Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

We are here because of the neglect of grass roots and the irony is they cut a team without a plan they will damage grass roots even further.

I think the issues right now are more immediately related to the problems with the 18 team Super Rugby competition and it turning away fans.

I think a three conference 18 team comp would be preferential for at least a year to see if that improves things but a revision back to 15 teams is most likely a better option than persisting with the status quo.

With all countries seemingly set on keeping the Sunwolves there doesn't really seem like a feasible way for the competition to shrink to 15 teams without Australia dropping one. Perhaps the primary concern is that if Japan was dropped, the revenue would drop to a level where the ARU wouldn't be able to afford to support the next team to run into financial strife.

 

[wamberal]

It's a balancing act, that's for sure.

 

[RedsHappy]

good article with interesting analysis

If ever you want an article that perfectly highlights the _strategic_ and policy judgement failings of Pulver and and the ARU, that is the one.

As I've had cause to note elsewhere, the ARU does not possess the calibre of board and executive experience essential to manage and develop a professional sporting code in the Australian marketplace.

Such has been clear for many years. It's just that now the chooks are roosting for all to see.

As the article notes, Netball Australia seem to be doing a far better job, or are at least attempting sound code development policies.

 

[mudskipper]

SANZAAR will have to compensate any of the partners to discontinue any contracts with franchises. So closing nelbourne isnt a big issue all contracts have out clauses... Remember all partners with voting rights have to agree on any changes...

 

[Braveheart81]

SANZAAR will have to compensate any of the partners to discontinue any contracts with franchises. So closing nelbourne isnt a big issue all contracts have out clauses. Remember all partners with voting rights have to agree on any changes.

Who do you think pays the bills for SANZAAR?

 

[mudskipper]

Who do you think pays the bills for SANZAAR?

Of course everyone pays... But not just ARU to clise the failed Rebels franchise...

 

[swingpass]

We need money and lots of it. You get money by selling a good product. The product at the moment is crap.

this is Andrew Cox's main argument, he thinks that the constraints put on him by ARU with regard to who he can contract, limit his ability to provide a product that will sell in Melbourne. Provide a product that sells and sponsors and patrons turn up, generate income and hopefully as a byproduct strengthen the game , keep players in Oz and help the Wallabies. At the moment all he sees is his product being used to try and feed into the Wallabies, rather than Super Rugby being a stand alone comp/product/ etc good enough on its own. Its inevitable demise will help no one in the end. so i'm wondering whether the best long term deal for Australia is to tell SANZAAR to fuck off and see how they go without any Australian sides for a short while. i cant see this happening however and so one franchise will be cut and the death spiral accelerated. 35 less contracts, a pathway gone, supporters lost to the game. "so sad" - D. Trump, 2017

 

[swingpass]

SANZAAR will have to compensate any of the partners to discontinue any contracts with franchises. So closing canberra/perth/melbourne isn't a big issue all contracts have out clauses. Remember all partners with voting rights have to agree on any changes.

fixed

 

[Brumby Runner]

Big difference between Netball and Rugby in this country. Netball in Aus has been dominant on the world stage (the ABs of netball if you like) for many years, and has therefore been diluted by the introduction of the NZ sides. Rugby is the direct opposite. Aus rugby has not been so commercially successful that it can go it alone. Any move to do so would leave us in a more precarious position financially as tv deals go through the floor.

Chalk and cheese.

 

[zer0]

Big difference between Netball and Rugby in this country. Netball in Aus has been dominant on the world stage (the ABs of netball if you like) for many years, and has therefore been diluted by the introduction of the NZ sides. Rugby is the direct opposite. Aus rugby has not been so commercially successful that it can go it alone. Any move to do so would leave us in a more precarious position financially as tv deals go through the floor.

Chalk and cheese.

Netball also doesn't have to deal with competition for players from big spending overseas clubs. If the Australia did wonder off to do it's own thing, then I'd hazard a guess that most Wallabies and senior Super Rugby players would quickly be booking the earliest flight to France or the UK.

 

[No4918]

That we have now seen movement of the June tests has increased my confidence in a somewhat positive result. It seems that the powers at World Rugby are taking note of the declining fortunes of Super Rugby and are wanting to do their bit to see the competition improve. The rapid decline will be worrying them as much as anyone else.

It is not going to be easy and their are myriad issues with the game from club to national level but maybe the message is getting through. In the short term the priority should be to fix Super Rugby and that is happening. Another positve is that SARU appears to have recognised the error of adding the Kings and is willing to at least give up one side after fighting so hard for it. The sooner it is announced the better but they need to get it right. Past performance from the bodies involved hasn't been great but maybe that has turned the corner.

 

[Omar Comin']

Aus rugby has not been so commercially successful that it can go it alone. Any move to do so would leave us in a more precarious position financially as tv deals go through the floor.

Chalk and cheese.

A few points in response to this.

First, broadcasting revenue only makes up something like 25% of the ARU's revenue, and a lot of that is for test rugby, which wouldn't change. Second, we have no idea what broadcast revenues a proper length, well-scheduled, Australian market focused professional competition would generate, especially in the longer term. Third, even if it's a fair bit less than Australia's cut of Super Rugby broadcast revenue, the costs of such a competition would be substantially lower.

Everyone's so hung up on the revenue side of things, but look at the costs, the ARU are spending so much every year to prop up a failing competition, on corporate expenses and on central contracts in what is a futile effort to keep our top players in Australia. The reality is that the salaries in Europe are growing faster than the salaries here. The only way this might change is if rugby were to become a hell of a lot more popular in Australia, and perhaps Asia. Neither will happen by sticking with the status quo. And if it never happens it may be better to at least have a competition that the rugby community across this country, in all major regions, can engage with and support week to week. Whether that be as big as the NRL or the NBL.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If ever you want an article that perfectly highlights the _strategic_ and policy judgement failings of Pulver and and the ARU, that is the one.

As the article notes, Netball Australia seem to be doing a far better job, or are at least attempting sound code development policies.

I agree,
One reason Netball Australia would be doing better is that it isn't run by white males who went to Sydney private schools: of which I am one, BTW.

 

[Rebels3]

A few points in response to this.

First, broadcasting revenue only makes up something like 25% of the ARU's revenue, and a lot of that is for test rugby, which wouldn't change. Second, we have no idea what broadcast revenues a proper length, well-scheduled, Australian market focused professional competition would generate, especially in the longer term. Third, even if it's a fair bit less than Australia's cut of Super Rugby broadcast revenue, the costs of such a competition would be substantially lower.

Everyone's so hung up on the revenue side of things, but look at the costs, the ARU are spending so much every year to prop up a failing competition, on corporate expenses and on central contracts in what is a futile effort to keep our top players in Australia. The reality is that the salaries in Europe are growing faster than the salaries here. The only way this might change is if rugby were to become a hell of a lot more popular in Australia, and perhaps Asia. Neither will happen by sticking with the status quo. And if it never happens it may be better to at least have a competition that the rugby community across this country, in all major regions, can engage with and support week to week. Whether that be as big as the NRL or the NBL.

Exactly, the costs would dramatically reduce with the revenue as well. Less travel (more appealing to keep players on board), less revenue from broadcasting (originally) but more appealing for sponsors who can be guaranteed to be visible at appropriate hours. Better crowds, etc. Many positives and negatives, but if you ask me worth a chance.

The other aspect that has me thinking is if a team is cut, would be see a player strike? they are very pro 5 teams.

 

[Joe King]

Payto has the answer we.need i.e. a two conference rugby super bowl. I also agree is about top 4 of each conference going through so in oz and nz conference no oz teams make top 4 playoff, no oz.sides go through. The other point to negotiate payto is to allow teams in oz_nz conference to have a minimum of 12 domestic players in their squad (or number to be agreed).

Bring on the super bowl.As we can .make a great trans tasman completion that can finally make a dent in nrl market share.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Loved that article! Boy! Lets just do this already!

I thought this could be an important negotiating point:

But sell the broadcast rights as a package so none of the SANZAAR nations is worse off, and use the Superbowl final as a cash generator unlike any club rugby game in the world.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/2fc6c5cc8c7d86c189cd392a89c0bb04

 

[Sully]

good article with interesting analysis

Was just going to post that. Sad no one listened to him.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

You're dreaming. Brumbies play out of canberra.

I'm sure they'd rather play in the John Dent cup in Canberra than merge and play super rugby.
That's definitely the way forward.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

I assume this is true and if so the board should step down IMO.

http://www.northweststar.com.au/sto...18-team-model-and-start-over-says-consultant/

An 18-team Super Rugby should never have gone ahead and needs to be blown up and rebuilt - on Australia's terms.

​

​

That's the view of the veteran sports consultant who designed the Super Netball concept and twice warned the Australian Rugby Union it was jeopardising its very existence by going down the expansion path with South Africa and New Zealand.
Colin Smith, whose firm Global Media and Sports warned the Australian Rugby Union about the challenges inherent in the Super Rugby model in 2009 and 2013, said rugby in Australia was at an "absolutely critical juncture" and would not recover if the game's administrators did not stand up for what was in the sport's best interests at home.
With a cone of silence enveloping the four-nation SANZAAR joint venture and speculation strengthening that the agreed position was a reduction to 15 teams, Smith said he had not seen rugby in worse conditions since his first involvement with the code in 2005.
He said there was merit in calls for an independent Super Rugby commission to replace the SANZAAR joint venture as competition administrator.
"The [Super Rugby] competition has a fundamental design problem. It should never have gone ahead," he said.
"There's an argument in my view that an independent commission running Super Rugby, as opposed to each country having a veto, needs to be considered. In addition to this Australian rugby should be considering going it alone with a revamp or re-casting of the NRC. That's controversial but all options have to be on the table. How do we make Super Rugby work for Australia?"
Smith's thoughts are not news to the game's administrators. He first warned then-ARU boss John O'Neill in 2009 that growing competition for broadcast rights in the northern hemisphere meant Australia and New Zealand would become a hunting ground for European clubs. Four years later he advised O'Neill's successor, Bill Pulver, and Pulver's New Zealand Rugby Union counterpart Steve Tew, in a joint-ARU and NZRU-funded report, that broadcasters and fans in both markets wanted more local derbies.
In 2014, with expansion talk on the cards for the then 15-team Super Rugby competition, GMS compiled a 100-page report for the Rugby Union Players' Association. It warned that a proposed 17- or 18-team model would affect television ratings and stadium attendances and recommended pursuing a 10-team Australasian competition.
RUPA handed over the report to the ARU, but in the following months it became apparent that southern hemisphere rugby would be a major beneficiary of a bidding war between UK broadcasters BT Sport and Sky Sports, which promised to rain down cash on the SANZAAR joint venture. It did just that, but true to the predictions of Smith and others, the ARU's record $275 million broadcast deal only papered over the cracks.
The 18-team Super Rugby format, which features fewer local derbies than earlier iterations, has resulted in weaker domestic television ratings in Australia and South Africa and, most damagingly, less revenue for the five Australian Super Rugby clubs. With more money than ever before flowing into the game from cashed-up overseas broadcasters, clubs are still going broke. The ARU, obliged to operate five licences under the terms of the SANZAAR agreement, is still the lender of last resort.
In the meantime, Smith was commissioned by Netball Australia to plot netball's strategic future. He looked at the Trans-Tasman Netball League's television ratings - weaker when New Zealand teams were involved - and results - a New Zealand team won the competition just once in its nine years - and recommended Australia go it alone.
The result was Super Netball, a $3.4 million per year, five-year broadcast partnership with Nine, a new naming rights sponsor in Suncorp, three new teams and a groundbreaking new pay deal for Australia's professional players. Early in its first season, the competition is drawing crowds and rating strongly nationally.
Smith characterised as "gutsy" Netball Australia's move to re-imagine its future and said it was time the ARU did the same. He warned the forthcoming SANZAAR strategic review would not have Australia's interests at its core.
"We've got across the ditch from us the most powerful rugby nation in the world, in New Zealand, and they are utilising this to their advantage to maintain that," he said.
"This is a 'now' problem, not one over which we can adopt the ostrich management style and hope it goes away."

You read the north west star! Awesome.
Also don't quote entire articles. It's against GAGR policy.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

I think the issues right now are more immediately related to the problems with the 18 team Super Rugby competition and it turning away fans.

I think a three conference 18 team comp would be preferential for at least a year to see if that improves things but a revision back to 15 teams is most likely a better option than persisting with the status quo.

With all countries seemingly set on keeping the Sunwolves there doesn't really seem like a feasible way for the competition to shrink to 15 teams without Australia dropping one. Perhaps the primary concern is that if Japan was dropped, the revenue would drop to a level where the ARU wouldn't be able to afford to support the next team to run into financial strife.

That's an astute point BH.

And it's precisely the vicious circle, death spiralling, nightmare-of-closed-boxes that the ARU has got itself into.

Its physical 'national footprint' expansion plan has proved an unceasing major financial drain at best, genuine disaster at worst, it's chosen not to radically reform it by either structure or management, so it needs constant short-term infusions of cash from non-Australian TV markets to feed the ravenous appetite for loss-induced cash capital typical of the commercially and game-wise failing State RUs.

So then serious reform of the Super system becomes 'financially impossible' as 'we lose the TV rights revenue'.

And as this seeming truth is propelling itself forward, the product underpinning that revenue deteriorates further (as nothing of substance is done to improve it), the State RU losses get worse and more pervasive, and so the conclusion is reached by the ARU that it must, like a wounded kitten clinging to mother's teat, inexorably stay glued to a increasingly failing SANZAAR that is perpetuating the core problem of failing product quality and fan retreat.

The ARU does not know how to escape from this nightmare, a nightmare very significantly of its own construction. So it seeks and knows little else but tactical refinements and relatively minor adjustments to it.

 

[RedsHappy]

I agree,
One reason Netball Australia would be doing better is that it isn't run by white males who went to Sydney private schools: of which I am one, BTW.

Hahaha - so I am I, btw. Shameful as it is.