Where to for Super Rugby?

[Derpus]

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.

So the main benefit of Super Rugby is that we've expanded our footprint?

The staggering level of inconsistency from you in this 'argument' is..... why am I even here anymore?

Rugby is fucked. We can all go round and round in circles but we've signed up for a TT. A format already shown to be a loser. We have no money and apparently no appetite for a domestic comp. So what's left to talk about? this shit is done.

 

[Adam84]

we were great once before, customers will love us again!!!

 

[Adam84]

 

[Dan54]

So the main benefit of Super Rugby is that we've expanded our footprint?

The staggering level of inconsistency from you in this 'argument' is... why am I even here anymore?

Rugby is fucked. We can all go round and round in circles but we've signed up for a TT. A format already shown to be a loser. We have no money and apparently no appetite for a domestic comp. So what's left to talk about? this shit is done.

Ok mate, if you don't think spreading the footprint of the game in Australia isn't a huge plus, I buggered if I know!

 

[Adam84]

Ok mate, if you don't think spreading the footprint of the game in Australia isn't a huge plus, I buggered if I know!

Opportunity cost…

putting my money in cash account with 0.002% growth per annum might make money, doesn’t mean it’s a good investment when other options are offering 5-7% growth pa.

 

[Bullrush]

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.

The first few years?

The Wallabies were still ranked 2nd and 3rd in the world up until 4-5yrs ago. The Tahs won a Super Rugby title maybe 8yrs ago and the Reds just 2 before that.

Opportunity cost…

putting my money in cash account with 0.002% growth per annum might make money, doesn’t mean it’s a good investment when other options are offering 5-7% growth pa.

What's this other option offering 5-7% growth and growth in what exactly? I previously asked to define what 'success' is for this domestic competition looks like. Do we have a comparable working model somewhere to compare and aspire to?

When I first moved to Australia in 2009, the on-field success of the Wallabies was still pretty good. As I've pointed out, the Wallabies were consistently ranked in the Top 3, the Reds were starting to fire with the Tahs not far behind.

My personal opinion, obviously from outside, is that things went wrong with the way McKenzie left and the 'player power' that has been exaggerated by spreading the talent across 5 Super Rugby teams. To me, it's led to some players being rated better than they are (big fish, small pond) and some players not progressing and improving as discussed on another thread.

As I type, I'm thinking that one problem with Super Rugby Au isn't just the NZ competition - it's lack of quality competition within each franchise. The talent is spread too thin. This could go on for ages but I need to get dinner started...

 

[Dan54]

The first few years?

The Wallabies were still ranked 2nd and 3rd in the world up until 4-5yrs ago. The Tahs won a Super Rugby title maybe 8yrs ago and the Reds just 2 before that.

What's this other option offering 5-7% growth and growth in what exactly? I previously asked to define what 'success' is for this domestic competition looks like. Do we have a comparable working model somewhere to compare and aspire to?

When I first moved to Australia in 2009, the on-field success of the Wallabies was still pretty good. As I've pointed out, the Wallabies were consistently ranked in the Top 3, the Reds were starting to fire with the Tahs not far behind.

My personal opinion, obviously from outside, is that the things went wrong with the way McKenzie left and the 'player power' that has been exaggerated by spreading the talent across 5 Super Rugby teams. To me, it's led to some players being rated better than they are (big fish, small pond) and some players not progressing and improving as discussed on another thread.

As I type, I'm thinking that one problem with Super Rugby Au isn't just the NZ competition - it's lack of quality competition within each franchise. The talent is spread too thin. This could go on for ages but I need to get dinner started.

Yep mate I went to Aus at end of 1996, and was involved in club rugby, so also had a bit to do with QRU board members through various rugby realted matters (quite often taking players before judiciary ) and without exception I only ever heard how much super rugby had helped explode the game in Aus. Rugby was on a real high, there were great crowds at Ballymore (where I went to almost every game), and it seemed to get stronger during early 2000s, well in Qld games were moved to Suncorp, and once again all rugby people I talked to either at games or luncheons I used to enjoy, all spoke of how good it all was for Aus rugby. Now I not saying that after 2010 or so RA didn't let things slip, but to lay the blame on the comp I think is just deflecting the blame.
I do agree that getting shot of McKenzie and the way it all happened really hurt the game, and is probably still one of the things I have never been able to forgive Micheal Hooper for.

 

[Adam84]

Super Rugby was popular 25 years ago...well there's an endorsement for the game. Statistically it has been on a decline since 2004 across all SANZAAR nations in crowds and tv ratings..

In the same period(2004-2021) AFL broadcast rights have grown from $100million to $480million per annum, and NRL has grown from $40million to $400million. Comparatively Rugby Union in Australia declined from $40million pa to $30million...

In 2001 AFL revenue was $116 million, in 2021 revenue was $678million
In 2001 RA revenue was $58million, in 2021 revenue was $65million

So let's stop pretending Super Rugby is a successful product, it is not the same as the one which existed in 1996 or even 2003.

 

[half]

Super Rugby was popular 25 years ago.well there's an endorsement for the game. Statistically it has been on a decline since 2004 across all SANZAAR nations in crowds and tv ratings..

In the same period(2004-2021) AFL broadcast rights have grown from $100million to $480million per annum, and NRL has grown from $40million to $400million. Comparatively Rugby Union in Australia declined from $40million pa to $30million.

In 2001 AFL revenue was $116 million, in 2021 revenue was $678million
In 2001 RA revenue was $58million, in 2021 revenue was $65million

So let's stop pretending Super Rugby is a successful product, it is not the same as the one which existed in 1996 or even 2003.

OK OK OK

Like where you’re going with that post.

However, lets look beyond the current media deal, to the next media deal and where our revenues will come from.

Basketball & Football & Netball are all in various stages of developing models away from traditional models for gathering revenue. Basketball & Football in particular are investing lots of management time, money, into achieving their goals.

AFL & NRL are still somewhat fixed to traditional models, however AFL is exploring different rights with Amazon. Both are capable of moving to other platforms.
The big advantage Rugby has right now is we are part of the Nine/ Fairfax / Stan / Radio network, and the Nine group seem to wanta take out Fox and protect Stan from Netflicks.

Rugby needs to do everything in its power to grow while under the protection of the existing media deal with the Nine group.

I hope but don’t think it will happen, that we grow the Rugby audience on Nine, Super Rugby especially if we involve Fiji and Japan with time zones, and given its never worked in Australia.

Rugby, will be compared to Basketball, Netball & Football in terms of the growth of TV & Subscriber’s, audience over the life of the contract.

Rugby is in the second year of a three-year media deal, let’s hope we grow.

I could write endlessly about what other sports and codes are doing, and what Rugby is doing.

But I will restrict it to one example, to grow the Australian audience we are planning to introduce two new teams from Fiji.

Football has announced three new W-L sides, and wait for it, created a new trophy, the new Champion of professional football will be the combined table of the A & W leagues. Huge play at the growing female audience effecting saying both the A & W leagues are equal.

No idea if the above combining of the two genders into one table, but it’s a great talking point and is clearly aiming to grow the female audience.

Our fate is largely in our own hands, whether we use this time wisely is yet to be determined. Lets hope we do use the Nine contract cleverly which IMO means growth.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

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.

Actually if you look back people claimed long time ago need to move to FTA as well as pay tv - and now done and successful to date

People claimed long ago need to dump SA - now happened.

And for those who said allowing all black eligibility while playing for other non nz TT teams we see that happening with MP (Moana Pasifika) now and also Nzru whilst ruling it out short term but have not ruled it out long term. That is a small but significant shift

I think the fact we have had massive decline in rugby fan support for pro game shows anyone claiming Nzru and RA have got the ability to design and execute a successful strategy and Competition are kidding themselves.

I agree though the pace and scale of Change will continued to be limited by constraints of self interest and non alignment of agendas / objectives, funding constraints and of course risk.

And of course there are a lot of different ideas on here that would not pass the due diligence test but that is to be expected.

 

[dru]

Super Rugby was popular 25 years ago.well there's an endorsement for the game. Statistically it has been on a decline since 2004 across all SANZAAR nations in crowds and tv ratings..

In the same period(2004-2021) AFL broadcast rights have grown from $100million to $480million per annum, and NRL has grown from $40million to $400million. Comparatively Rugby Union in Australia declined from $40million pa to $30million.

In 2001 AFL revenue was $116 million, in 2021 revenue was $678million
In 2001 RA revenue was $58million, in 2021 revenue was $65million

So let's stop pretending Super Rugby is a successful product, it is not the same as the one which existed in 1996 or even 2003.

Christ - there is some depressing figures!

 

[Bullrush]

Super Rugby was popular 25 years ago.well there's an endorsement for the game. Statistically it has been on a decline since 2004 across all SANZAAR nations in crowds and tv ratings..

In the same period(2004-2021) AFL broadcast rights have grown from $100million to $480million per annum, and NRL has grown from $40million to $400million. Comparatively Rugby Union in Australia declined from $40million pa to $30million.

In 2001 AFL revenue was $116 million, in 2021 revenue was $678million
In 2001 RA revenue was $58million, in 2021 revenue was $65million

So let's stop pretending Super Rugby is a successful product, it is not the same as the one which existed in 1996 or even 2003.

Except that the Reds were bloody popular around 2010-2013 and the Tahs were also pretty popular around 2011-2014.

I like the NRL comparison. The NRL that reduced the number of teams in the competition and forced mergers to have a competitive competition and has not really bothered with a 'domestic footprint' given it has one team in VIC and one in NZ.

AFL has a bit more of a footprint but it expands the AFL comp around every 15yrs or so. Not 6yrs.

 

[dru]

Except that the Reds were bloody popular around 2010-2013 and the Tahs were also pretty popular around 2011-2014.

I like the NRL comparison. The NRL that reduced the number of teams in the competition and forced mergers to have a competitive competition and has not really bothered with a 'domestic footprint' given it has one team in VIC and one in NZ.

AFL has a bit more of a footprint but it expands the AFL comp around every 15yrs or so. Not 6yrs.

the NRL was split artificially by competing media interests and had a painful merger. The thinking behind the mergers was completely different to the shrink to greatness plan in rugby. It's more akin to the SRU teams coming together for NRC, though poorly done.

 

[Derpus]

Bring back the Bears.

Which dickbrained fuckwad decided to subject us to the Northern Eagles. Urgh, no wonder I feel lost in this sporting landscape. When does the cricket start?

 

[Adam84]

Except that the Reds were bloody popular around 2010-2013 and the Tahs were also pretty popular around 2011-2014.

I like the NRL comparison. The NRL that reduced the number of teams in the competition and forced mergers to have a competitive competition and has not really bothered with a 'domestic footprint' given it has one team in VIC and one in NZ.

AFL has a bit more of a footprint but it expands the AFL comp around every 15yrs or so. Not 6yrs.

They're outlier statistics in a pretty clear downward trend though.
Tahs had one season of popularity when they won the premiership, outside of that the crowds have been in decline. Thats the problem though, even with the occasional premiership in QLD and NSW the decline in crowds and ratings have continued.

What those outlier statistics and one off season of popularity do demonstrate is that there is a large portion of rugby supporters who aren't been engaged by the Super Rugby product.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Christ - there is some depressing figures!

Or a reality check on why more radical change needed in rugby or more to the point what the cost has been not delivering this.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

we were great once before, customers will love us again!!!

View attachment 12599

We need to create an exciting innovative new product the fans flock to - think of IPL, big bash.

The challenge is with so many (competing) stakeholder interests and lack of willingness to compromise for outside competing interests is what will hold it back. Equally continuing to challenge this and push for change is what is critical for survival.

I think slowly RA and NZRU are realising this but the challenge is time as time they don’t have with competing codes continuing to make in roads and wanning rugby supporters interest in the region in the traditional markets.

To me critical period is next 2 to 3 years what they do with this TT competition as they would be kidding themselves with current format and constraints this will grow the game. It can if realise a base and more openness to further changes and flexibilty to adapt to what is required to create a successful product, that appeals to wide audience and grows the game. If RA and Nzru are more open then the past to be open to and make those changes required is what is key. Past record suggests low chance this will happen. But covid hopefully finally been the catalyst to create realisation this new mindset of change is critical if rugby’s fortunes are to be reversed in this region.

 

[Dan54]

Super Rugby was popular 25 years ago.well there's an endorsement for the game. Statistically it has been on a decline since 2004 across all SANZAAR nations in crowds and tv ratings..

In the same period(2004-2021) AFL broadcast rights have grown from $100million to $480million per annum, and NRL has grown from $40million to $400million. Comparatively Rugby Union in Australia declined from $40million pa to $30million.

In 2001 AFL revenue was $116 million, in 2021 revenue was $678million
In 2001 RA revenue was $58million, in 2021 revenue was $65million

So let's stop pretending Super Rugby is a successful product, it is not the same as the one which existed in 1996 or even 2003.

Or alternately stop pretending it anyone's fault but RA if they the only case of dropping money

Or a reality check on why more radical change needed in rugby or more to the point what the cost has been not delivering this.

I think it is more the cost of making unforced changes, as Adam points out super started diving when teams were added and comp diluted, didn't we go from super 12 to 14 about 2005-6. He is correct, it certainly not the same comp as was in 1996-2003-5 .Then we got to the situation where even more were added and we had the ridiculous points system to make sure everyone got a top 3 qualifier, which really damaged the entegrity of the comp. The comp maybe came a different beast for different countries. It was set up as an elite comp and was very successful, but then became RA's domestic comp so they didn't have to build the level below, then just teams added like Sunwolves who really weren't what you call an elite team , but could compete with lower rated teams. When we look at Rugby's decline in Aus it correlates with the decision to increase the number of teams from 3-5, Adam has pointed that out with his figure.
So as Adam points out it was a successful comp when NZ had 5 teams, Aus had 3, SA had 4. Now we have posters saying Aus needs 5 teams (I not disagreeing, hard to go back), haven't got enough players so can NZ develop players and give them to us, etc etc. Yet we seem to have adminstrators who say we have a product that can work, add Drua, a Pasifika team with mainly NZ based players and all will be good.
But we got what we got so I will be behind it 100% and continue to watch it as I have all versions.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The first few years?

The Wallabies were still ranked 2nd and 3rd in the world up until 4-5yrs ago. The Tahs won a Super Rugby title maybe 8yrs ago and the Reds just 2 before that.

What's this other option offering 5-7% growth and growth in what exactly? I previously asked to define what 'success' is for this domestic competition looks like. Do we have a comparable working model somewhere to compare and aspire to?

When I first moved to Australia in 2009, the on-field success of the Wallabies was still pretty good. As I've pointed out, the Wallabies were consistently ranked in the Top 3, the Reds were starting to fire with the Tahs not far behind.

My personal opinion, obviously from outside, is that things went wrong with the way McKenzie left and the 'player power' that has been exaggerated by spreading the talent across 5 Super Rugby teams. To me, it's led to some players being rated better than they are (big fish, small pond) and some players not progressing and improving as discussed on another thread.

As I type, I'm thinking that one problem with Super Rugby Au isn't just the NZ competition - it's lack of quality competition within each franchise. The talent is spread too thin. This could go on for ages but I need to get dinner started.

No it is more then that - what you have seen is afl in particular expand their footprint and in particular at grass roots level. Just look at private schools where dwindling number of rugby teams at each grade level and more kids playing afl. I live opposite a park and oval in inner Sydney which was league ground for local teams. Few years ago put up afl posts and now more afl local teams playing and training their more then any other code.

Rugby has become less relevant and hence less resources etc...

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Or alternately stop pretending it anyone's fault but RA if they the only case of dropping money

I think it is more the cost of making unforced changes, as Adam points out super started diving when teams were added and comp diluted, didn't we go from super 12 to 14 about 2005-6. He is correct, it certainly not the same comp as was in 1996-2003-5 .Then we got to the situation where even more were added and we had the ridiculous points system to make sure everyone got a top 3 qualifier, which really damaged the entegrity of the comp. The comp maybe came a different beast for different countries. It was set up as an elite comp and was very successful, but then became RA's domestic comp so they didn't have to build the level below, then just teams added like Sunwolves who really weren't what you call an elite team , but could compete with lower rated teams. When we look at Rugby's decline in Aus it correlates with the decision to increase the number of teams from 3-5, Adam has pointed that out with his figure.
So as Adam points out it was a successful comp when NZ had 5 teams, Aus had 3, SA had 4. Now we have posters saying Aus needs 5 teams (I not disagreeing, hard to go back), haven't got enough players so can NZ develop players and give them to us, etc etc. Yet we seem to have adminstrators who say we have a product that can work, add Drua, a Pasifika team with mainly NZ based players and all will be good.
But we got what we got so I will be behind it 100% and continue to watch it as I have all versions.

The problem was not increasing the number of teams but doing so in a competition with nz who had 5 teams and not making any other changes to make this successful.