Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

Which all comes back to what i have been consistently saying.
Do the franchises that are considered safe have measures in place to deal with the financial impacts of poor crowds, lack of sponsors and a tv deal that may in fact be for a lower amount come 2020?
Has proper risk assessment been done?
Do these remaining franchises restructure and make moves towards cost cutting or will they resume current practice of relying on the ARU being in a position to constantly provide financial assistance?

When it comes down to it, I don't think any of these issues matter.

The ARU are making a decision between the Force and Rebels for which team to cut. It seems quite clear that the intention was that it was to be the Force.

 

[wamberal]

Interesting column in today's Hurled, talking about changes to the "ruck" rule in the AFL.


Apparently the AFL Commission has some sort of mechanism to gauge what the fans want, and they are able to change the rules at the drop of a hat to make the game more attractive.


Which is more or less what the NRL does.


It is glaringly obvious that these two home-grown codes have a huge commercial advantage.



Every code, just like every corporation, has its comparative advantages of course. What are ours? I have tried to point out the comparative advantage we have in being to some extent a luxury product, but have been howled down. Well, that's fine with me.


But WTF do we have to offer? Forget about the "international" element, that is apparently worth very little when push comes to shove. Soccer is far more international. AFL is not international at all, in real terms. Spot which one is more commercially successful.

 

[Braveheart81]

Interesting column in today's Hurled, talking about changes to the "ruck" rule in the AFL.


Apparently the AFL Commission has some sort of mechanism to gauge what the fans want, and they are able to change the rules at the drop of a hat to make the game more attractive.


Which is more or less what the NRL does.


It is glaringly obvious that these two home-grown codes have a huge commercial advantage.

Does tinkering around the edges of the laws of the game have a huge impact on viewers? Some will like changes, some won't. This change was brought in because it was viewed as likely to reduce injuries but people aren't reacting well to it.

Clearly we don't have the power to change the laws of rugby but I would argue that rugby has probably undergone more change in the last 20 years in terms of laws than the other two codes.

 

[Omar Comin']

Every code, just like every corporation, has its comparative advantages of course. What are ours? I have tried to point out the comparative advantage we have in being to some extent a luxury product, but have been howled down. Well, that's fine with me.

But WTF do we have to offer? Forget about the "international" element, that is apparently worth very little when push comes to shove. Soccer is far more international. AFL is not international at all, in real terms. Spot which one is more commercially successful.

I think there's a few things. From a participation perspective it's the position for all shapes and sizes. There's also an attractive culture of sportsmanship and camaraderie that doesn't always exist in other sports to the same extent. Things like respect for the referee and your opponents and so on. Rugby is also a more strategically complex game than league or AFL with a wider range of skill sets.

These things should be inclusive and not elitist. Even the complexity thing doesn't have to mean niche - American Football is even more complex and strategic and in the last several decades overtook baseball as America's most popular sport. Your line of thinking is more appropriate for a regular for profit business. If you were trying to maximise profits then playing to the 'luxury' stereotype may work out fine. But it won't maximise participation or popularity. Sailing and equestrian are luxury sports, is the ARU's ambition to compete with them or to compete with the NRL, AFL and soccer?

 

[Leo86]

That may be so. But to me the most powerful way to make a statement is to attract a big crowd to a game. A very obvious, loud and lucrative show of support.

Neither team has been able to manage it. Which should be very worrying for whichever side that remains.
.

We've only had 2 home games, 1 on a Thursday night and the other on a Sunday arvo.

Check the stands this Saturday Force V Chiefs you will see the support

 

[mudskipper]

And yet the crowds and TV ratings for the Force and Rebels have been exceedingly poor these past few weeks.

For all the love poured out online, I'm not sure if any it has translated to bums on seats or eyeballs on TV screens.

If the Force got 10k+ to the Kings, and the Rebels had 10k+ to the Brumbies then this course of action may be appealing...
.

True... ARU would have understood there'll be some sort of payout for changes of business... i would say future proofing they likely realise in the long run they'll have to buy out the Rebels anyway once the private owner runs out of cash and interest... no body else will... this may be only a few years anyway... So who do you keep and who goes, thats why the Brumbies are staying because they are proven and tick the boxes as a sustainable club...

 

[barbarian]

We've only had 2 home games, 1 on a Thursday night and the other on a Sunday arvo.

Check the stands this Saturday Force V Chiefs you will see the support

Fair points. What crowd do you reckon they'll get Leo? 10k? 12k?
.

 

[BLR]

So who do you keep and who goes, thats why the Brumbies are staying because they are proven and tick the boxes as a sustainable club.

13 or so years of losses is sustainable?

 

[Braveheart81]

Please don't bite mudskipper.

 

[Leo86]

Highest crowd at Nib is 22,000 Force V Crusadersback in 2011

Last year Force V Crusaders 12,300

Last time Chiefs were here i think was 2014, crowd was 16,000+

So i expect definitely more than 10k hoping for 15k if not more.

Support should be stronger now considering prior to Kings game it was speculation and the announcement was made during/after that game.

 

[TOCC]

They have gained an injunction to delay the decision.

I agree they probably have some legal grounds to stand on. I also doubt they will to the extent that the ARU can't make a decision to cut them and face the legal consequences that come from that.

Given how badly they have bungled the management of the game in this country, and this whole issue, I don't believe the ARU are capable of anything anymore.. and a glaring oversight, like forgetting about a contractural obligation is not something I would put past the ARU clowns..

 

[kiap]

Fair points. What crowd do you reckon they'll get Leo? 10k? 12k?

So i expect definitely more than 10k hoping for 15k if not more.

Put an avatar on it, lads.

Under 12k and you both wear Phil "Orc" Waugh for a week.

Over 12k and it's I AM THE FORCE.

 

[TOCC]

. So who do you keep and who goes, thats why the Brumbies are staying because they are proven and tick the boxes as a sustainable club.

FakeNews

Brumbies have lost almost as much as the Force over the past 4 years($3-$4milliom), the only difference is that the Brumbies had some change leftover from Griffith.. that's all but gone now, they are now in the same financial position as every other club, and with no equity in the new HQ to leverage either.

And before someone mentions they were scheduled to post a profit this year, well all clubs have received an additional $2million in grants, it's expected they post a profit.

 

[mst]

For those that haven't they have seen significant drops in viewership on TV. Take the NFL for example. Crowds were down last season but not enough to warrant a panic. Was does however was the overall drop in viewership which prompted the league to offer cut price deals for sponsors.

Honestly, I think we are seeing the beginning of a significant paradigm shift in not only broadcast TV (which has been occurring for some time now) but in how sports are perceived in regards to an entertainment option.

Cricket is an amazing case study for this. For all the dissent over the placement of T20 for such a stodgy game in terms of adminitration it has pivoted remarkably well to catch the evolving marketplace.

It something every professional sport will need to address in the near-ish future. The question will be around their respective agility to do so. Which makes me more than a little apprehensive when it comes to Rugby.

While I live in hope that the restructure will see a bump in attendance and viewership even though I'm less than keen on losing a franchise. I tend to believe that we are only at the very beginning of a fairly tumultuous transition.

The list is long of the sports with TV audience and crowd crowd numbers declining and its a global problem.

When you see sports like the NFL, NASCAR, Champions League. UEFA Leagues, EPL, F1 just to mention few suffering from declining ratings and crowd numbers, and figure of up to 19% drop off for soccer TV audiences it not hard to wonder if SANZAAR really do know what the problem is and if they understand its not exclusive to Super Rugby.

 

[Braveheart81]

The list is long of the sports with TV audience and crowd crowd numbers declining and its a global problem.

When you see sports like the NFL, NASCAR, Champions League. UEFA Leagues, EPL, F1 just to mention few suffering from declining ratings and crowd numbers, and figure of up to 19% drop off for soccer TV audiences it not hard to wonder if SANZAAR really do know what the problem is and if they understand its not exclusive to Super Rugby.

Unlike a lot of those sports, most people would have said there were significant issues with the Super Rugby structure without needing to see the declining numbers.

I don't think those other sports not making substantial changes is a black mark against SANZAAR for making a move.

 

[amirite]

The trouble with our viewer numbers is if we took a "spread the game" mentality to our media options we would financial die in the ass.

The really interesting thing is when Foxtel ceases to exist in maximum 20 years. Unlike American Sports we don't have the critical mass to make a league pass model sustainable.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The list is long of the sports with TV audience and crowd crowd numbers declining and its a global problem.

When you see sports like the NFL, NASCAR, Champions League. UEFA Leagues, EPL, F1 just to mention few suffering from declining ratings and crowd numbers, and figure of up to 19% drop off for soccer TV audiences it not hard to wonder if SANZAAR really do know what the problem is and if they understand its not exclusive to Super Rugby.

I suspect they are looking at the issue in isolation rather as a global trend. Which is why I'm not sold on the contraction being the answer. At least not the sole answer. It needs to look at how the product is presented and consumed. Further down the track (but not that much further) looking at how the game is played.

 

[p.Tah]

Please don't bite mudskipper.

I didn't think we'd descended that far. No one bite anyone.

 

[Slim 293]

13 or so years of losses is sustainable?

I've actually addressed this incorrect figure already....... They've made 3 profits in the last 13 years.

But how about we move on from the Brumbies since they're not one of the teams facing the axe?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Unlike a lot of those sports, most people would have said there were significant issues with the Super Rugby structure without needing to see the declining numbers.

I don't think those other sports not making substantial changes is a black mark against SANZAAR for making a move.

No, they are looking to address the issue but I tend to think that it's only a temporary solution. The issue is that they have focused in on the competitiveness without assessing other issues that exist within the marketplace.