Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

It would seem to me that having a 5:30pm and 7:30pm game (Sydney time) on both Friday and Saturday night for every week of the competition (barring a couple of weeks in the muddled up years when there is a Lions tour) should be a priority.

Getting smarter with the draw would go some way to ease the problems of people complaining it is confusing and disjointed by the travel and having games in the middle of the night.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It would seem to me that having a 5:30pm and 7:30pm game (Sydney time) on both Friday and Saturday night for every week of the competition (barring a couple of weeks in the muddled up years when there is a Lions tour) should be a priority.
.

Spot on!!
This is, on one view, how league reinvented itself.
No games on Thursday night at 9;30pm AEST clashing wih the NRL opening game would help too.
Kearns said on Kick and chase (I think thats what its called) that he expected there would be no change following this meeting: i cant work out whether he was leaking or stirring

 

[Braveheart81]

Other things to factor into the draw is that the Reds shouldn't have Friday night home games until daylight savings ends. Kicking off a match in Brisbane on a Friday night at 6:45pm isn't good for the crowd.

Likewise some consideration needs to be given to the Force and home games prior to daylight savings ending. The bulk of their home games should probably be on Saturday nights because the late evening TV audience is probably better on a Saturday when people probably don't have to get up as early the next day.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

^^^^you're good at this - I guess thats why you dont work for the ARU or SANZAR

 

[TOCC]

The most recent evidence suggests that derby matches between Australian teams do not rate well on TV in Australia, Force v Reds match being out rated by the NZ match. No matter the tournament, teams will have to travel, thats just a fact of life in a 5 country tournament. Touring in blocks makes the most logistical sense to combat the distance.
.

That's not evidence, that was a Thursday night timeslot which wasn't televised into the AEDT until 9:30pm.

It's a fact that across the last decade, that Australian derbies rate higher and draw bigger crowds then matches featuring South African teams.

Travelling to South Africa for a month and then throwing another week in every second year would destroy any support that team had generated, its not an option IMO,

 

[Strewthcobber]

Got to have a lead-in game for those Force games. When they are out there by themselves late on a Friday or Saturday night the ratings are almost uniformly terrible.

When there's a game on before they can be quite good

 

[NTT]

That's not evidence, that was a Thursday night timeslot which wasn't televised into the AEDT until 9:30pm.

It's a fact that across the last decade, that Australian derbies rate higher and draw bigger crowds then matches featuring South African teams.

Travelling to South Africa for a month and then throwing another week in every second year would destroy any support that team had generated, its not an option IMO,

It is evidence, i think what you meant to say is it is not the long term trend. If you look historically through the crowd attendances for the Force and Rebels you will see that attendance numbers are higher when there is a New Zealand team playing due to the large ex pat population of both states. Similar with Queensland, a lot of Kiwis live on the Gold Coast. In Western Sydney there is also a healthy Pacific Islands and Kiwi ex pat community. The fact Queensland and NSW do not fully engage with them is crazy and near sighted, but also an issue for them to deal with. With one or two of each countries teams traveling at a time there is still 3 teams left to deliver the Friday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday night prime time slots. Some weeks there may only be 2 teams to deliver those time slots but im sure a draw could be worked out to accommodate our prime time slots.
I think the language used to insinuate that a team traveling for 2 to 4 weeks at a time will destroy the support the teams have generated is a bit over the top. Teams in every competition the world over have teams traveling regularly. Also there is this new invention called television that allows supporters to see their team in action and in fact, television money drives the whole thing. As for sponsorship vortexes, again i think you are being a bit extremist. There are global brands that can be targeted to cross over support into each country to satisfy corporate investment. Both of these issues have pros and cons, it just depends how each individual perceives them.
Still, one fact that cannot by denied is the ARU is in a weak bargaining position. Crowds are down in every country. Is this because of the way the draw works? Is this because of doubled up content from domestic comps into Super Rugby? Is it because not all teams play each other? It could be, and probably is, a combination of all of these factors. We need to find the best solution that keeps our 5 franchises and pathways intact while keeping our Sanzaar partners on side as thats our main source of income.

 

[TOCC]

Semantics, you said it was evidence that Australian derbies don't rate and was out rated by a NZ match, which is willfully ignoring the variables. Which is the Thu night 9:30 AEDT time slot.

It's not being extremists, i'm being a realists... 5 weeks on the road to South Africa/Argentina completely derails a teams PR/marketing/fan momentum..

As for global brands, HSBC was the one true global brand sponsor and they pulled out of the Tahs, most of the multi-national sponsors these days are those which have ties or interests to Asia.. Daikin, Rinai and Plus500 specifically. South African exposure doesn't drive sponsorship.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TOCC]

Australian teams have said numerous times they want more Australian derbies for the extra revenue, that's why a conference system was started


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Braveheart81]

Australian teams have said numerous times they want more Australian derbies for the extra revenue, that's why a conference system was started

I really think they need to revisit this.

Outside of Waratahs v Reds, Waratahs v Brumbies and Reds v Brumbies, do the games actually get more fans attending?

With the current structure you only get home and away against those teams every second year.

 

[TOCC]

I really think they need to revisit this.

Outside of Waratahs v Reds, Waratahs v Brumbies and Reds v Brumbies, do the games actually get more fans attending?
.

Compared to South African teams yes.. absolutely... you will find the record lowest crowds were against South African teams

 

[KevinO]

3 conferences of 6 teams. Play everyobe in your conference twice and 4 home and away against the others. 18 games in a season before finals is not that much to ask. European clubs play a lot more games and lets face it, none of them are really struggling for money as much as we are. 9 home games a year will be good for members and fans a like.

Last year I missed 2 home games which meant I only got to goto 5 games. Made the season feel to short.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

3 conferences of 6 teams. Play everyobe in your conference twice and 4 home and away against the others. 18 games in a season before finals is not that much to ask. European clubs play a lot more games and lets face it, none of them are really struggling for money as much as we are. 9 home games a year will be good for members and fans a like.

Last year I missed 2 home games which meant I only got to goto 5 games. Made the season feel to short.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

This would be the best model short of a Champioms League set up.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

3 conferences of 6 teams. Play everyobe in your conference twice and 4 home and away against the others. 18 games in a season before finals is not that much to ask. European clubs play a lot more games and lets face it, none of them are really struggling for money as much as we are. 9 home games a year will be good for members and fans a like.

Last year I missed 2 home games which meant I only got to goto 5 games. Made the season feel to short.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

Could even make a case for 3 x 6 conferences where you play each team in your conference twice for 10 games and everyome else from the other two conference once for a total of 22 games. This way we could keep one united table with a top 8. Would run for no more than 25 weeks.

This would give each team 11 home games plus 5 more in their optimal domestic viewing timezones. The 6 games played outside of that could be managed with scheduling.

 

[Braveheart81]

Compared to South African teams yes.. absolutely. you will find the record lowest crowds were against South African teams

Clearly Australia's preference would be home and away games against all Aussie teams.

In the current situation we've only got home and away games against two of the four Aussie teams and when it's a year when it's the lower drawing Aussie teams it's less preferable.

My question is whether continuing to push for this (which is something we're pretty sure NZ and SA don't want) is in our best interests. Are we using our bargaining power up on something that isn't actually that beneficial to us but is perceived quite negatively by our partners so in reality we're not getting much out of the negotiations.

Certainly our desire for more home derbies is part of the reason the current structure is so confusing and unwieldy.

Is there something else we should be pushing for that we have a better chance of securing and improving our overall position?

3 conferences of 6 teams. Play everyobe in your conference twice and 4 home and away against the others. 18 games in a season before finals is not that much to ask. European clubs play a lot more games and lets face it, none of them are really struggling for money as much as we are. 9 home games a year will be good for members and fans a like.

Last year I missed 2 home games which meant I only got to goto 5 games. Made the season feel to short.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

That would be three extra games. Is there enough room in the calendar so you could still avoid playing when test rugby is on? You could cut out one bye per team (having no byes would be rough on players) and potentially cut down on one of the bye weeks in the Rugby Championship.

 

[TOCC]

Clearly Australia's preference would be home and away games against all Aussie teams.

In the current situation we've only got home and away games against two of the four Aussie teams and when it's a year when it's the lower drawing Aussie teams it's less preferable.

My question is whether continuing to push for this (which is something we're pretty sure NZ and SA don't want) is in our best interests. Are we using our bargaining power up on something that isn't actually that beneficial to us but is perceived quite negatively by our partners so in reality we're not getting much out of the negotiations.

Certainly our desire for more home derbies is part of the reason the current structure is so confusing and unwieldy.

Is there something else we should be pushing for that we have a better chance of securing and improving our overall position?

How have you come to the conclusion that local derbies aren't actually that beneficial?
Compared to what, more matches against South African teams both here in Australia and RSA?

 

[Strewthcobber]

I really think they need to revisit this.

Outside of Waratahs v Reds, Waratahs v Brumbies and Reds v Brumbies, do the games actually get more fans attending?

With the current structure you only get home and away against those teams every second year.

Looking at the ratings for last year (maybe a proxy for crowds?)
OZ v OZ - 72k
NZ v NZ - 64k
OZ v NZ - 62k
NZ v Oz - 55k
Oz v SA - 46k
NZ v SA - 41k

 

[Braveheart81]

How have you come to the conclusion that local derbies aren't actually that beneficial?
Compared to what, more matches against South African teams both here in Australia and RSA?

I haven't come to that conclusion.

I am of the opinion though that (just looking at the Waratahs) that the season where we play home and away games against the Reds and Brumbies and only one game against Rebels and Force is substantially better financially than the opposite season (this year) where the home and away fixtures are against the Rebels and Force and there is only one game against the Brumbies and Reds.

No home game against the Reds which should be the biggest drawcard isn't good.

I'm questioning whether we are actually getting as much benefit from the current situation which is a compromise on playing home and away fixtures against all Aussie sides. Is it that much better financially that it is worth using all our negotiating power on?

Are there other things Australia could push for in the negotiations that would benefit our teams more (i.e. scheduling of prime time games or travel schedules of teams or something else I haven't thought of yet) that would be more agreeable for the other SANZAAR partners so we actually felt like we were getting more in our favour?

Aussie fans feel like we're getting the short straw out of these negotiations but is part of that due to the fact that we're pushing for things that the other partners really don't want and having to compromise on that when there are paths of less resistance that we could get more ground on that could be available?

 

[TOCC]

I haven't come to that conclusion.

I am of the opinion though that (just looking at the Waratahs) that the season where we play home and away games against the Reds and Brumbies and only one game against Rebels and Force is substantially better financially than the opposite season (this year) where the home and away fixtures are against the Rebels and Force and there is only one game against the Brumbies and Reds.

No home game against the Reds which should be the biggest drawcard isn't good.

I'm questioning whether we are actually getting as much benefit from the current situation which is a compromise on playing home and away fixtures against all Aussie sides. Is it that much better financially that it is worth using all our negotiating power on?

Are there other things Australia could push for in the negotiations that would benefit our teams more (i.e. scheduling of prime time games or travel schedules of teams or something else I haven't thought of yet) that would be more agreeable for the other SANZAAR partners so we actually felt like we were getting more in our favour?

Aussie fans feel like we're getting the short straw out of these negotiations but is part of that due to the fact that we're pushing for things that the other partners really don't want and having to compromise on that when there are paths of less resistance that we could get more ground on that could be available?

Ok, I think it was the timing of your comment in context of another conversation which was going on which made it sound as though you were suggesting local derbies weren't of much benefit...

Ultimately local derbies are what bring in the crowds and ratings on a consistent basis, current format is a compromise between all parties and it's certainly skewed(as you mentioned), but it's a result of the South African want for expansion not Australias.. 2010-2015 featured home and away matches against all Aussie teams and that's what most want to return to, 2016-current is a dilution of that product.

Under the current agreement, I don't see what else the ARU and public could ask for besides more local derbies and more matches in friendly time zones.

 

[NTT]

This whole thread is pure speculation so theres no need to get to worked up about anything.
The ARU can ask for whatever they want but there are other stakeholders who need to agree to the format before theres any change. More local derbies help NSW, QLD and ACT crowd and viewer numbers while Aus v NZ games bring in a higher gate for The Force and Rebels. If we somehow get both then thats a huge win for Australian rugbys finances.