Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

You mean like the twice-failed NRC?

Dave, with respect that is nonsense. More to the point the most success we've had in terms of broadcast numbers for a very long time has been Super Au. Don't let half's suggestion of a NDC devolve to a third tier. It is not what is being discussed.

 

[half]

Dave

I respect your passion, and believe you believe you are correct in your analysis.

You’re, analysis, I suspect is reflective of many within the Rugby family.

My simple reply is I think you’re, interpretation of base data is flawed due to a lack of context and nuance pertaining to that data.

My best example is the hype around the late 90’s and the belief by many it’s a new dawn for Rugby. They failed to bring to the context table, League was recovering from a civil war called Super League, AFL was still in recovery mode from by AFL standards poor decisions in the late 80’s and early 90’s that saw it fall behind League, and Football was on its knees and broke. None of these things was going to remain that way.

The Nobody Really Cares competition, failed because it lacked detailed planning, was thrown together in extreme haste with most outcomes discussed at the start never even attempted.

You were the one who brought up the A-L sighting failed clubs, and yes they did, but the competition survived and if reports I hear are correct they will expand to 14 teams next year and then 16 teams within two years after that.

I read extensively about sport, and sports management and in the past had a client who was one of the most powerful people in Australia determining what code received what media broadcast deal.

I don’t particularly want to talk about the A-L, but can provide some interesting conversations between some senior people if you want. However I have huge respect for their current management team and the media deal they signed with CBS.

Rugby needs a NDC, and to finance it rugby’s needs private capital and a new operating system. Sitting by wishing and hoping the status-que works is by light years our worst option.

 

[Dan54]

Dave, with respect that is nonsense. More to the point the most success we've had in terms of broadcast numbers for a very long time has been Super Au. Don't let half's suggestion of a NDC devolve to a third tier. It is not what is being discussed.

Actually dru, once again with all respect mate,have we ever had the place to compare super rugby and it's popularity with broadcast over a long time as we haven't had it broadcast on FTA before. Even the figures we now see are only one FTA game a week, and not a full picture. Seems we comparing apples and oranges in most cases. Unless we get get figures from every game we still don't really know what is popular and what's not.
As an example even test rugby, great figures for watching French series, but not even deemed worthy of showing FTA for Japanese test, so makes comparisons very hard don't you think?

 

[hoggy]

Australian rugby is like a manufacturer of top end 4 Wheel Drives it is a great product, but with limited buyers as most of the market are happily driving around in 4 door sedans.

The simple fact is if it wants to increase market share it needs to produce a 4-door sedan as well yet it faces stiff competition from a few manufacturers already producing great little 4-door sedans.

The evidence is already there regards what the market wants and what it is already doing, the point is can the RA survive without a greater share of that market.

The hard part for RA is what does it do, it has already previously produced a few flawed models tarnishing its reputation and flopping badly.

It has a new model coming out next year, but yet again no one really knows what it is a 4WD or sedan, the market already knows what it wants, it is driving around every day in its 4-door sedan.

The RA may be able to survive producing a top end 4WD, but ultimately it seems the future would be limited to supplying a cashed up overseas market.

 

[Adam84]

Actually dru, once again with all respect mate,have we ever had the place to compare super rugby and it's popularity with broadcast over a long time as we haven't had it broadcast on FTA before. Even the figures we now see are only one FTA game a week, and not a full picture. Seems we comparing apples and oranges in most cases. Unless we get get figures from every game we still don't really know what is popular and what's not.
As an example even test rugby, great figures for watching French series, but not even deemed worthy of showing FTA for Japanese test, so makes comparisons very hard don't you think?

No I don’t think its hard to compare in this case.

The fact tens of thousands more eyeballs were watching Super Rugby AU in Australia compared to Super Rugby previously speaks volumes. It doesn’t matter what platform it was watched on. Increased exposure generated through Super Rugby AU proves that there is a larger audience there with an appetite for Australian rugby and boosts the sponsorship and broadcast value of the product.

 

[Dan54]

No I don’t think its hard to compare in this case.

The fact tens of thousands more eyeballs were watching Super Rugby AU in Australia compared to Super Rugby previously speaks volumes. It doesn’t matter what platform it was watched on. Increased exposure generated through Super Rugby AU proves that there is a larger audience there with an appetite for Australian rugby and boosts the sponsorship and broadcast value of the product.

Don't get me wrong mate, I really pleased with 9 doing the deal, and of course it's bloody great that more are watching it, I in no way trying to suggest otherwise, just said that it hard to compare figures that we don't know. We only seen figures of 1 FTA game a week and so we don't really know how many are watching pay tv , is all I meant. And I never had any idea of foxtel's figures which were all pay tv.
I personally think it great the whole Stan/9 thing (with one little concern of not showing all tests on 9). Personally think it best thing that happened to Aus rugby in last 20 odd years.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Hamish knows what the market wants and now a successful NDC product looks like with his Big Bash product which created from nothing and been a huge success. He though yes is dealing with constraints, big one being funding, and also because of diminishing fan base and few failed RA attempts extra risks to get it right. Cricket had a lot of already successful pro products. I don't know what the plans are but they surely must have a plan b in case super rugby mark 3 goes same way previous recent super rugby incarnations.

I don't think anything going to happen till we get PE investment including new third tier NRC mark 3.0. So in the meantime it is all in on super rugby and dumping super rugby Au. Whilst I thought dumping super rugby AU was crazy and not even having a six nations style one round comp should have been possible I have to respect it must not have been. But given Hamish been involved in creation of one of the most successful innovative NDC products in recent times with the Big Bash if anyone can make it happen I would back on him to lead the charge to do it.

 

[Rebel man]

Adding teams to grow the media pie is what got Super Rugby into trouble from the get-go. If the ARU had the resources that the AFL have, they'd be able to cop the year on year losses that the Giants and Suns have. But they don't.

After starting off with a sensible sized comp, the A-League had failed expansion teams in Townsville and the Gold Coast, and a failed foundation club in Auckland. Their more recent expansion sides (WSW, Macarthur, and Western United) have been more grassroots based, and have so far succeeded. Unfortunately our grassroots areas have managed to contract in the last 20 years.

The NBL has had major issues with expansion in the last 20 years, it nearly sent them to the wall.

League had to slow down expansion after the superleague war. They have a 16 team comp, but they also have the grassroots support to sustain it. We just ain't got that.

I feel like Netty's the only sport that's done expansion well. Aside from that shitty supergoal rule, they've been very shrewd. Again, they also have enormous grassroots support to build on.

Expansion for expansion's sake won't work. Putting teams on the Gold Coast or in Western Sydney won't help unless we actually help the community and junior clubs there gain traction. Private investment isn't a silver bullet solution (hello Rebels!). I agree that 5 teams alone is not a long term solution either, but how have we gone trying to get a national comp off the ground so far?

The Suns are shit on field and don’t get a crowd but the growth is Aussie Rules as a participation sport has been huge

The AFL is in a financial position to take a hit for the future benefit of the game where rugby isn’t unless we get someone like Twiggy to fund it

 

[Joe King]

The real comparison will be between Super Rugby AU and SRP (Super Rugby Pacific). Let's just wait and see.

 

[Rebel man]

I feel it would be best to not have super rugby pacific

I think while it’s definitely the best option in the immediate term I feel in the long term it holds back the growth of the game

I would like to see NZ put their resources behind the NPC. From some quick online research they have a budget of 1m a year for salaries. While super rugby is about 5/5.5m. If with the private equity deal they could get the NPC to a salary cap to 4m per side they could have the building blocks of the best club rugby competition in the world

From the Australian side of things we need to look to raise money through private equity and private enterprises to get for a start another two sides get a side in Western Sydney and a team in North Queensland. Along with the Fijian side that makes it 8 teams we will have 4 games a week

 

[Brumby Runner]

I feel it would be best to not have super rugby pacific

I think while it’s definitely the best option in the immediate term I feel in the long term it holds back the growth of the game

I would like to see NZ put their resources behind the NPC. From some quick online research they have a budget of 1m a year for salaries. While super rugby is about 5/5.5m. If with the private equity deal they could get the NPC to a salary cap to 4m per side they could have the building blocks of the best club rugby competition in the world

From the Australian side of things we need to look to raise money through private equity and private enterprises to get for a start another two sides get a side in Western Sydney and a team in North Queensland. Along with the Fijian side that makes it 8 teams we will have 4 games a week

Would that not put NZR on a similar footing financially to Europe and Japan? Then would we not have another competition devouring good players from here?

 

[Dan54]

The real comparison will be between Super Rugby AU and SRP (Super Rugby Pacific). Let's just wait and see.

Only trouble is we never get the ratings from Stan, only 9,(one game a week) it's hard to make comparisons without full figures.

 

[Joe King]

The success of Super Rugby AU was the culmination of Aussie fans somewhere in Australia experiencing the joy of winning each week, having two Australian teams at the top of the table building a legendary rivalry, and having Australian teams in the final.

That's what we stand to lose with SRP (Super Rugby Pacific). If/when that happens, the crowd will let the broadcaster know.

Even if the Australian teams do twice as well in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) compared to Super Rugby TT, I don't think it will do much for potential rugby fans in Oz. We (the rusted on) will still watch it, but all those people who turned out for the Super Rugby AU final, won't. They will simply have too many better offers from other codes.

It's not about everyone getting a trophy for participation, or because Australians are sore losers. It's about rugby being in the entertainment industry, and Australian rugby carrying the weight of being in one of the most crowded and competitive sports markets in the world per head of population, albeit without rugby being the most popular sport in Australia.

 

[Joe King]

On the other hand, SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) does have some advantages, and could surprise as a pretty good competition IF the Australian teams can be equally competitive to the NZ teams.

As it stands, we don't have the depth for 5 teams in comparison, and no amount of fighting spirit, or playing against NZ teams long enough, or mixing it up each week compared to Super Rugby TT, is going to change that.

If SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) is going to continue past 2023, we need a plan to make the Australian teams more competative, or we will be forced to implement my most recent (desperate) idea .

However, if RA did come up with a successful plan to make 5 Australian teams as competitive as the NZ teams, that would be a victory in itself, and good for Australian rugby.

In the meantime, IMO, the Australian Super Rugby teams (minus test players) need to play a home and away comp in place of the NRC, similar to the one-off APC in 2006. This will at least increase the cohesion levels of the Super Rugby teams for the following SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) season. It is the cheapest and easiest option, and can be implemented as early as next year.

 

[hifflepiff]

On the other hand, SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) does have some advantages, and could surprise as a pretty good competition IF the Australian teams can be equally competitive to the NZ teams.

As it stands, we don't have the depth for 5 teams in comparison, and no amount of fighting spirit, or playing against NZ teams long enough, or mixing it up each week compared to Super Rugby TT, is going to change that.

If SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) is going to continue past 2023, we need a plan to make the Australian teams more competative, or we will be forced to implement my most recent (desperate) idea .

However, if RA did come up with a successful plan to make 5 Australian teams as competitive as the NZ teams, that would be a victory in itself, and good for Australian rugby.

In the meantime, IMO, the Australian Super Rugby teams (minus test players) need to play a home and away comp in place of the NRC, similar to the one-off APC in 2006. This will at least increase the cohesion levels of the Super Rugby teams for the following SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) season. It is the cheapest and easiest option, and can be implemented as early as next year.

Australian teams won't become competitive with NZ in the short term. The only way we get there is through investment and expansion of our development structures (particularly via NRC second tier or equivalent). How our top level professional system is structured will have an at best marginal impact.

And even if we do set up world class pathways, we won't see significant dividends for 10 years (at least).

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Australian teams won't become competitive with NZ in the short term. The only way we get there is through investment and expansion of our development structures (particularly via NRC second tier or equivalent). How our top level professional system is structured will have an at best marginal impact.

And even if we do set up world class pathways, we won't see significant dividends for 10 years (at least).

I do wonder what RA game plan here is as they must know 5 Oz teams in closed border super rugby competition does not have longevity given depth imbalance between 2 countries. So they must be either drawing time waiting for PE funding for domestic competition or hoping nz agrees to franchise model (with quotas) where any nz player playing for super rugby team remains AB eligible.

 

[KOB1987]

I do wonder what RA game plan here is as they must know 5 Oz teams in closed border super rugby competition does not have longevity given depth imbalance between 2 countries. So they must be either drawing time waiting for PE funding for domestic competition or hoping nz agrees to franchise model (with quotas) where any nz player playing for super rugby team remains AB eligible.

Or 3) there’s a contractual obligation with SANZAAR that runs until 2023. Everyone conveniently overlooks this. Covid gave SAF an escape route but the fact they were released so easily permanently is no doubt a signal that the end is nigh. I suspect that what RA are working on behind the scenes is your first suggestion as they have openly stated that a PE deal is imminent. Whilst it’s nowhere close to a long term answer, SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) is possibly the best solution in the interim. I think there is more to these foreign selections in the Wallabies I.e I think the longer term plan is to lure them home, but we’re all waiting to see what the carrot is that can do that

 

[Dan54]

I do wonder what RA game plan here is as they must know 5 Oz teams in closed border super rugby competition does not have longevity given depth imbalance between 2 countries. So they must be either drawing time waiting for PE funding for domestic competition or hoping nz agrees to franchise model (with quotas) where any nz player playing for super rugby team remains AB eligible.

NZR surely couldn't agree to letting ABs play in Aus teams while RA allows it players to go anywhere in world and still play for Wallabies. NZ players surely would say if we can fill the holes while Aus players can get big coin overseas why can't we?
I do believe any chance of that happening is squashed now, and surely we can see with Kerevi,etc stuff happening with Japan shows the risks of allowing players to be controlled by outside forces!

 

[Rebel man]

Would that not put NZR on a similar footing financially to Europe and Japan? Then would we not have another competition devouring good players from here?

Well around 4m per side would be a lot less per team than those other comps. Also expanding the NPC would be to keep more kiwis in NZ

 

[Rugbynutter39]

NZR surely couldn't agree to letting ABs play in Aus teams while RA allows it players to go anywhere in world and still play for Wallabies. NZ players surely would say if we can fill the holes while Aus players can get big coin overseas why can't we?
I do believe any chance of that happening is squashed now, and surely we can see with Kerevi,etc stuff happening with Japan shows the risks of allowing players to be controlled by outside forces!

the idea is Dan super rugby clubs more aligned then Japanese clubs who don’t play in competition oz and nz involved in. but sure is a risk but that is why world rugby trying to create global calendar to mitigate. At this point not clear what RA plan is for wallaby eligibility as they have not made any commitment and stated current deviations are short term COVID related. We are still to get clarity what will be wallaby eligibility rules going forward.

But yeh you may well be right so RA may well be forced down the national domestic competition rugby route or something else. I just can’t see RA thinking this new super rugby competition is the answer without addressing the depth imbalance issue.

Who knows what their thinking is as to me they has opportunity to keep a foot in the door by at least keeping a short form super rugby au in play outside of the new super rugby pacific competition but they chose not to. I do wonder what their thinking is but things are much tighter now days and less leaky from RA.