Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

Seeing as there is no such thing as a bad idea in a brainstorm -- how's this for a crazy idea:

RA sells themselves to the NRL and the NRL becomes custodians of the game in Australia.

As the skillset required to play Rugby League and Rugby Union is very similar, the player base is now controlled by a single entity and it is up to them to assign their resources optimally in order to maximise revenue.

Players would therefore be able to move between the codes with ease, and could have their transition structured in such a way that aligns with World Cup cycles, without punishment from the NRL or the current team that they are signed to.

BUT WON'T THIS MEAN THE DEATH OF RUGBY IN AUSTRALIA?
SITUATION A: THE NRL KILLING THE GAME

Right now, it seems RAs revenue is boosted artificially as it struggles to avoid destruction. If you wipe off the inefficient revenue, e.g. assume 100M revenue at break-even, the NRL could at best improve it's position by 100M in Australia if there was 100% revenue transition.

This seems unlikely.

SITUATION B: THE NRL GROWING THE GAME

Working with pure logic and zero emotion, the NRL would have zero reason to kill the game in Australia.

For reference, the annual revenues and profits for the RA and the NRL are below. Please note I've taken 2019 figures as they are ex-COVID, which is reflective of BAU:

NRL: 550M // 29M (e.g. 5% profit)
RA: 110M // -9M (e.g. -8% profit)

Looking internationally, the NZRU and RFU have the following revenues and profits:

RFU: 400M // 4M (e.g. 1% profit)
NZRU: 190M // -7M

Given that we have approx. 0.4X the population of the UK and approx. 5X the population of NZ, there is no reason that - with a successful Wallabies and Super Rugby system - we can't increase revenues to 200M-400M p.a.

This means that rugby union would boost the NRL's annual revenue by 20% (the current situation) to almost 50% (the best case situation).

More than this, it would do so via traits that are unique to rugby union: a truly international sport and associated World Cup, British and Irish Lions tours, Olympic participation.

They would be able to add ex-pats from rugby playing nations to their customer base in Australia, a market that is likely currently not targetable for them.

Instead, they could treat Rugby Union and 7s Rugby as a separate sub-species of the same sport (e.g. like cricket does in 20/20, One Days and Test Cricket) and allocate its resources accordingly.

Given that fans have a high propensity to move between the codes (all of my diehard rugby union friends are no longer - they have left for the NRL), I can actually foresee a world in which:

1. The NRL brings Rugby Union into the tent
2. For the next World Cup cycle, they allow key players to move codes to boost their chances. The key players are enticed by the challenge, but not worried that it means the end of their careers in NRL.
3. The Wallabies win the World Cup, win the British & Irish Lions series, win the 2027 World Cup hosted in Australia, and revenues go through the fucking roof
4. The NRL is now only the NRL in name. They think to themselves "Jesus fucking Christ, this Union shit has the potential to be way bigger than League. Sod that off, we're Rugby Union purists now"
5. Rugby Union eats the NRL from the inside-out.

Mergers are never equal and stronger party normally ends up the victor whist weaker party whithers away. Sorry the only one I can see this attractive for is nrl to kill off a rival. Although RA and other stakeholders done pretty good job of doing their own self destruction over last 20 years without any help

 

[Adam84]

A slight tangent but Women's RL & RU merging has a lot of merit, especially in the growing threat of WAFL.

A merged entity of women's RL & RU would provide overall benefits for both codes IMO, it would provide RL the international exposure and Olympics, and would provide RU the professional clubs competition for players to develop core skills within for the International game.

Just need an alignment of the seasons somehow..

 

[half]

Seeing as there is no such thing as a bad idea in a brainstorm -- how's this for a crazy idea:

RA sells themselves to the NRL and the NRL becomes custodians of the game in Australia.

As the skillset required to play Rugby League and Rugby Union is very similar, the player base is now controlled by a single entity and it is up to them to assign their resources optimally in order to maximise revenue.

Players would therefore be able to move between the codes with ease, and could have their transition structured in such a way that aligns with World Cup cycles, without punishment from the NRL or the current team that they are signed to.

BUT WON'T THIS MEAN THE DEATH OF RUGBY IN AUSTRALIA?
SITUATION A: THE NRL KILLING THE GAME

Right now, it seems RAs revenue is boosted artificially as it struggles to avoid destruction. If you wipe off the inefficient revenue, e.g. assume 100M revenue at break-even, the NRL could at best improve it's position by 100M in Australia if there was 100% revenue transition.

This seems unlikely.

SITUATION B: THE NRL GROWING THE GAME

Working with pure logic and zero emotion, the NRL would have zero reason to kill the game in Australia.

For reference, the annual revenues and profits for the RA and the NRL are below. Please note I've taken 2019 figures as they are ex-COVID, which is reflective of BAU:

NRL: 550M // 29M (e.g. 5% profit)
RA: 110M // -9M (e.g. -8% profit)

Looking internationally, the NZRU and RFU have the following revenues and profits:

RFU: 400M // 4M (e.g. 1% profit)
NZRU: 190M // -7M

Given that we have approx. 0.4X the population of the UK and approx. 5X the population of NZ, there is no reason that - with a successful Wallabies and Super Rugby system - we can't increase revenues to 200M-400M p.a.

This means that rugby union would boost the NRL's annual revenue by 20% (the current situation) to almost 50% (the best case situation).

More than this, it would do so via traits that are unique to rugby union: a truly international sport and associated World Cup, British and Irish Lions tours, Olympic participation.

They would be able to add ex-pats from rugby playing nations to their customer base in Australia, a market that is likely currently not targetable for them.

Instead, they could treat Rugby Union and 7s Rugby as a separate sub-species of the same sport (e.g. like cricket does in 20/20, One Days and Test Cricket) and allocate its resources accordingly.

Given that fans have a high propensity to move between the codes (all of my diehard rugby union friends are no longer - they have left for the NRL), I can actually foresee a world in which:

1. The NRL brings Rugby Union into the tent
2. For the next World Cup cycle, they allow key players to move codes to boost their chances. The key players are enticed by the challenge, but not worried that it means the end of their careers in NRL.
3. The Wallabies win the World Cup, win the British & Irish Lions series, win the 2027 World Cup hosted in Australia, and revenues go through the fucking roof
4. The NRL is now only the NRL in name. They think to themselves "Jesus fucking Christ, this Union shit has the potential to be way bigger than League. Sod that off, we're Rugby Union purists now"
5. Rugby Union eats the NRL from the inside-out.

Love you opening up the debate.

However IMO you are dealing with traditional measurement values and revenue streams. The NRL is tied even more than rugby to traditional broadcast revenue streams.

The key to all codes including AFL & NRL is creating revenue streams outside traditional broadcast methods.

Data, and data management is the new oil.

RA need to develop business models where new revenue exceeds existing broadcast revenue. The key to this is data and the data we have is the fan base.

RA needs to engage the fan base in a manner that can be uses by sponsors, advertisers or whoever else wants to be involved.

The future is streaming and creating data base information.

Aside from FTA ratings, new rating on Stan are meaningless, whats important for Stan is subscribers numbers and the information rugby can use from those subscriptions.

 

[RebelYell]

Wow it took 1096 pages but I have never felt like the forum was further away than answering WHERE TO haha

 

[ForceFan]

Wow it took 1096 pages but I have never felt like the forum was further away than answering WHERE TO haha

Perhaps it means that there are neither easy answers nor short-term bandaid solutions.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Perhaps it means that there are neither easy answers nor short-term bandaid solutions.

Wow it took 1096 pages but I have never felt like the forum was further away than answering WHERE TO haha

I wonder if RA were saying the same thing after the last TT...and moreso again be saying the same thing after next seasons TT...

 

[Dan54]

Wow it took 1096 pages but I have never felt like the forum was further away than answering WHERE TO haha

It shows ,with all due respect to all posters, how little of an idea we have got. We have had ideas that will see all the problems solved that have gone from Stand alone comps, to having open borders, to having a decent NRC comp below super to selling out to NRL, and maybe even more I can't remember. It's great to have opinions but even most posters have probably had posted multiple great ideas so you can understand why the rugby boards (who have all the info) just carry on and make decisions that were always probably obvious anyway and nothing too way out.

 

[Quick Hands]

Perhaps it means that there are neither easy answers nor short-term bandaid solutions.

Insightful post. Which is why the RA strategy should be focussed on 2032 instead of 2022. The sooner that something is put in place which will grow the game long term and provide a strong and durable foundation for player and coach development the better. ((This is not a TT Super Rugby competition) Otherwise we'll be looking at 2042 and still wondering what to do.

 

[Adam84]

Perhaps it means that there are neither easy answers nor short-term bandaid solutions.

I'd argue that what we have been presented is the easy short-term bandaid solution.

Some of the discussions in here are the hard long term options, and they're hard because they haven't been done before, they aren't a known product and obviously with that there is an associated risk.

 

[hoggy]

It shows ,with all due respect to all posters, how little of an idea we have got. We have had ideas that will see all the problems solved that have gone from Stand alone comps, to having open borders, to having a decent NRC comp below super to selling out to NRL, and maybe even more I can't remember. It's great to have opinions but even most posters have probably had posted multiple great ideas so you can understand why the rugby boards (who have all the info) just carry on and make decisions that were always probably obvious anyway and nothing too way out.

No it doesn't show how little idea people have. It shows that self interest trumps all. Hard decisions should have been made 20 years ago and the code here would be in a far healthier state, but even now decisions still being made are for short term survival and self interest, those boards who apparantlly have all the info epecially the RA have pursued a simple policy of the Wallabies will fix everything policy, with those involved in the Wallabies all and still doing very well.

 

[Dan54]

No it doesn't show how little idea people have. It shows that self interest trumps all. Hard decisions should have been made 20 years ago and the code here would be in a far healthier state, but even now decisions still being made are for short term survival and self interest, those boards who apparantlly have all the info epecially the RA have pursued a simple policy of the Wallabies will fix everything policy, with those involved in the Wallabies all and still doing very well.

Yep once again with all due respect, I think that RA is making decisions based on knowing what is involved, costs etc, Where we on a rugby forum can make great wild ideas, that we almost know can never be used, but I suspect that RA will still be here in 10 or 20 years time, but not most of rugby forums, or certainly not same posters (or posting under same name if their ideas turn to custard) will be long gone.
I think to say that memebers on RA are making decisions out of self interest is to call into question their honesty etc, unless of course you mean self interest is the self interest of RA , which I would suggest is their job.

 

[hoggy]

Yep once again with all due respect, I think that RA is making decisions based on knowing what is involved, costs etc, Where we on a rugby forum can make great wild ideas, that we almost know can never be used, but I suspect that RA will still be here in 10 or 20 years time, but not most of rugby forums, or certainly not same posters (or posting under same name if their ideas turn to custard) will be long gone.
I think to say that memebers on RA are making decisions out of self interest is to call into question their honesty etc, unless of course you mean self interest is the self interest of RA , which I would suggest is their job.

With all due respect a domestic competition is not some wild idea, yet somehow after 20 years they still have not been able to deliver that, which would have helped grow the game from niche status in this country.

 

[Adam84]

Yep once again with all due respect, I think that RA is making decisions based on knowing what is involved, costs etc, Where we on a rugby forum can make great wild ideas, that we almost know can never be used, but I suspect that RA will still be here in 10 or 20 years time, but not most of rugby forums, or certainly not same posters (or posting under same name if their ideas turn to custard) will be long gone.
I think to say that memebers on RA are making decisions out of self interest is to call into question their honesty etc, unless of course you mean self interest is the self interest of RA , which I would suggest is their job.

Sorry Dan im not one to just assume that the 'powers that be' (NZRU/RA) are all informed and making the right decisions, history tells us there has been plenty of organisations and companies with access to the right information who made poor decisions based on risk aversion and lack of innovation.

 

[Dan54]

With all due respect a domestic competition is not some wild idea, yet somehow after 20 years they still have not been able to deliver that, which would have helped grow the game from niche status in this country.

Yep mate, that is an opinion I agree with a decent domestic comp is a requirement for Aus rugby, but I don't think self interet is anyway a reason it has not happened, well certainly not from RA.

 

[hifflepiff]

With all due respect a domestic competition is not some wild idea, yet somehow after 20 years they still have not been able to deliver that, which would have helped grow the game from niche status in this country.

If anything a TT/Super style supra-national competition is a far more wild idea considering Rugby is one of the only sports to regularly try this format and it has never proven to work long term.

Successful professional domestic competitions on the other hand can be found worldwide in any number of sports.

 

[Bullrush]

If anything a TT/Super style supra-national competition is a far more wild idea considering Rugby is one of the only sports to regularly try this format and it has never proven to work long term.

It depends on what you want to 'work long term'.

If you are looking at on-field rugby success, Super Rugby has been proven to work with Australia winning 1 RWC, a number of Super Rugby titles and maintaining 2nd or 3rd in the world rankings.

If you are looking for the domestic 'footprint' then Super Rugby doesn't work in Australia. It's not designed to do that. Who blames the spanner for not cutting wood?

Successful professional domestic competitions on the other hand can be found worldwide in any number of sports.

Define 'successful'

 

[Dan54]

Noone whatever your view is will convince me that Super rugby hasn't been good for Aus rugby. For all the moans that it has been 20 odd years of cock ups, let's just remember if there was no super rugby, Rugby in Aus would still be basically be NSW and QLd as it was in the 100 years before Super. Brumbies, Force and Rebels are the result of Super rugby.

 

[hoggy]

It depends on what you want to 'work long term'.

If you are looking at on-field rugby success, Super Rugby has been proven to work with Australia winning 1 RWC, a number of Super Rugby titles and maintaining 2nd or 3rd in the world rankings.

If you are looking for the domestic 'footprint' then Super Rugby doesn't work in Australia. It's not designed to do that. Who blames the spanner for not cutting wood?


Define 'successful'

Your right "domestic footprint" is something Super rugby will never give the code here, exactly why it is f_____g stupid for the code here to be part of it, because you may soon find you have no wood to cut while your waltzing around with your spanner.

 

[Bullrush]

Your right "domestic footprint" is something Super rugby will never give the code here, exactly why it is f_____g stupid for the code here to be part of it, because you may soon find you have no wood to cut while your waltzing around with your spanner.

Or you could just buy an axe.

I do appreciate that you recognise that different jobs need different tools though.

And I’m more a Running Man guy

 

[Derpus]

It depends on what you want to 'work long term'.

If you are looking at on-field rugby success, Super Rugby has been proven to work with Australia winning 1 RWC, a number of Super Rugby titles and maintaining 2nd or 3rd in the world rankings.

If you are looking for the domestic 'footprint' then Super Rugby doesn't work in Australia. It's not designed to do that. Who blames the spanner for not cutting wood?


Define 'successful'

All of that 'success' came in the first few years and was still largely based on the club foundations. Rest of the world has long since caught up and taken over.