Where to for Super Rugby?

[mudskipper]

Yep but I strongly suspect, even if it was true, that you might find SA and Argentina would also go there, and good luck for us buggers seeing Foxtel paying out anything for a 5 team Aus comp! I think they would spend their rugby budget on broadcasting the other comp

Nup wrong bro... Local content is king... These cash in a pro rugby broadcasting with a sensible logistics...

 

[TOCC]

Do the clubs get to keep the massive subsidies from the National sides under this model?

A commission is more or less a market economy, the market and consumer dictates and determines the product and the clubs produce a product which isn't aligned to political interference or alternate agendas, rather a product which is likely to return the maximum value for the clubs. In which case, any alleged subsidy wouldn't be necessary..

Also I'm going to ask what this subsidy actually is? In years gone by I don't doubt it existed, but we now hear about the premium price paid by U.K. Broadcasters and now allegedly Japan Broadcasters are also kicking una decent amount.. so is Super Rugby still subsidised?

 

[Gnostic]

Just by the way, it is now 14 years since the 2003 RWC.







We need to stop living in the past, today's problems are not caused by what did or did not happen in prehistoric times.







And, also by the way, JON should get some credit for hijacking the bloody event anyway.

Just plain wrong. Todays problems are caused by the systems created in those "prehistoric" times. Such as the lack of growing the third tier then artificially attempting to magically create one.

It is a bit hard to blame JON for pissing the money up the wall, it was more Flowers, but JON MkII certainly didn't miss the golden handshake on his way out after doing two parts of SFA except pissing off a lot of people in World Rugby with his "abrasive" style which burnt a lot of the ARU's non monetary capital.

Respect where it is due and likewise with contempt and derision. Politicians get it deservedly in the main and so should the ARU (and the Provincial Unions).

Go back to 2010-11 and you will see I posted a rather pessimistic (unusual for me I know) outlook that had Australian Rugby ending where we are. I wondered at the time what would happen, thinking Rugby in Australia would go back to being Amateur and feeders for Euro clubs and League. However one suggestion was made that the ARU would be bankrupted and taken over by the IRB.

The point is this pathway has been predictable because of its unsustainability and just as with the GFC some saw it coming but nobody believed them.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

A commission is more or less a market economy, the market and consumer dictates and determines the product and the clubs produce a product which isn't aligned to political interference or alternate agendas, rather a product which is likely to return the maximum value for the clubs. In which case, any alleged subsidy wouldn't be necessary..

Also I'm going to ask what this subsidy actually is? In years gone by I don't doubt it existed, but we now hear about the premium price paid by U.K. Broadcasters and now allegedly Japan Broadcasters are also kicking una decent amount.. so is Super Rugby still subsidised?

Rugby is at a major crossroads in this country at this point and key decisions made at this point could set us up for future success or more steady decline.

Have we got the right leadership at this juncture to make the right decisions....only time will tell....let's hope better decisions are made then when we were last at this juncture....

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

100%, follow the example of other sporting competitions(NBA, EPL, NFL) and establish a commission made up by the clubs, remove nationals politics from the equation. Let the clubs set the agenda and do what's best for them, let market forces dictate the nature of the comp.

I've previously talked about the need for Super Rugby to be independent of their national Unions on other forums. I think it's well overdue. Super Rugby needs to break the whole developmental mindset.

 

[redstragic]

is Super Rugby still subsidised?

Do you count the ARU bailouts? I don't know but Super Rugby might be making cash but the teams go through some really dark financial times.

 

[KevinO]

Do you count the ARU bailouts? I don't know but Super Rugby might be making cash but the teams go through some really dark financial times.

And than you look at every league in Europe were teams are not struggling for money. They have good tv deals that go directly to the clubs (ok some have owners to bankroll them)

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Wcr...no brainer that all other major football codes moved to independent body overseeing.

Hate to keep it real but reflects problem that rugby has not just been able to move quickly enough to change to modern day needs compared with other football codes.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

And than you look at every league in Europe were teams are not struggling for money. They have good tv deals that go directly to the clubs (ok some have owners to bankroll them)

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

That's the big difference. In theory all the monies gained via any TV deal would flow directly to the clubs. This would likely put them all in significantly better financial positions.

 

[Ulrich]

Cheetahs CEO adamant they will remain in Super Rugby.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/cheetahs-boss-were-staying-in-super-rugby-20170314

In response to the proposed changes, Verster told Netwerk24 that he was not worried that the Cheetahs would lose their Super Rugby status.

According to Verster, the competition will be reduced from 18 to 16 teams from next year.

This would see only one South African team - likely to be the Southern Kings - along with an Australian team be axed from the competition.

Verster did not reveal where he got his information.

“All that I can say is that we’re safe. I keep my ear on the ground,” he told the Afrikaans website.

 

[KevinO]

That's the big difference. In theory all the monies gained via any TV deal would flow directly to the clubs. This would likely put them all in significantly better financial positions.

ARU should be able to make enough off Wallabies games. Would put pressure on them to distprute games fairly. Like a Bledisloe in Melbourne to sell out the biggest stadium etc. Even a RC game would be nice once in a while.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Cheetahs CEO adamant they will remain in Super Rugby.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/cheetahs-boss-were-staying-in-super-rugby-20170314

Yep. We're all aware of his comments. But there's also a conflicting tweet from a Rugby journo saying that's bullshit.

 

[Strewthcobber]

A commission is more or less a market economy, the market and consumer dictates and determines the product and the clubs produce a product which isn't aligned to political interference or alternate agendas, rather a product which is likely to return the maximum value for the clubs. In which case, any alleged subsidy wouldn't be necessary..

Also I'm going to ask what this subsidy actually is? In years gone by I don't doubt it existed, but we now hear about the premium price paid by U.K. Broadcasters and now allegedly Japan Broadcasters are also kicking una decent amount.. so is Super Rugby still subsidised?

As long as the national teams are paying (some of/majority of?) the salaries of the most high profile players then you have a subsidy as well as political interference and alternative agendas.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

ARU should be able to make enough off Wallabies games. Would put pressure on them to distprute games fairly. Like a Bledisloe in Melbourne to sell out the biggest stadium etc. Even a RC game would be nice once in a while.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

I guess in theory if an independent commission were to occur a 'licencing' agreement could be agreed to where the clubs pay an annual fee to the ARU. But, yes. The ARU's major focus should be developing the game and in order to achieve this focus on growing the Wallabies brand.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

As long as the national teams are paying (some of/majority of?) the salaries of the most high profile players then you have a subsidy as well as political interference and alternative agendas.

Then eliminate direct contract top ups. English players aren't centrally contracted. They recieve match payments. Lucrative ones at that. It's also how it works in League as well.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Then eliminate direct contract top ups. English players aren't centrally contracted. They recieve match payments. Lucrative ones at that. It's also how it works in League as well.

Without the ARU salary you lose your best players to the higher domestic wages os.

 

[No4918]

100%, follow the example of other sporting competitions(NBA, EPL, NFL) and establish a commission made up by the clubs, remove nationals politics from the equation. Let the clubs set the agenda and do what's best for them, let market forces dictate the nature of the comp.

I really cannot see this model working for Super Rugby. Those codes have budgets that just about every other sport can dream of. They would nearly be the three biggest codes globally. That much money has meant a much more professional environment. In comparison the people running Super Rugby clubs are complete amateurs.

They are also competitions whose teams are all based in the same country and hence market. Sure they have international exposure but primarily domestic forces drive decisions. In Australia we have a massive degree of parochialism and amateur administration that cannot agree on how best to support Aus rugby. Adding in teams from four other countries, two with a significant influence, and expecting them to agree on commonality between each different domestic market and whats best for the game would be problematic. If not a complete clusterfuck.

I am totally with you that things need to change. Kick out the boys club running the ARU and adopt an NZ system with one body. Pool the resources, and dare I say talent.

 

[TOCC]

As long as the national teams are paying (some of/majority of?) the salaries of the most high profile players then you have a subsidy as well as political interference and alternative agendas.

Players aren't the issue, the structure and format of Super Rugby is, you can still have some form of top up contracts for Wallabies whilst also allowing an independent Super Rugby commission to control the competitions destiny.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Without the ARU salary you lose your best players to the higher domestic wages os.

If the franchises were to achieve independence and negotiate their own deal the monies they would otherwise recieve from the ARU be replaced by their share of the deal. The match fee's for international duty would be a bonus.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Players aren't the issue, the structure and format of Super Rugby is, you can still have some form of top up contracts for Wallabies whilst also allowing an independent Super Rugby commission to control the competitions destiny.

We already have the mechanism. Match fee's.