Pass it to Dunning!
Bob Loudon (25)
If the NRC isn't busting the top 20 figures for Foxtel (against not much competition), then I doubt any of the free-to-air channels are going to be interested.
NRC onwards and upwards
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Well Shute Shield is on FTA and I don't think it would bust the top 20 figures for Foxtel if it was on it either. Surely a similar deal is possible for the NRC given it's a higher level national competition and with (hopefully) more potential for growth.
http://www.afr.com/business/sport/s...rugby-broadcast-entrepreneurs-20150827-gj9no8
Two guys paid to have it broadcast and then have tried to recoup their money through selling advertisements.
One potential is that now Foxtel are a substantial shareholder in Channel 10, we may start see them sharing some content, particularly sport.
Hopefully they start chucking the odd Super Rugby and NRC replay over there. I doubt they will go with live broadcasts as that will undermine their Foxtel business.
Hopefully they start chucking the odd Super Rugby and NRC replay over there. I doubt they will go with live broadcasts as that will undermine their Foxtel business.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I think it might undermine them to show live Super Rugby games, but not the NRC. There wouldn't be a single person whose primary reason for owning Foxtel is to watch the NRC so they wouldn't lose subscribers if 1 game per week was shown on FTA. The positive is that maybe some of the people that start watching that NRC game every week decide they want to see more rugby, especially super rugby, and they sign up for Fox. It's probably not a huge upside but I don't really see the downside from a Fox perspective.
To be honest, I think showing the odd super rugby game on FTA wouldn't undermine Fox much either. I'd theorise that the potential growth in subscribers (from people getting a small, but regular taste of super rugby and wanting more) would be greater than the potential loss in subscribers from having say 1 game per week simulcast on FTA.
To be honest, I think showing the odd super rugby game on FTA wouldn't undermine Fox much either. I'd theorise that the potential growth in subscribers (from people getting a small, but regular taste of super rugby and wanting more) would be greater than the potential loss in subscribers from having say 1 game per week simulcast on FTA.
The issue for showing games live on one of the Channel 10 channels will be whether they rate high enough to make it worthwhile.
BaysideBird
Bill Watson (15)
I'd be really interested in knowing what equivalent competitions in other codes rate on FTA and Fox Sports. I know there is Q Cup shown in Queensland on a Sunday arvo and that NSW Cup is on Fox Sports, and I think VFL, SANFL and WAFL are shown in there respective states on FTA. I wonder what the comparison is ratings wise? I think that would give a better idea of how the NRC is going per se.
T
TOCC
Guest
VFL averaged 53'000 throughout the regular season, what was the average rating for the Shute Shield? The only figure i could find was 34'000 for one of the matches.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
It's true, Perth chopped and changed their team a lot. Too much for mine, although the development argument is still a valid one. There were also some dramas with the Spirit coach (now departed) rumoured to have clashed with the Force coach (unfortunately still there).
Melbourne, through either circumstance or design, moved away from their near-Super team of last year and mixed in more development players. I don't have too much of a problem with that.
Now that the Rebels have been sold, the situation in Victoria starts to have some parallels with the NSWRU/Tahs. – As I understand it, the Rebels do not fund the Rising, so it's like the Tahs and the NSW NRC teams. Their non-Test players are distributed to the NRC, but is there any more than that in terms of assistance? And perhaps the VRU have stepped up to the plate a bit better than the NSWRU. – Dunnno.
So, in cheesy parable parlance, it's time to dump a load onto what's happening with Melbourne and Perth...
- Players: Firstly, the Rebels and Force should be providing (a few) more players to NRC clubs other than the Rising and Spirit. They won't like it but that doesn't mean it can't be helpful. It would mean more of their players get experience playing in the NRC. It could also mitigate the need for rotation just to blood more development players. Might even make the Spirit team stronger too with a more stable lineup (the argument would then move on to resting Super Rugby players, but that's another discussion).
- Who pays: Equally, Super Rugby franchises providing players who would have to relocate to NRC franchises shouldn't be expected to pay those wages and expenses. NSW clubs (yes, that's they're likely to go) can only expect the services of players with existing pro contracts by meeting the costs in full for the duration of the NRC. Again, the mechanism for distributing players (a handful only from each Super Rugby franchise) is another discussion but it would need to be strictly 'No pay, no play' for any player having to relocate.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
All the players distribution should be dealt with through some ARU fiddling.
1. All Super Rugby Players* contracted for season 20XX and Season 20XY are required to nominate an NRC side for Season 20XX, by May 31st 20XX, or within a fortnight of signing a contract extension, whichever is later. If uninjured, and not on representative duty, they will make themselves available for training and selection.
2. Excluding Overseas players qualifying on the 7 seasons & 60 Caps rule, all players wishing to be eligible for the Wallabies in 20XX Calender year must be aligned with an NRC side. This includes players returning from overseas (e.g. Dean Mumm and Kane Douglas this season).
3. No NRC side can sign more than 12 Super Rugby players, or returning overseas players with a future Super Contract, until all NRC sides have the minimum 8 allocated Super Rugby Players or Returning overseas players. At this point the player cap is raised to 16/18.
*Excluding International and Japanese Marquee players.
Think that would help fix a lot of the issues. Would need some significant ARU fiddling though.
1. All Super Rugby Players* contracted for season 20XX and Season 20XY are required to nominate an NRC side for Season 20XX, by May 31st 20XX, or within a fortnight of signing a contract extension, whichever is later. If uninjured, and not on representative duty, they will make themselves available for training and selection.
2. Excluding Overseas players qualifying on the 7 seasons & 60 Caps rule, all players wishing to be eligible for the Wallabies in 20XX Calender year must be aligned with an NRC side. This includes players returning from overseas (e.g. Dean Mumm and Kane Douglas this season).
3. No NRC side can sign more than 12 Super Rugby players, or returning overseas players with a future Super Contract, until all NRC sides have the minimum 8 allocated Super Rugby Players or Returning overseas players. At this point the player cap is raised to 16/18.
*Excluding International and Japanese Marquee players.
Think that would help fix a lot of the issues. Would need some significant ARU fiddling though.
AussieDominance
Trevor Allan (34)
I also think there is nothing more stupid than for example seeing Reece Hodge play this NRC with the Rays and then go to the Rebels next season and stay with the Rising just because theoretically the Rising are more powerful because of the Rebels connection.
Perhaps they need to allow the Sydney and QLD sides to sign players on longer term contracts although that does have financial implications. And a lot of thought into how it would affect any other deals they sign would need to be thought about.
Perhaps they need to allow the Sydney and QLD sides to sign players on longer term contracts although that does have financial implications. And a lot of thought into how it would affect any other deals they sign would need to be thought about.
T
TOCC
Guest
Conversely I would see it a pretty stupid scenario if the Rebels signed a player and wanted to use the NRC to help him build partnerships with other players and have him learning the Rebels structure but were declined the opportunity because of an arbitrary ruling.
The contractual process is a complicated one where there is no clear solution. It would seem to me that there would be more benefit for the Brumbies/Rebels/Force to release some of their more experienced players back to Sydney rather then the young development players.
Force/Rebels/Brumbies/Reds are using the NRC to develop partnerships, trial positions and offer game time to those who don't have much Super Rugby time. That's where the real value of the NRC is, by having younger players brought up to a level closer to Super Rugby and providing a more seamless transition for them to step in Super Rugby.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Tend to agree that Foxtel allowing a NRC game on FTA (even if replay) would more likely be potential to get wider interest in rugby and super rugby in particular and yep Foxtel control super rugby so perhaps use as marketing entree to entice them across to Foxsports package on Foxtel for super rugby.
Would have to be offered for next to nix as unlikely to be lot of interest in this point in FTA station taking it up.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yes I am surprised the ARU etc as not used more of its clout to get better media coverage for NRC...at least reporting results of matches....as you have results of shute shield matches reported but NRC getting zip...if can't get main stream media behind it at that level is of concern..
Be really interested to see a wide ranging survey to see what the blockers are to getting big crowds...push (ie lack of marketing / awareness) or pull (quality of product?)
T
TOCC
Guest
Well it had been rumoured but it's finally official, the NRC has been secured until 2020!
Remaining exclusively on Foxsports unfortunately, but hopefully they pick up more games. There was a separate article suggesting that Foxtel losing the EPL rights to Optus could mean more greater demand for live content which could mean more NRC matches broadcast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remaining exclusively on Foxsports unfortunately, but hopefully they pick up more games. There was a separate article suggesting that Foxtel losing the EPL rights to Optus could mean more greater demand for live content which could mean more NRC matches broadcast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BaysideBird
Bill Watson (15)
I wouldn't lament that too much. I know a lot of people don't like News Ltd, but if it wasn't for them the NRC wouldn't exist. They pay for almost all of the expenses in the competition... None of the FTA channels would be willing to do that...
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Wonder if there could be a "Total Rugby" type show put together for one of the FTA channels. During Super Rugby can do the highlights/results of Super Rugby then on to same for NRC. Or start with NRC. I know that the 'build it and they will come' attitude is not always successful but I get the feeling that more people would attend games and show more interest if they saw the product occasionally.
Since Channel 10 & Foxtel now share owners there might be some opportunity......
Since Channel 10 & Foxtel now share owners there might be some opportunity......
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
NRC points system being adopted across the dutch:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...be-worth-six-points-in-new-zealand-rugbys-npc
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...be-worth-six-points-in-new-zealand-rugbys-npc
T
TOCC
Guest
Given the popularity of the BBL, and the conceptual similarity between this competition and the NRC, I think there's a number of learning points that can be taken away.
Both were established with little heritage, both have a directive to entertain, both were/are structured around been a product for broadcasters, both feature rule variations deigned to speed up the game and increase entertainment separate from the traditional form of the game.
BBL obviously appeals to a wider market, more Australians are familiar with it, Cricket Australia poured tens of $millions into it in its initial years and it's now available on FTA.
I personally don't like the BBL that much nor have an allegiance to any team, but I don't mind watching it, the kids love it and it provides a fantastic match day experience which has fans flocking.
So what factors does the BBL have that the NRC could adopt?
-Vibrant and contrasting team colours
-On-field miking of players
-great game-day experience
-far better broadcasting experience with more cameras, more angles, more highlights
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Both were established with little heritage, both have a directive to entertain, both were/are structured around been a product for broadcasters, both feature rule variations deigned to speed up the game and increase entertainment separate from the traditional form of the game.
BBL obviously appeals to a wider market, more Australians are familiar with it, Cricket Australia poured tens of $millions into it in its initial years and it's now available on FTA.
I personally don't like the BBL that much nor have an allegiance to any team, but I don't mind watching it, the kids love it and it provides a fantastic match day experience which has fans flocking.
So what factors does the BBL have that the NRC could adopt?
-Vibrant and contrasting team colours
-On-field miking of players
-great game-day experience
-far better broadcasting experience with more cameras, more angles, more highlights
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk