legacy in the Sport?
The answer to each of these questions is no. To compare the two is completey disingenuous.


If Fiji is included, I daresay they'd be obliged the 1/18th - 1/20th of the broadcast revenue. Which equates to around 10-13mil AUD a year (which can go a long way in Suva)

TOCC raises a good comparison, and whilst your points regarding Olympics etc are true, PNG has a population of 7-8million as opposed to less than a million in Fiji, although not without significant social and financial issues, PNG's economy is much larger and are resource rich. Where they are similar, is that both are at least a decade away from having professional teams in either Super Rugby or NRL.

 

[Tip]

No, it actually hasn't.

In 2011 with the addition of the Rebels, the ARU share of the broadcast agreement only increased from $93million to $100million, thats for the duration of the 5 year contract. Once you factor in inflation the ARU were financially worse off under the 2011-2015 deal, and a major reason why the ARU haemorrhaged money during this period and almost went belly-up.

2016 saw an expansion in the number of teams and a bit jump in the value of the rights, but correlation is not causation, the fact that Super Rugby was expanding wasn't the sole reason for the jump in the value of the rights, the significant reason was due competition in the UK PayTV market.

You've actually just proved my point. When we add 1 team, we get an increase of 7 million.

When we add 3 more, we get an increase of a third, an exponential increase

Anyway, semantics aside, PNG is a complete basket case. They're realistically 2-3 decades from hosting anything remotely professional. There's a reason expats and international workers live in compounds patrolled by armed guards.

This just isn't required in Fiji.


@GPSM, I'd bet my house that your last sentence is wrong regarding a professional franchise in Fiji.

PNG though? I'd give it two decades.

 

[PaarlBok]

Bring them in, the more the merrier.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I was going to go in saying this whole poor country stuff does not wash when you have the best athletes in the sport and give West Indies and their status in cricket up to 1980's.

I have been to Antigua and thought can't be that many people in West Indies and then did google search and got population for all the islands of 39m. Dupe....was thinking couple of million at best!

So I think I will go back in my box. But my point was going to be if you have best players then you got something to market. The problem is like the West indies experience when you are not on top and poor country harder to survive.

Look unless outside money prepared to back Fiji super rugby I would find it hard to see but I could see why outside money would invest in this proposition as Fiji 7's brand is top shelf so I could see why they would see Fiji as potential threat to big order if invested and TV revenues could generate etc and sponsorship opportunities with Fiji brand - and how could grow it if invested in it.

I will just watch with interest as I have always known Fiji entering a Super Rugby side is about commercials - not the talent on offer......and Fijian like PI's generally are genetically superior - especially for sport like rugby.

It would be interesting if happens but really not close enough to know if rumours are a) true and b) whether commercials really would stack up