The dying - perhaps death - of Rugby in Australia.

[Scotty]

I took a stab in the dark.

I've done some more research and the SANZAR TV deal is heavily weighted towards test rugby (or at least the deal was when it was the Tri Nations. It is about 2/3 - 1/3). I have no idea whether disbanding Super Rugby would have an impact on revenue from Supersport South Africa for the Rugby Championship as they provide a big contribution.

I just don't get why FTA television would suddenly have a massive interest in rugby if there were more provincial games between us and NZ. That is where the revenue would drop off would occur. As it stands, Foxtel sells a lot of subscriptions because of the rugby they have available. For FTA it is not a big drawcard because the games rate worse than re-runs of Two and a Half Men.

I also don't think more viable primetime content is necessary for FTA. If you look at the NRL, Channel 9 pay a fortune to show one game live on Friday night, one game delayed on Friday night and a slightly delayed game on Sunday. Super Rugby could already provide that if there was a FTA demand for it.

I think the best path for the ARU to take with Foxtel would be to try and get Channel 10 to simulcast one game a week on Saturday night. They could show it live and being only one game, it wouldn't detract from Foxtel's product that sells pay TV subscriptions.

No, you are right, there would not be a sudden interest, but I suspect over time it would occur.

Channel 9 and league is a good and bad example in support of what you say. On one hand you could argue that rugby could provide as many games as league does to them currently (although it would be difficult to get 3 primetime games each week out of the current arrangement).

On the other hand, have a look at who plays in those primetime games each week. Normally there is a game directed at the Qld viewers and another directed at NSW viewers. The Broncos are on primetime pretty much every week because they are a big draw card. I suspect with more ability to have the popular teams playing in primetime, that rugby would be an attractive prospect to FTA.

 

[It is what it is]

There seems to be a lot of bashing of GPS, CAS and other private schools.
I didn't attend one of these schools but I do respect how much effort and development work they do put into schoolboy rugby.
On the flip side, think how worse off we'd be without these schools as there aren't many viable development options currently out there.
If anyone thinks that kids from these schools are getting a saloon passage into schoolboy and U 20 Rep teams, they are probably right.
What happens soon after however is reality sets in, there is a new world post 21yrs of age and the playing field levels.
Other kids from different school backgrounds, nationalities and 'pathways' start belting the privileged kids or run around them in Colts and Grade rugby.
These 'newbies' are then recognised by their clubs and elevated to higher grades. If consistently good enough, they are noticed by the veritable army of talent spotters who network high and low for their next star.
You can't hide on a rugby field and it has a funny way of sorting people out.

 

[Scorz]

Well, you voted for Japan. That's got some shitty karma.

Seriously though, my NZcentric rugbyheadness has very little interest in an NZ/AUS comp. Watching the Chiefs v Tahs once this year was enough. I'd rather we kept it the same.

And I don't think NZ can afford to help grow the game in another country any more. If the NZRU do have an obligation I think it should be directed toward the 2nd/3rd Tier rather than the dying throes of the IRB's 2nd ranked nation.

 

[TOCC]

(I will preface the following paragraph with the statement I LOVE football (Soccer) , I follow it as religiously as I do Rugby) By your logic in you last sentence, Soccer should be super popular - its one of the most (if not THE most ) played Junior sport in Australia and has been for decades? APpart from grand finals and the every 4 year supporter - where there hell are these droves of juniors supporting the game? Soccer in Australia is a joke both on the administration side and on the spectator side. Again I love the game - this isnt a bash soccer statement, its fact.

The game of rugby is percieved to be dying because of the lack of success of our national side since the 2003 world cup loss in the final (I still believe how ever that England side despite its boring nature of play was one of the best sides to win the world cup - so clinical in all its game) .

You've only quoted me on one comment in this thread yet if you read back through i made numerous other comments not just related to juniors.

I mentioned juniors yes, but i also pointed out that Super Rugby ratings have increased around 30% since 2010, i also pointed out that 75'000 people just turned out to watch the Wallabies play only a couple of weeks ago, i did make mention of a few other factors which are contrary to the 'rugby union is dying' mindset.. Anyway i wont continue because im just repeating what ive already posted.

 

[drewprint]

To my mind there are two key points of difference to rugby against league and AFL. I feel the powers that be have lost track of what these great differences are and are losing ground because of it.

1.(For the grassroots) It's a game for people of all shapes and sizes. Tall lanky guys, short stocky guys, nimble agile guys, out and out speedsters - union caters for them all.

2. (For the aspiring athletes) Union is a truly international game, with a vibrant global touring season and elite events such as the World Cup and Lions tours.

The sooner we as a sport can begin highlighting these benefits the faster our growth will be.

 

[Scotty]

Well, you voted for Japan. That's got some shitty karma.

Seriously though, my NZcentric rugbyheadness has very little interest in an NZ/AUS comp. Watching the Chiefs v Tahs once this year was enough. I'd rather we kept it the same.

And I don't think NZ can afford to help grow the game in another country any more. If the NZRU do have an obligation I think it should be directed toward the 2nd/3rd Tier rather than the dying throes of the IRB's 2nd ranked nation.

So Australia helps out nz with various sports from netball to league, but your chip won't consider going the other way. Says a lot about you.

 

[Dam0]

So Australia helps out nz with various sports from netball to league, but your chip won't consider going the other way. Says a lot about you.

For a start, I don't quite see how you help us out with Netball since its an even split competition.

Also, the reason that NZ has teams in those other leagues is because it is profitable for the owner of the competition to have another 4 million in its target audience. Don't give me this "helping out nonsense" - that is below you Scotty.

The ITM Cup has been running at a loss for years, and for at least the last 5 years the NZRU has been bailing out provinces all over the place over and above the subsidies they already give. Adding Aussie teams will make this worse, and frankly there is already an international domestic competition.

 

[Scotty]

For a start, I don't quite see how you help us out with Netball since its an even split competition.

Also, the reason that NZ has teams in those other leagues is because it is profitable for the owner of the competition to have another 4 million in its target audience. Don't give me this "helping out nonsense" - that is below you Scotty.

The ITM Cup has been running at a loss for years, and for at least the last 5 years the NZRU has been bailing out provinces all over the place over and above the subsidies they already give. Adding Aussie teams will make this worse, and frankly there is already an international domestic competition.

The nonsense started with 'the dying throws of the Irb ranked 2nd nation'. But fair enough - I am just a little grumpy at the moment.

You don't think there is any chance that the itm cup would make money if it didn't have to compete with the super xv? If fans only had one team to follow instead of 2? If the season went for more than 20 weeks? If the combine resources of the super rugby and itm teams were put together and the furtherest they had to fly was to Perth instead of the other side of the world?

I just cant see why everyone discounts the idea so quickly.

 

[cyclopath]

So Australia helps out nz with various sports from netball to league, but your chip won't consider going the other way. Says a lot about you.

Not really. NZ is a small place, and their rugby structure, in reality, punches well above its weight, so to speak. They have clearly developed a great structure from the number of players they have to maintain such depth. They don't have exponentially more players than us. I don't think they "owe" anything to anyone. If you look at the examples you cite, I would say Aus is very, very much the "big brother", so far better placed to help a smaller competition. They are different scales.

 

[drewprint]

If the above is your actual viewpoint them Dam0, maybe it's not prudent to post it right after 'liking' Scorz' original 'sucked in, let 'em die' post. Credibility drops just a wee bit.

 

[Dam0]

You don't think there is any chance that the itm cup would make money if it didn't have to compete with the super xv? If fans only had one team to follow instead of 2? If the season went for more than 20 weeks? If the combine resources of the super rugby and itm teams were put together and the furtherest they had to fly was to Perth instead of the other side of the world?

I just cant see why everyone discounts the idea so quickly.

I guess the issue is that the rugby system in NZ is quite balanced at the moment. We have our premier domestic league involving AUS and SA that involves 5 super City based teams, and we have our second grade tournament that takes the game to the countryside. There is no reason that I can see for us to want to change anything. In general I think Kiwis enjoy playing the Saffers and would be bored shitless playing with our 5 teams against 5 from Aussie. Aussie couldn't support any more teams, and I think 5 is a perfect number for NZ geographically and player number-wise.

Now I understand that Australia needs some kind of rugby between Super rugby and Club rugby, but piggybacking a few teams onto our second grade tournament is not a winning formula for anyone. What Aussie needs is a tournament with 2-3 teams per Super Franchise (ie 12-15 teams) so that for every Super franchise there are 3 or so dependable players to call on. We aren't ever going to allow you 12-15 teams in our ITM Cup (forget it!!) so lets drop this notion once and for all.

I think you have to simply bite the bullet an accept that a regional tourney is going to cost a million or so each year which has to be funded with the proceeds fro test matches. I submitted a research paper at University a few years ago writing about the legal ramifications of a proposed change in the then NPC. I read report after report from the NZRU which acknowledged that the NPC was losing money (about a million a year) but that they considered it important for the long term viability of NZ rugby to keep it going. Tests in HK and Tokyo were (allegedly anyway) intended to make up this shortfall. For all JON's supposed vision, I think canning the ARC was a very poor strategic decision all those years ago.

 

[Dam0]

If the above is your actual viewpoint them Dam0, maybe it's not prudent to post it right after 'liking' Scorz' original 'sucked in, let 'em die' post. Credibility drops just a wee bit.

I a sure that Scorz was being Ironic, as evidenced by the wink smiley.

I also agree with Scorz that a NZ/AUS only tourney would be more boring than an NZ/SA/AUS tourney.

I also agree with Scorz that if NZ is to help grow the game, the first places would be in the Islands and in Asia. Certainly not in the second ranked nation in the world which has a much stronger economy and infrastructure than us.

Don't quite know where my credibility has dropped to be honest.

 

[Scotty]

I only see a smiley face after his comment 'that's got some shitty karma'.

 

[Dam0]

I only see a smiley face after his comment 'that's got some shitty karma'.

So what?

I thought there was a rule about playing the ball and not the man? Or does that not apply when its a kiwi making arguments you don't particularly like?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Whatever guys, how 'bout we return to the substance of the thread?

 

[exISA]

You've only quoted me on one comment in this thread yet if you read back through i made numerous other comments not just related to juniors.

I mentioned juniors yes, but i also pointed out that Super Rugby ratings have increased around 30% since 2010, i also pointed out that 75'000 people just turned out to watch the Wallabies play only a couple of weeks ago, i did make mention of a few other factors which are contrary to the 'rugby union is dying' mindset.. Anyway i wont continue because im just repeating what ive already posted.

... and I was addressing your specific comments when quoting my post.

 

[TOCC]

. and I was addressing your specific comments when quoting my post.

in the case the situations are completely differently, soccer's A-League struggles to draw rating but, it's value to Foxsports is its ability to provide hours of live sport, clubs struggle financially with crowds and sponsorship..

Soceroos rate well and draw good crowds but struggle as they don't have regular competition against quality opponents.

Reasons for soccer struggling at a elite level(A-League) are numerous but the major factor been the talent vacuum of quality players to overseas clubs, in addition the short history of the A-League and the inception of clubs with no history or allegiances offset many fans.

Soccer also has ethnic, racial and xenophobic issues engrained in the junior and senior levels. Its also raising its head in the new Western Sydney team due to a string Croatian presence.


Soccer does have a large junior base, however it's reason for this not transferring to an elite level are not purely due to administrative issues. Many of those issues are not prevalent in rugby union, rugby has its own unique inhibitors however.

 

[Scorz]

So Australia helps out nz with various sports from netball to league, but your chip won't consider going the other way. Says a lot about you.

Yeah, it says I'm able to present the opposite view to "let's make Aussie rugby strong".
Regarding Aussie "helping out"; League: Rugby people in NZ aren't likely to see that as helping out, Netball is mutually beneficial, as are Basketball and Soccer (which incidentally are the refuge of immigrants and minority support and allow your comps to claim a greater influence internationally).

You're probably unable to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, but you could at least try for three feet before going into hedgehog mode.

 

[PaarlBok]

SA should chuck the S15 aswell. Its only sponsoring Aus rugby. We can do much better with CC rugby and tours.

 

[It is what it is]

SA should chuck the S15 aswell. Its only sponsoring Aus rugby. We can do much better with CC rugby and tours.

OK