Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

As someone who supported our original entry in to super rugby and for most of the past 2 decades has been to most home games, I've become convinced that we need to divorce ourselves from it as soon as possible.

Regardless of the merits of the competition for SA and NZ, it's not a model that works in Australian sport. Short term, there would perhaps be a couple of tough years, but I have confidence that long term we will be in a much better place financially and in terms of genuine participation and fan engagement.

Nothing can be done with the current administration in place at ARU, NSWRU and QRU - they need to be ruthlessly purged.

QH, great posts this morning, fully agree.

Interested in your thoughts on what an ideal national competition and professional rugby structure would look like.

For instance, how many teams and where? What would be the eligibility criteria for the Wallabies? How long would the season be (i.e. would the competition run through the international season or would you prefer to end it in time for the test matches and then have a secondary tournament during the test season)?

 

[wamberal]

And exactly how, pray tell, will this grand vision be achieved?


Who will do the "purging"?



Who or what will support the game when there is no Soup revenue? And when, if ever, will a domestic competition become financially viable. I think we can forget about it actually earning a surplus in our lifetimes (well, mine, certainly).

 

[KevinO]

And exactly how, pray tell, will this grand vision be achieved?


Who will do the "purging"?



Who or what will support the game when there is no Soup revenue? And when, if ever, will a domestic competition become financially viable. I think we can forget about it actually earning a surplus in our lifetimes (well, mine, certainly).

If you look at the tv deals the AFL and NRL achieve because they have the right product for Australian TV. Big bash started on Foxtel only and now look at it.

Get the product right with Foxtel and than FTA will come fishing. Only reason they currently don't care is because the Australian Public don't care.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

And when, if ever, will a domestic competition become financially viable. I think we can forget about it actually earning a surplus in our lifetimes (well, mine, certainly).

If that's your criteria then you'd be strongly against Super Rugby because it isn't close to earning a surplus. It's propped up greatly by income generated from test matches.

 

[half]

Serious question.

Roughly three weeks ago I looked at a 1999 and 2002 copy of the Saturday SMH in March and June for both years.

I have looked at the smh over the last few weeks.

Is it just me or has the smh gone from being a huge supporter of rugby to one of simply reporting on some events.

Back to my question. Seems to me at a casual glance our overlords have lost Fairfax as a major backer and promoter of rugby or maybe I looking for reasons to hit the ARU over the head.

 

[wamberal]

You are looking at commercial reality, half.


Fairfax is not "backer" of any sport. They are a commercial media organisation, which prints or otherwise disseminates news stories that the viewing public wants to access.


You have it exactly the wrong way around. If rugby was more popular, it would generate more stories.


Blame the ARU all you like. But it is the bloody game itself that people have either lost interest in, or have never become interested in in the first place. Mainly because they seem to prefer other, simpler, "more entertaining", sports.


This is the painful reality.

 

[TOCC]

Unfortunately the other problem with Aus rugby is shown there TOCC, die hard rugby supporters from anywhere are out there supporting their team anyway, I have followed club teams etc all my life and some of them have been absolutely dire at times, but have always still supported and been there watching and cheering for them. Although I can understand where they coming from it can be bloody hard!

I think it's a simple case, that if fans are going to invest money in tickets and merchandise then they want to see some kind of return. Whether it be through emotional or entertainment, but as it stands, the ARU and Australian Rugby as a whole isn't entertaining to watch, and currently it's difficult to be emotionally invested with the threat of culling a team hanging over.

 

[wamberal]

I might add that the Hurled used to own a huge commercial advantage, in their classified advertisements (aka their "rivers of gold"). You could not jump over the Saturday edition. It was fat with propery ads, of course they are all on the internet these days, and the Saturday edition is smaller than the average weekday edition used to be.


That huge classified advertising revenue stream allowed them a very large degree of editorial independence, and they could spend a lot on their journalism, and indulge every whim that they wanted to. Including Club Rugby.


They totally failed to anticipate the advent of online news media.


It is all about revenue, these days, the paper has shrunk to a pale imitation of its old self. Enjoy looking at it. It will be gone soon (as an old-fashioned newspaper, that is).

 

[TOCC]

You are looking at commercial reality, half.


Fairfax is not "backer" of any sport. They are a commercial media organisation, which prints or otherwise disseminates news stories that the viewing public wants to access.


You have it exactly the wrong way around. If rugby was more popular, it would generate more stories.


Blame the ARU all you like. But it is the bloody game itself that people have either lost interest in, or have never become interested in in the first place. Mainly because they seem to prefer other, simpler, "more entertaining", sports.


This is the painful reality.

Nah mate, there's more to this realty then you choose to believe.

A good friend of mine is a sports reporter in Sydney, she's always attending NRL events and reporting on AFL. I asked her why she never covered Rugby Union, she said the ARU and Waratahs made it difficult to report overt the years, PR opportunities were few, the training sessions weren't often open and they imposed restrictions on who they could interview and for how long.

Conversely, she said at the NRL they were welcome to come into the changeroooms directly after games, they could turn up to training sessions and has free access to players and were open to engagement m.

Simply, she said they tried to work with Rugby, but it was too difficult so they gave up.. ARU have had a direct impact in the reduced coverage of the Wallabies over the years.

 

[Quick Hands]

Serious question.

Roughly three weeks ago I looked at a 1999 and 2002 copy of the Saturday SMH in March and June for both years.

I have looked at the smh over the last few weeks.

Is it just me or has the smh gone from being a huge supporter of rugby to one of simply reporting on some events.

Back to my question. Seems to me at a casual glance our overlords have lost Fairfax as a major backer and promoter of rugby or maybe I looking for reasons to hit the ARU over the head.

The major papers have recognised that no one much is interested in super rugby, so you'll get a quarter page once or twice a week about 8 pages from the back.

As a counter point, today's Manly Daily has a Warringah Rats story on the whole back page, a 3/4 page on Manly Marlins a couple of pges in, plus about a quarter page each on Forest and Newport subbies clubs. The interest at those levels is still there.

I'll go down to Manly Oval later and I'll run in to people who haven't followed the Waratahs for years and couldn't even tell you what's happening in super rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think you may be right.
Where would/could the money come from to pay the players who need to be paid?
PS: none of he 10,555 will own up to being there!

Someone would need access to the official balance sheets and other ARU confidential information to give a definitive answer.

However, if what the ARU tells us is indeed correct, none of the super rugby franchises run at a profit. The portion of the SANZAAR broadcast money that relates to super rugby would seem to be less than what it costs the ARU to run its part of it. We've been told for years that the Wallabies fund the game, well I guess we need to hope that is true and an extended NRC will be funded from the Wallabies. I also think that an expanded NRC - all local games will be a much easier sell to sponsors and while any broadcast revenue would be small to start with, the costs involved in running a domestic, professional NRC would be exponentially less than that of super rugby.

There's tough times ahead no matter what we do, we are already losing players hand over fist to overseas clubs even with super rugby.

Every other significant sport has managed to introduce a national club competition as their elite system. There's no logical reason for assuming that it couldn't be done. (Whether it could be done under the current administration is another question entirely)

 

[Quick Hands]

If that's your criteria then you'd be strongly against Super Rugby because it isn't close to earning a surplus. It's propped up greatly by income generated from test matches.

That's right - every super rugby franchise in Australia seems to already run at significant losses. They are all propped up one way or another from the ARU.

 

[Gnostic]

As my close rugby mates know, I've long speculated that the final big insolvency and related outcomes for our ARU would likely come c.2018-9.



And, post that essential, radical cleansing, that the rugby rebuild here would be led by World Rugby and the NZRU acting in concert as these parties would not want to see the genuine death of rugby in Australia, especially as rugby in the RSA is directly headed for a similar crisis (though with a very different genesis than Australia's).

To that point RH and I began discussing this exact outcome and its very manner along with the timelines C2010-2011. It has been a predictable demise with many of the steps also predicted along the way as they obviously crisis manage and have no real effective plan apart from weathering each crisis and hope for some RWC/Lions windfall to fund another decade of ineptitude.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

This is the tricky bit. NZRU won't want to change up their Mitre 10 Cup. Our best bet would be to have a competition that goes along side but does not change its current make up.

I still think it's fairly simple. Take our current 5. Have both the Reds and Tahs rebrand to Brisbane and Sydney. Then look to either bring in the Rams or Eagles from NSW and Qld Country or some such from Queensland. There's 7. Add Fiji for 8. You could then play either a two round 14 game H/A season or do as the A-League does and play three round 21 game season. Top 4 finalists.

Maintain the NRC variations to ensure the overall brand is highly entertaining and build from there.

 

[Gnostic]

IMHO Professional Rugby is almost dead in Australia. Nobody is watching excepting the few like us who are absolute tragics and know what is possible and continue to hope for it even though it is very improbable.

If no Australian side played Super Rugby next year I doubt you'd find much of a murmur anywhere outside these forums. If the Wallabies did not play next year I think you'd find the same result.

Indeed after the performances of the Tahs for two years where they are paid very well to turn up and play disinterested and totally amateur rugby I honestly don't care if the lot of them go overseas and we can start with some players who actually perform to their potentials what ever they may be in a competition that is meaningful and rewards the best sides (the fact that an Australian side will be a finalist is a farce).

 

[The torpedo]

I am just hoping that this all turns out to be a bad dream and none of this is in truth as hopelessly incompetent and professionally negligent as it appears to be from seemingly credible media statements by the participants.

Surely no one, just no one in a proper business with a proper board, could be as stupid as would be the case if Cox's and RugbyWA's attestations regarding their robust contractual rights are in fact true.

Sometimes you wonder whether it's intentional..........(spoiler - it isn't)

But seriously, the ARU board are most likely all yes men and women

 

[kiap]

Have both the Reds and Tahs rebrand to Brisbane and Sydney.

Dunno. Not sure I would do that. There's no real need.

It's true the team names of Queensland and New South Wales are misnomers. They're not really state rep teams, and even in the amateur days players from outside the city centres got fairly token representation (it was just easier).

But those "brands", for want of a better word, are too well known now with continuity going back to the start of the game in Australia.

You don't throw that out.

 

[Dan54]

People still follow their club teams Dan. I'll be at Manly Oval this afternoon and there'll be 3 or 4 thousand there. All over the country other rugby people will be doing the same whether it's subbies, grade or country areas. There's still plenty of die-hard rugby supporters out there, it's just that many have become completely disconnected from the professional game - in particular super rugby.

Yep QH, and to be fair I was probably making it too general with my comment, probably because I was surprisingly almost as upset as a lot of Brumbies and Tahs supporters at how they went last night (because I want Aus rugby to be strong as well as NZ), so I didn't stop to think of all the great fans I also see at club rugby each week. After reading your comment I actually had a stop and think and am pleased to say I am still seeing good crowds at club games each week, so maybe all is not lost!!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

When you read about the crowd estimates at SS games and see the figures for last nights game at the SFS you do wonder what Super Rugby is actually doing for us. It would have been a heretical thought 12 months ago, especially for me, but maybe time is up for that format?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Dunno. Not sure I would do that. There's no real need.

It's true the team names of Queensland and New South Wales are misnomers. They're not really state rep teams, and even in the amateur days players from outside the city centres got fairly token representation (it was just easier).

But those "brands", for want of a better word, are too well known now with continuity going back to the start of the game in Australia.

You don't throw that out.

Then keep them. Just a suggestion. Look to then bring in the 2 Countrys.