Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

Super rugby was ok but just not has evolved the right way with conference structures and in particular for the oz market where no professional domestic league behind this. A trans Tasman concept could work because time zones work. What won't work anymore is nz or sa thinking we will just accept super rugby as our only option as voices becoming very clear on that oz Rugby supporters had enough. The governing Rugby body which for the moment is the aru, will have to make plans for its own destiny beyond 2020, as fans are leading the revolution for change by refusing to support the dogs breakfast of super rugby which does nothing to generate domestic interest and following in this country or encourage grass roots participation because of lack of professional opportunities this dwindling domestic fan interest in the current super rugby product.

The revolution that was needed a decade ago is now happening without a Doubt so the aru can lead the revolution or get the hell out of the way and let others more capable to lead it now. As whether happens now or not, pressures for change will only grow unless real change happens and the aru won't be able to stop it and be pushed aside if they can't take the leadership required to make the changes demanded by the oz Rugby public.



Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

I have been advocating for a national domestic competition for as I posted earlier over 18 years.

This was my idea way back then. I post this in somewhat sadness because I honestly feel we lost the chance to cement ourselves as a major domestic product.

My idea was leading up to the world cup and leading on from S 8 and S 10, Rugby was going gang busters to an existing audience. However by going only to Fox we ignored what the AFL & Soccer call the churn factor.

To explain the Churn Factor is every year a sport will loose between 5 & 10 % of its support base for various reasons. Accordingly to grow you need to add 7 to 15% and to stabilise at least the 5 to 10%.

At this time FTA stations wanted product and had money and we were heading to a WC shared between us & NZ.

My suggestion I submitted was to go back to S 8, and run it after each country ran there NDC.

I said 10 teams, ACT, 5 Sydney, 1 Newcastle Hunter, 3 Brisbane. The five Sydney teams to be from mergers of existing SS sides or SS sides going it alone.

My Sydney sides were, Northern Districts [ie Beaches and North Sydney to say Chatswood], Eastwwod, Rankwick, a western Sydney side out of Penrith and Southern Sydney side.

The big call was to spend 2 to 3 years of model building and negotiation.

I am certain a media channel would have brought the rights.

It required a lot of work, understanding of sport world over, and standing up to NZ & SA.

This model would not work today as no network will look at us. And the churn factor has been ebbing away year by year.
I am honestly at a loss of where and how to fix today that’s why we need a visionary leader who understands the Australian sporting market, and has a passion for rugby.


Does anyone have any names.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I have been advocating for a national domestic competition for as I posted earlier over 18 years.

This was my idea way back then. I post this in somewhat sadness because I honestly feel we lost the chance to cement ourselves as a major domestic product.

My idea was leading up to the world cup and leading on from S 8 and S 10, Rugby was going gang busters to an existing audience. However by going only to Fox we ignored what the AFL & Soccer call the churn factor.

To explain the Churn Factor is every year a sport will loose between 5 & 10 % of its support base for various reasons. Accordingly to grow you need to add 7 to 15% and to stabilise at least the 5 to 10%.

At this time FTA stations wanted product and had money and we were heading to a WC shared between us & NZ.

My suggestion I submitted was to go back to S 8, and run it after each country ran there NDC.

I said 10 teams, ACT, 5 Sydney, 1 Newcastle Hunter, 3 Brisbane. The five Sydney teams to be from mergers of existing SS sides or SS sides going it alone.

My Sydney sides were, Northern Districts [ie Beaches and North Sydney to say Chatswood], Eastwwod, Rankwick, a western Sydney side out of Penrith and Southern Sydney side.

The big call was to spend 2 to 3 years of model building and negotiation.

I am certain a media channel would have brought the rights.

It required a lot of work, understanding of sport world over, and standing up to NZ & SA.

This model would not work today as no network will look at us. And the churn factor has been ebbing away year by year.
I am honestly at a loss of where and how to fix today that’s why we need a visionary leader who understands the Australian sporting market, and has a passion for rugby.


Does anyone have any names.

Half - we have to start with a plan b but yes the plan b is not the holy grail but starting with lower expectations and building slowly because of the loss of capital rugby has had over neglect and poor decisions.

We need a proper national competition. And yes we could not sustain a professional domestic rugby competition most likely in current environment without something else. So the ideal is to get the Super Rugby Conference structured that builds a more domestic base to follow re: Trans Tasman- Asian Conference. And below that a national long form semi pro nrc competition that would hopefully attract broadcasters to fund the sort of basic payments NRC players currently get (and hence yes semi pro). Start with that and build a following and gradually reduce our reliance on Super Rugby but yes will take time and hard work. But we need a back up plan and stop just relying on our SANZAAR partners to solve Oz rugby woes as is long term reciepe for disaster. As evidence shows successfully thriving sporting codes are those that have national domestic competitions but yet we still don't have one. There is no magic silver bullet but we need something different. We need a national product rugby followers can follow regularly throughout a whole season and not be limited to small snippnets /segments of relevancy when five sides play in oz and disappear of the radar timezone/media wise when playing SA etc.

 

[half]

^^^^^^

Mate I have reached the point were I don't believe I have much to contribute anymore as almost all my ideas have aged to the point they would not work anymore.

Seeing the difficulty FFA is having securing its revenue has shown me the FTA networks won't take risks on untested products.

Further if we cut a team, I am totally lost as whatever goodwill and support there is will be reduced. More fans will be lost and we will look like a total joke to the non rugby public.

Finally there has been a considerable delay in any announcement. Surely the decisions have been made we were told this 8 days ago.

My guess is the broadcast networks want to renegotiate the media deals. Especially if what I have read is correct about European and SA ratings.

I can't see the board nor Pulver accepting blame. They will find someway to blame others in prior eras.

Meaning despite totally fucking up the S 18 deal, totally fucking up the private school visa v Saturday morning competition, and rushing an NRC were they are lucky to have 50% support, and by the looks of things dropping a side.

If they drop a side and no one resigns, I give up and will go down and watch my local park team, and join the wife and become a member of the Mariners.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I would love our own currie cup as extension of NRC. Maybe we set this up with some basic broadcaster support.ok it will be a semi pro competition and probably step below current NRC level, as would only have Super Rugby players not in match day squads allocated. Meaning probably at best top club players with some broadcast money allowing for a few marquees, but we create a real third tier national competition and got to start somewhere..and yes starting to put foundations in place should Super Rugby collapse so we have some sort of plan b then putting all our eggs in one basket.

Sounds like the ARC, which would have provided the answer by now

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Sounds like the ARC, which would have provided the answer by now

The ARC experience shows us we must set up something financially sustainable and paying the ABC for the privilege of broadcasting the ARC was clearly not.

Yes it may have been a different story if ARC was set up more along the lines of NRC in being self financially sustaining, but we can't undo was done and have to accept we lost the benefit that if ARC had been set up properly we may be more advanced than we are now having learned how to tweak the NRC / ARC product to be a bigger and better national semi pro competition and maybe even teetering towards a professional domestic competition.

We have to just work with what we have got. We in my opinion should be working with foxtel (Foxtel at this point is only broadcast partner who will be interested until we build and develop and sustain a growing and better product) to get support for an expanded NRC 22 round semi pro national competition. Yes it would sit below whatever clusterfuck of Super Rugby exists and work with it .e.g. opportunities for players not in match day 23 squads to play perhaps for teams. Is there a better answer....yes I think so which is a Trans Tasman conference or competition as NZ offer a competition more depth than we can provide alone and quality of players to create an appealing product whilst we offer bigger commercial opportunities than NZ market for such a product assuming it can better compete against NRL and AFL which I believe with innovation like that attempted at NRC level it could.

Ambitious and risky yes. But more risky to just continue to rely on Super Rugby or moreso our SANZAAR partners as our only salvation. ARU has shown themselves to be weak as piss compared to say SARU who has fought much harder for its own interests.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Finals: Top Division 1 vs Top Division 3 & Top Division 2 v Bottom Division 1

Not keen on your finals structure H35. Presumably Top Div 3 would be stronger than Bottom Div 1, otherwise they'd be in the other Division. How about either :

Top 1 v Bottom 1, and Top 2 v Top 3; two winners to GF; or

Top 1 v Top 2 - winner straight to the GF, Top 3 v Bottom 1 - winner to play loser of SF1; Winner to GF.

 

[wamberal]

Well, at least England lost. That's all the good news for now.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I should add my background is I am a management consultant who use to be a strategy management consultant specialising in market entry, corporate and business strategy, new business creation / development. Now days do more IT/Business Transformation consultancy work but interest in product/new business development still there.

For me I see rugby as a great product with great opportunities facing yes some tough competition in the domestic market but the competing domestic products with the exception of Football do not have the key competitive advantage that rugby offers with its global footprint and indeed fact is number one game for many of our neighbours in particular our Kiwi neighbours. This creates great opportunities if we can work with others and align ourselves to the international appeal to develop an innovative professional and more domestic focussed product that could initially be self sustaining but have the potential to grow and evolve both in terms of the product adapting to what fans want and offering a point of difference. I truly believe there is an opportunity there but it would take moving rugby from a slow moving bureaucratic vehicle still retaining the imperfections of its amateur hey days which limit professional appeal to a preparedness to create a domestic focussed product that is innovative and prepared to be different. Okay might be different laws played under like NRC than what played at international level but if that is what small adaptions have to be made to create a successful more domestic facing product than so be it. Traditionalists who gag on this need to be removed as only with this sort of change can rugby truly make the head on changes and preparedness to be innovative and create a product more fan friendly can we succeed.

AFL and NRL salivate over what rugby has as an international footprint but equally the ineptitude of rugby administration and inability to embrace change at pace required means it has not had to worry about rugby as a serious threat. If rugby ever got its shit together and had some real innovative leadership come in prepared to make major change and take some measured risks I reckon AFL and NRL might seriously be concerned. I know it is complex though and needs a lot of clever people to sit down to create this blueprint and I just hope the ARU spends some decent consultancy money on sports consultancy to help them with this sort of strategic planning as this is complex and they would be kidding themselves they can do this sort of thinking without help as no major sporting organisation would try and do this without this sort of strategic assistance.

Asian money via Allsports investment in chinese rugby has shown there is interest in investing in rugby so perhaps we are best to align ourselves with those big investors to invest in our game. I certainly hoping we are at least speaking with allsports at early stages to consider future partnerships and that we are open to investments in our teams etc.

I think rugby league by way of example is a pretty boring product but has the best players. If ever there was a game we could win market share against if we got some preparedness to enhance what those who find so appealing about rugby but remove what they find so unenthralling would make this a game changer. Cricket reinvented itself with the big bash and you don't think that competition completely moved away from the traditionalist form of cricket played for centuries. Why can't we equally be like Cricket Australia and lead the way in innovation for rugby in this country.

 

[wamberal]

Mate, if you think rugby league is a boring product you need to talk to more people.



The sad truth is that the majority of Australian sports fans actually think our game is boring. Always remember that both the AFL and NRL have evolved to suit Australian tastes.


In the course of that evolution, of course they have also moulded tastes as well, by a process of trial and error. They can both change their rules at the drop of a hat (and do) if they think it will make their game more attractive to viewers, broadcasters, and advertisers.


The results speak for themselves.


There are plenty of minor sports around which have a huge international footprint. An international footprint can be useful, but it is not a game-changer. If it was, our coming second in the last RWC, and our women winning Gold at Rio, would have boosted our game.


Did it? As for Chinese money, I lived and worked in Hong Kong for many years, and I would like a quid for every time I heard somebody say that China was a market just waiting to be exploited. The vast majority of ventures in China, or with Chinese interests, fail. The day that China takes up rugby at a serious level is the day that I will walk naked around TGM.

 

[TOCC]

They lap up Rugby League because they have never been presented Rugby Union in a medium or product that they have been able to engage with and support.

Rugby Union has significantly higher market saturation potential then what's currently been reached. 6 Wallabies games a year on FTA prime time isn't enough for the wider community to engage with.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Mate, if you think rugby league is a boring product you need to talk to more people.



The sad truth is that the majority of Australian sports fans actually think our game is boring. Always remember that both the AFL and NRL have evolved to suit Australian tastes.


In the course of that evolution, of course they have also moulded tastes as well, by a process of trial and error. They can both change their rules at the drop of a hat (and do) if they think it will make their game more attractive to viewers, broadcasters, and advertisers.


The results speak for themselves.


There are plenty of minor sports around which have a huge international footprint. An international footprint can be useful, but it is not a game-changer. If it was, our coming second in the last RWC, and our women winning Gold at Rio, would have boosted our game.


Did it? As for Chinese money, I lived and worked in Hong Kong for many years, and I would like a quid for every time I heard somebody say that China was a market just waiting to be exploited. The vast majority of ventures in China, or with Chinese interests, fail. The day that China takes up rugby at a serious level is the day that I will walk naked around TGM.

Mate I know it is hard but to just critique without answers. There is nothing that you have said that has surprised me. Yes league has evolved to suit Australian tastes....what have you not picked up that I am saying this is what league has done well and union has done poorly in this country. You are actually in fact agreeing with me that we need to make union product more appealing as I agree that is the problem in its current format it is boring to many people but what I am saying is that with tweaks it could be fixed and preparedness to innovate.

It is also about leveraging whatever unique strengths we have which includes international footprint, growth of world game, growth of new products like 7's and greater exposure of new products like 7's at the Olympics (but my whole discourse is of course can't rely just on that as got to tailor product to suit Australian tastes which is whole basis of my argument where we have gone wrong). The other key point is we have a close relationship with NZ where rugby is dominant so we should seek to leverage that with competition that creates closer ties. And you really don't need to tell me about Chinese money scenario but my point is those with money we should be forming relationships with. Don't just dismiss arguments pretending there is a magic silver bullet as there is not one but a lot of different elements to consider.

I am not for one moment suggesting it is easy but all you are doing is dismissing everything without any answers which is easy to do and more to the point missing the basic tennant of my argument that we need to create a rugby product more appealing to domestic audiences.

I find you seeming to want to dish any constructive comments made on need for change by dishing any comments on things that could be considered without any alternatives. You have made great claims you in your time could have been a great CEO of Rugby in this country. How about you actually provide some real evidence to show that with some better insights on what could be solutions to the current mess we are in as I find your response a little churlish to be frank.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

They lap up Rugby League because they have never been presented Rugby Union in a medium or product that they have been able to engage with and support.

Rugby Union has significantly higher market saturation potential then what's currently been reached. 6 Wallabies games a year on FTA prime time isn't enough for the wider community to engage with.

Correct TOCC

 

[Strewthcobber]

They lap up Rugby League because they have never been presented Rugby Union in a medium or product that they have been able to engage with and support.

Rugby Union has significantly higher market saturation potential then what's currently been reached. 6 Wallabies games a year on FTA prime time isn't enough for the wider community to engage with.

I wonder if it's because they flick on Tahs v Brumbies and see 51 handling errors from the Tahs & 40 from the Brumbies (I can still barely believe those stats)

 

[wamberal]

I have said several times (and been shot down several times) that the only viable alternative to a slow death is a hybrid game.


A game that is simple enough for the ordinary punters to understand, but which contains the best elements of our game. Apart from anything else, the devil is in the detail.

But more importantly, it would totally depend on a new Packer/Murdoch style revolution, fuelled with lots of dosh.

A couple of other points about internationalism. The AFL pays a bit of lip service to it, but they are smart enough to know that the only countries where their game could ever be played seriously are the handful of countries which have big oval sporting fields.


As for the NRL, they are all in favour of international competition, as long as it doesn't interfere with their own domestic interests. Which, by the way, include the power to change their own rule book, at will.

 

[wamberal]

I wonder if it's because they flick on Tahs v Brumbies and see 51 handling errors from the Tahs & 40 from the Brumbies (I can still barely believe those stats)

Yeah. Only a mother could love that game.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I have said several times (and been shot down several times) that the only viable alternative to a slow death is a hybrid game.


A game that is simple enough for the ordinary punters to understand, but which contains the best elements of our game. Apart from anything else, the devil is in the detail.

But more importantly, it would totally depend on a new Packer/Murdoch style revolution, fuelled with lots of dosh.

A couple of other points about internationalism. The AFL pays a bit of lip service to it, but they are smart enough to know that the only countries where their game could ever be played seriously are the handful of countries which have big oval sporting fields.


As for the NRL, they are all in favour of international competition, as long as it doesn't interfere with their own domestic interests. Which, by the way, include the power to change their own rule book, at will.

Well there you go not too dissimilar on some views. I agree a hybrid game for our domestic market makes sense and along the lines of changes suggesting or at least get rid of stuff that turns of domestic spectators which are things like games taken up or stifled by kicks for penalty goals...but yes whilst we all agree a Packer /murdoch style revolution with lots of money would be the saviour this is like winning lotto so we can't just wait for that to happen...so hence got to start smaller in ambition but yes create a product more appealing first and foremost that is more appealing to domestic audiences. If along the way we get lucky great...but more likely to get lucky by doing things to create more appeal for those with money to want to make those sort of investments. At the moment not the environment to encourage that but hopefully with some more radical preparedness for change that could change. First and foremost we agree that we need to create a rugby product more appealing to our domestic market.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If you're changing the laws/making a hybrid game don't you lose the international appeal of the sport?

 

[Highlander35]

Not keen on your finals structure H35. Presumably Top Div 3 would be stronger than Bottom Div 1, otherwise they'd be in the other Division. How about either :

Top 1 v Bottom 1, and Top 2 v Top 3; two winners to GF; or

Top 1 v Top 2 - winner straight to the GF, Top 3 v Bottom 1 - winner to play loser of SF1; Winner to GF.

The idea would be that players would change squads (at least while Super Rugby is still functioning) between the Season.

So for example, Sydney Uni/Stars are the team that comes in.

As a Single club affiliate, they don't perform exceptionally in the qualifying stage, finishing 10th or 11th.

In the 2nd stage, they regularly have access to their allocated players like Gordon, Latu, Skelton, Ryan and Mumm, who'll primarily have been playing Super Rugbym

As well as that, a number of interstate P choose to "come home". e.g. Sam Jeffries, Laurie Weeks, Tom English and James Dargaville and play with their historical side.

So, the Stars end up in Division 2, but when those players are added onto a reasonably solid club squad, they excel, and they win 9 out of 10 games.

They deserve a shot at winning the NRC because the squad is so different from the one in the first stage, but, the reward for winning for finishing in the top 6 is that you get an "easier" path to the playoffs with half the teams getting through, whereas there's only a single chance with the lower path, where you could win all but one of your games and not go through based on bonus points or PD.

 

[TOCC]

I have said several times (and been shot down several times) that the only viable alternative to a slow death is a hybrid game.
.

But Rugby League is already the hybrid game...

And the best parts of Rugby Union as far as Rugby League is concerned is the international component, but if NRL and ARU agree to some form of hybrid game, this game won't be allowed to play against other countries anyway.. so what purpose does it serve other then merging Oz Super Rugby clubs into the NRL?

 

[Slim 293]

I have said several times (and been shot down several times) that the only viable alternative to a slow death is a hybrid game.

Yes, a quick death would be the alternative.........