Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
half
Dick Tooth (41)
In successful organisations... a competent board have been selected by knowledge members, appoint a chairperson.
The board under the leadership and vision of its chair and its own skill will develop a broad plan for growth and development.
The Chair will seek a CEO knowledgeable and experienced with the type of organisation the board leads. The CEO in some organisations '''say a sporting organisations""" needs among other things to be media savvy, competent, experienced with the ability to implement the broads strategy.
Come to think of it, this describes the ARU and Billy P perfectly, we have no more problems we have the correct team in place.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
I like the idea of minimising advertising's influence. It should be subsidiary to the game, not driving the game.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Rather 'interesting' reams of data re 2017 Super crowds, viewership etc from Wayne Smith in today's The Australian online.
Read it and weep.
Extract:
Read it and weep.
Extract:
Crowd and television viewing figures for Australian Super Rugby have plummeted over the past two years though, ironically, the Western Force’s gate attendances have risen since the club was targeted for culling by the ARU.
According to statistics provided to The Australian by Fox Sports, the number of people attending a Super Rugby match has fallen from 643,790 in 2015 (average crowd 15,702), to 536,807 in 2016 (average 13,764), to the current low of 399,066 for 2017 (average 11,402).
Admittedly, the current season still has one round of fixtures to go next weekend, with the Force hosting the Waratahs and the Melbourne Rebels taking on the Jaguares of Argentina, both on Saturday night. The Brumbies’ quarter-final on July 21 in Canberra still is to be factored in as well.
The gross season television audience on Fox Sports also has fallen off a cliff, dropping from 2.714 million in 2016 to 1.876 million this year, a decline of more than 800,000 viewers. The average pay-TV audience has fallen from 70,000 last year to just 54,000.
Yet audiences clearly have a problem with the standard of football being provided by the Australian teams not with the code in general, which is hardly surprising given that the leading team, the Brumbies, are having a losing season, winning only six out of 14 matches. But it was not that long ago — 2011, in fact — that the Queensland Reds attracted a then pay-TV record audience of 500,000 viewers for their grand final victory over the Crusaders at Suncorp Stadium.
While the Super Rugby figures have been in sharp decline, the British and Irish Lions series with the All Blacks in New Zealand was a ratings bonanza for Fox Sports, with an audience of 188,000 watching the All Blacks win the first Test, 171,000 as the Lions unexpectedly claimed the second, while 213,000 tuned in for the decider, which ended dramatically in a 15-15 draw.
In a way, the disparity is good news for the ARU. The Lions-All Blacks figures demonstrate that there is an audience ready to engage. All that is required is for Australian teams to become competitive again in Super Rugby, which is one of the primary reasons why the ARU is attempting to reduce its Super Rugby presence from five teams to four.
There is some comfort, too, in the fact that NZ gates are down by eight per cent — though TV audiences are up by 16 per cent — while South Africa has experienced the opposite effect, with crowds up by four per cent but TV viewership down by five per cent. Australia is the only country where attendances and TV audiences are both down, by 17 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.
The figures, however, also are a damning indictment of the ARU and SANZAAR for carrying out the process of reducing the unwieldy 18-team competition down to 15 teams while the Super Rugby season was actually underway.
The uncertainty has been nightmarish for both the Force and the Melbourne Rebels, the only Australian teams in danger of being culled, along with the Cheetahs and the Southern Kings of South Africa.
Despite that, the Force’s crowds have actually been counterintuitively on the rise this year, with gates rising from 8601 last year to 9188. With 64,318 spectators already having been to nib Stadium this year and an expected crowd pushing 20,000 likely to be in attendance on Saturday night, the Perth club will finish the season behind only the traditional giants, Queensland (105,806) and the Waratahs (101,499) in terms of aggregate figures. That said, both the Force and the Rebels have enjoyed eight home games this season, compared to the seven hosted by the Brumbies, Reds and Tahs.
The Rebels crowds have suffered badly from all the uncertainty, falling from 81,855 two years ago to just 58,321 this year — again with the Jaguares home match still to come.
Small wonder Daryl Gibson’s position as head coach of the Waratahs has become a subject for debate with the crowds at Allianz Stadium in freefall. Just two years ago, the Tahs attracted 22,463 per match but after a modest fall of 2140 in 2016, the crowds this year have dropped to an average of 14,500 per match,
Certainly the Tahs weren’t helped by a crowd figure of 10,992 hard-core fans who ventured to the game against the Jaguares on Saturday night. NSW fans are regarded as the most fickle in Australia but it is still a worrying sign when crowds have halved in just two years, from 202,169 in 2015 when 36,632 were on hand to watch them play the Highlanders in the semi-final — to just 101,499 this year.
B
BLR
Guest
Crowd of 20,000 at nib for the Tahs game? That would be interesting.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
No they are not, they are elected by the owners, typically the shareholders/
No they won't. Planning, product development, research, are all the responsibility of the executive.
Actually we need the right product first.
Do you think Apple, or Google, or Microsoft, or any other innovative organisation of any size became successful because they had the "right board"?
The board approves, it does not execute.
B
BLR
Guest
Well Apple was successful initially because Steve Jobs had a value proposition people bought into. The product itself has been sub or just on par compared to other products throughout its popular cycle. Look at the fall of popularity since he passed away.
Google wasn't a 'product' per say but a clear broad message to innovate in any way possible, that's why they expanded beyond a simple search engine. This is leadership.
Microsoft is successful not because of the product, which, like Apple, isn't the best product out there but through the leadership and forethought to bundle it as a must have in an office environment, this is strategically thinking how to get the largest segment of the market possible. As an operating system Linux would offer far more options as a product and is free but Windows pushed their product to the forefront.
I think you chose three pretty bad examples as they are magnificent examples of effective leadership not superior products.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Dave,
If there was such a singular entity as "Australian Rugby" we would not be in half the trouble that we are. But there isn't. If you asked every poster here to define "Australian Rugby", how many answers would you get?
My Club? My school XV? My kid's team? My provincial team? My subbies team?
The Wallabies? I could go on, but you get the drift. I have said it before often enough, ALL stakeholders have to put their sectional and selfish interests to one side, and agree to work together to save the game.
That means we would ALL have to make sacrifices. Can you see that happening?
Neither can I.
If there was such a singular entity as "Australian Rugby" we would not be in half the trouble that we are. But there isn't. If you asked every poster here to define "Australian Rugby", how many answers would you get?
My Club? My school XV? My kid's team? My provincial team? My subbies team?
The Wallabies? I could go on, but you get the drift. I have said it before often enough, ALL stakeholders have to put their sectional and selfish interests to one side, and agree to work together to save the game.
That means we would ALL have to make sacrifices. Can you see that happening?
Neither can I.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Australian rugby is us punters who just enjoy the game.
Stood by our game, instead of .................
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
But "us punters" cannot agree what day it is, let alone agree to support anything that affects OUR little part of the game, doesn't it?
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
You see, I see it a little differently - I think we all agree.
We want rugby to be better, we want to lift our game.
But we share differing ideas on what and how - there is nothing wrong with that - as all those ideas are the 1%ers.
Unfortunately ARU - Well?????
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
It really should be the Tahs that go.
For all/most other states, much of the link to Rugby flows down through the Super Side to engage with the local community.
Whereas what's been made clear through this thread and many others is that the Shute Shield is what ties NSW Rugby together.
As the State where the least impact of no professional side will be felt, I am grateful for their existence, and with 3 NRC sides, there will remain plenty of chances for players in the Shute Shield to stake a claim in the 4 pro sides.
The nepotism and bias of those at the top of the game are the only thing preventing them from reaching the logical conclusion, and anyone who disagrees is clearly against what is the best thing for Australian Rugby.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
For all/most other states, much of the link to Rugby flows down through the Super Side to engage with the local community.
Whereas what's been made clear through this thread and many others is that the Shute Shield is what ties NSW Rugby together.
As the State where the least impact of no professional side will be felt, I am grateful for their existence, and with 3 NRC sides, there will remain plenty of chances for players in the Shute Shield to stake a claim in the 4 pro sides.
The nepotism and bias of those at the top of the game are the only thing preventing them from reaching the logical conclusion, and anyone who disagrees is clearly against what is the best thing for Australian Rugby.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Actually only ASIC corporations [companies] have shareholders and the more common term when discussing matters is to use the word members as most understand it covers a broad array of ownership models.
You are seriously telling me a board does not say and guide its management team in what the board wants done. Rupert Murdoch and James Packer don't decide on the direction of the corporations they led.
Your old chestnut the game is the problem or the rules.
If you are right on the game and the rules are the problem then we are dead within five to ten years.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
Brilliant. But nothing would happen.
The Snout
Ward Prentice (10)
It's better than what we have but it still would involve at some point playing games at 2am on a Sunday morning from SA and it pays barely lip service to condemning the Jags to always being flogged by their NZ conference team mates.
To be honest, stuff that, if we're going to change then lets change. The model above, while I give it credit for being better, is from a kiwi who probably wants to play SA teams and who cares if the Jags get flogged and the Aussies who want local derbies still play their plate games at 2am, as an Aussie I don't give a shit to be honest about playing SA teams, it's costing us locally too much.
IMO, there's medicine here that needs to be taken and no amount of competition modeling involving SA or ARG teams will cut it. It's all time zones for me and unless you are within a 'reasonable' east/west time zone or two it all becomes games at 2am or 8am.
We either keep the money, play Super and ignore the local village or we take a haircut and grow the local village.
I do like the concept of every team taking one game on the road, but locally.
Imagine if next year the Reds played a game in Townsville, the Tahs in Dubbo, Rebels in Hobart, ACT in Broken Hill and the Force in Kalgoorlie.
Then the next year different places again for one game. That would do a whole lot of good to connect with people. You know, play games at and for the people you actually represent.
T
TOCC
Guest
^^^ ARU mouthpiece
ARU are like a poorly performing restaurant, they had a few good years early on but since then patronage has dwindled in the face of the competition evolving, and rather then reassess their business model and marketing, they instead decide to cost cut on overheads by reducing the menu selection. Destined to die a slow miserable death.
We need a Gordon Ramsay of the sporting world to come in and send a rocket up the ARU's ass.
ARU are like a poorly performing restaurant, they had a few good years early on but since then patronage has dwindled in the face of the competition evolving, and rather then reassess their business model and marketing, they instead decide to cost cut on overheads by reducing the menu selection. Destined to die a slow miserable death.
We need a Gordon Ramsay of the sporting world to come in and send a rocket up the ARU's ass.
- Status