• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
p.Tah said:
The Australian market is a key indicator as to how the game is progressing.
Click to expand...


I don't see that at all.
We have the most crowded winter sports program of any major rugby playing country, if not any country.
Certainly judging by my unscientific observations of the inroads being made in the USA by unisex 7's, and the reports of others in various threads in relation to Europe, the game is booming everywhere but here.
The fact that through history and perhaps ineptitude rugby takes a back seat to NRL and AFL is no reflection on the health of rugby as whole, just as the fact that the NFL dominates in North America is not a reflection of the health of rugby anywhere, even in the USA or Canada.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Bruce Ross said:
But the major problem, QH, is that none of the Northern Hemisphere rugby is available on free-to-air. Contrast that with the soccer situation where SBS offers very extensive coverage of local and European games.
.
Click to expand...

And fox gives you live EPL games, judging by all the games queued up on the IQ:eek:
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
TOCC said:
I actually think there is nothing wrong with the game, Wallabies ratings/crowds have dropped off because they aren't competitive with the best anymore, not because the rules have made the game slower and more boring to watch.. The rules are there and teams play a game within the rules, some teams push them one way and other teams bend them another altogether.



The Super Rugby GF in 2011 broke the ratings record for Foxtel which was again broken later that year when Australia played New Zealand in the RWC semi-final. The 2003 RWC GF is still one of the highest ratings shows to ever be broadcast on FTA tv. Ratings for the Bledisloe nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013, the British and Irish Lions series had combined ratings of 4million for the 3 test series in 2013.

Whats the point of all that you ask?. Well thats an average of 1.3million viewers who watched a series without needing rule changes. The Reds broke Fox Sports ratings records under the same rules you want to now change. The 2011 Semi-Final and the 2003 RWC GF broke ratings records under the same rules that you now want to change.

Screw changing the rule, just get rugby on free to air TV where it is accessible to the broader market.
Click to expand...
You could add to that, the Reds regularly get more people to home games than the Broncos.

We should also consider the continuing incestuous relationship between News Corp and the NRL. There is a vested interest in ensuring that the NRL continues to churn money as they have so much to recoup.

I wonder where Rugby would be now if Packer had got his World Rugby Corp off the ground? I wouldn't have liked to see it but I think it could have helped having a media heavy weight in the ARU/IRB/Rugby corner to ensure it got some decent coverage. Since 1996 there hasn't been top flight provincial rugby on FTA TV. Rugby was jumping ahead in the early 90's on the back of the Wallabies great play and winning the RWC and dominance of the game from 90-94, but also because those same stars were seen every week in the club games and the "State of the Union" series on FTA. Now they get seen for 10-13 games per year and a hour long highlights package broadcast at some ungodly hour. IMO the slide started then.
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
Inside Shoulder said:
I don't see that at all.
We have the most crowded winter sports program of any major rugby playing country, if not any country.
Click to expand...
I didn't explain that thought particularly well, because of our crowded market, if the game can do well here, it can do well in much less crowded markets. If I was the IRB I'd focus on how to get the game going in what is a relatively profitable market. That would lay a decent blue print for moving into the very profitable markets (USA etc.) View Australia as a pilot program or a test market to use their favourite terminology,
 
Kenny Powers

Kenny Powers

Ron Walden (29)
Gnostic said:
You could add to that, the Reds regularly get more people to home games than the Broncos.

I wonder where Rugby would be now if Packer had got his World Rugby Corp off the ground?

Now they get seen for 10-13 games per year and a hour long highlights package broadcast at some ungodly hour. IMO the slide started then.
Click to expand...

These are good points as the QRU have a CEO with a professional sports management background in Jim Carmichael CEO and Chris White Director. They have looked outside the tent and are the better for it.

Rugby became attractive to Packer after the super league war partly because of the Packer/Murdoch ego thing and because Super 12 was created after the Keating Government had formulated the anti syphoning list.

They didn't have to give anything up to free to air all kept on pay tv and the various rugby bodies have never expressed a desire to see it on free to air which is disappointing. It would have at least shown a desire to grow the game and extract extra dollars from broadcasters even if it couldn't be secured.
 
ChargerWA

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
If fox were smart they would allow the ARU to sell one Aussie game a week to a FTA network. If the game keeps going downhill they won't have a product to sell and getting it out there may just create some more diehards who discover they need to watch more games per week and therefore need a foxtel package.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Do people really think that having one Super Rugby game on FTA each week would then greatly improve the ratings for Wallabies games? I highly doubt it.

If we can't get people to watch the Wallabies play then I don't think we will grow the fanbase by making some Super Rugby available on FTA.

The Wallabies are the starting point to bring in the casual fans and to do that they need to win more games and hopefully do it in a way that showcases good consistent rugby. We started seeing that on the EOYT.

The situation is not going to improve whilst seasoned rugby fans are turning off because they don't think it is worth the effort. You need to win back the existing fans whose interest is wavering before you can ever hope to bring in new fans.

I think the premise that rugby is unpopular in Australia because it is complex to follow is just an excuse. I think just about every sport has a learning curve for those that don't know it and rugby is no different.
 
Rugby Central

Rugby Central

Charlie Fox (21)
What's hard to understand?

The All Backs cheat
The Springboks are thugs and
the Wallabies are always the good sports hard done by the ref?

The rest is just spectacle:p
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Braveheart81 said:
Do people really think that having one Super Rugby game on FTA each week would then greatly improve the ratings for Wallabies games? I highly doubt it.

If we can't get people to watch the Wallabies play then I don't think we will grow the fanbase by making some Super Rugby available on FTA.

The Wallabies are the starting point to bring in the casual fans and to do that they need to win more games and hopefully do it in a way that showcases good consistent rugby. We started seeing that on the EOYT.
Click to expand...


I think one game would help but two would be ideal and would make a significant difference not only to the Wallabies but the Super Rugby clubs bottom line with increased exposure.

I disagree that the Wallabies are the starting point, yet this is the mentality that the ARU has held for a number of years now, but i think the subject is touched on in another thread so i won't go into it further.. There are a few reasons as to why the Wallabies aren't the key to attracting the casual observer:

Firstly, accessibility of the Wallabies is extremely limited, one or two test matches a year in a city with heavily inflated prices is not going to bring in new fans.

Secondly product identification is a massive problem, if you haven't been following the Super Rugby teams you aren't going to know who many of the Wallaby players are, parochialism, sentimentality play a massive part in supporting national teams which is only achieved if fans are able to identify with a player or the team...

Thirdly, the Wallabies haven't been overly competitive with the team we play the most, New Zealand, this hurts the image and even the most devoted fans get sick of watching limp performances.
 
boyo

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Braveheart81 said:
Do people really think that having one Super Rugby game on FTA each week would then greatly improve the ratings for Wallabies games? I highly doubt it.

If we can't get people to watch the Wallabies play then I don't think we will grow the fanbase by making some Super Rugby available on FTA.

The Wallabies are the starting point to bring in the casual fans and to do that they need to win more games and hopefully do it in a way that showcases good consistent rugby. We started seeing that on the EOYT.

The situation is not going to improve whilst seasoned rugby fans are turning off because they don't think it is worth the effort. You need to win back the existing fans whose interest is wavering before you can ever hope to bring in new fans.

I think the premise that rugby is unpopular in Australia because it is complex to follow is just an excuse. I think just about every sport has a learning curve for those that don't know it and rugby is no different.
Click to expand...


"having one Super Rugby game on FTA each week" would provide greater exposure for the game but wouldn't necessarily "improve the ratings for Wallabies games", but I doubt that it would worsen ratings.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Problem is it would likely worsen revenue. Super Rugby is on Fox because FTA has either not even made offers for it, or they are so far below Fox they aren't worth considering.

We can all agree ever $$$ counts right now.
 
Bruce Ross

Bruce Ross

Ken Catchpole (46)
Braveheart81 said:
Do people really think that having one Super Rugby game on FTA each week would then greatly improve the ratings for Wallabies games?
Click to expand...
I don't know the answer to that question, Braveheart, and it's not a question that particularly interests me. Television ratings are a very imperfect metric of the health of our sport.

A more relevant question would be whether having one Super Rugby game on FTA each week would greatly raise interest in rugby. Over time I think the answer to that question might be yes. Many kids who play rugby, together with their parents, never have an opportunity to regularly watch the game played at a professional level. Compare that to the situation with the other football codes in Australia or the situation with rugby in virtually any other rugby playing nation.

The fact that our game is basically inaccessible to a large proportion of the Australian public seems to be accepted with great complacency by those who administer it. Without exception they can afford pay TV. But despite having sold our soul to the media barons we are slowly spiralling into irrelevancy.
.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Train Without a Station said:
Problem is it would likely worsen revenue. Super Rugby is on Fox because FTA has either not even made offers for it, or they are so far below Fox they aren't worth considering.

We can all agree ever $$$ counts right now.
Click to expand...


Its a bit of a funding paradox, Australian Rugby needs Foxtel funding to maintain its budget, yet the exclusivity of Foxtel may be the very thing preventing Australian Rugby from increasing its bottom line.




Big Bash League vs Super Rugby

The BBL was averaging 140'000 in ratings on Foxtel in 2012-2013 (remarkably similar Super Rugby ratings for Australian home games), in its first year on FTA(2013-2014) it averaged 600'000 and was a hit. Channel 10 took a gamble and purchased the BBL Tv Rights for $100million over 5 years($20million/year), Super Rugby broadcast rights are worth $12.5million/annum to the ARU.

Already i can sense some of you ready to point out that the BBL has more games in the Australian time zone... Well not quite, the BBL is a 32 game long season, Australian Super Rugby teams are hosting 40 home games in 2014, not to mention a further 10 games featuring Australian teams in New Zealand. Thats 50 games featuring Australian teams in the Fri-Sun 2pm - 10pm time slot .

The major advantage that the BBL has is that it can perfectly tailor their matches to the Australian market, Australian Rugby won't be able to play games midweek like the BBL is able to, that is the one massive negative.


TV Rights:
Super Rugby: $12.5million/year - Foxtel
Big Bash League: $20million/year - FTA

Matches/season in Australian time zone:
Super Rugby: 50
Big Bash League: 32

Average Crowds
Super Rugby: 19'347
Big Bash League: 18,778
 
p.Tah

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
This has been mentioned in the broadcast thread but free to air tv brings so many other positives. The free to air channels provide a lot of cross promotion with their sports, Sunrise talks up the AFL, the today show the NRL. Foxtel does it with the rugby as well, but it's preaching to those who already have Foxtel and watch sport.

FTA TV increases the sponsors interest. We see NAB (bank) developing ads just to promote AFL: ' we're footifying Australia.' Suzuki promote their ads with Billy Slater and the Storm.

We may see the Wallabies with Rexona, Swisse and Castrol but usually only around test match time.

Then there are other companies riding off the NRL and AFL curtails. Today at the train station I saw a billboard for a education institute promoting their sports education courses that lead to a guy getting a job as an NRL development office.

http://www.acpe.edu.au/career-outcomes/where-will-you-be/my-story-ben

We need FTA TV to give rugby a wider profile for partners and sponsors. To be frank we need more than one game of Super rugby a week on the box. Tough decision given the financial difficulties we are in, but we need to take the plunge one day. I hope it's in 2016.
 
RugbyFuture

RugbyFuture

Lord Logo
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
If p.tah's information is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) and Fox have given a highlights package or a match to one of the FTA channels who screen it after midnight, then we're in trouble.

The 3pm/4pm timeslot on a Sunday/Saturday afternoon is full of minor sports on FTA - surf-boat racing, ironman, men's and women's basketball, netball etc. If we can't crack it on an FTA channel in those sort of timeslots, then either we haven't asked or we have asked an no one is interested. :(

As discussed in the in the article, lack of self-promotion by the code is an issue. I'd be surprised if many casual supporters even know that super rugby starts this week.

As an aside, I wonder if the current NRL boss David Smith was identified as a contender during the ARU's worldwide search for a CEO?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top