Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

NZ also understands that for the best development of their players they need their best ones to be regularly playing in a highly concentrated competition. Even if the Mitre 10 Cup was financially viable as the level below the All Blacks I doubt they would see that as the ideal outcome because of how diluted it is relative to having their best players playing the bulk of their season in only five teams.

 

[Proud Pig]

A couple of things:

The game needs more money, the audiences are there, lurking. Crowds across SA and AUS have dropped dramatically and so have viewership numbers I would imagine. Only success on the field will improve that. If SA and AUS can double their viewer numbers there will be more money for everyone (including NZ) to pump into their respective local games.

SA have some very good coaches at school level that just don't seem to make the move up. The Lions have stolen Paarl Boys' High's coach recently which is a good move, he took them to 51 unbeaten games and has been involved with the team for several years. When I look at the skills displayed at school level I am dumbfounded as to why this has not translated into successful professional athletes at Super Rugby and Springbok level.

School games are extremely well attended. The school Affies has 1200 students yet fields 30 rugby teams every weekend, all of which are attended by good crowds. Why? Well, they have tradition and they are successful.

I don't know what sports kids play in public schools in Australia, but the ARU should strike a deal with your government if its serious about expanding to offer Rugby Union at most public schools as an option. Incentivise teachers to become coaches of the game. That will greatly help Australia down the line.

All this doom will disappear the moment SA and AUS sides consistently compete for the title instead of once every 5 years or so and also generally only from one franchise. NZ have at least 4 potential title winners every year the last couple of years. The public attend their derbies because they are intense.

Here in ol' SA the Lions have not lost to another SA team for 2 or 3 seasons now.

Fill Loftus, Newlands, Ellis Park etc to near capacity every weekend and things will start changing. You'll only fill them if you win. From SA's perspective the talent is clearly there so it's a structural and coaching issue that's holding us back, and recently some serious mental issues when traveling or facing kiwi teams.

It's been nearly a decade since SA last had a Super Rugby champion. No wonder revenue is down. We're supposed to bring the honey to the table to sweeten the deal but when our teams fail we can't deliver the honey.

That is all well and good for SA but Australia is different. As far as public support goes rugby is well behind AFL, League, and Cricket, in fact they are not even close. If the truth be known we are now on a level with Soccer and Basketball. However, the game is trying to compete at the same level as AFL and League it is not a workable approach and is doomed to failure.

The Rugby support is passionate and committed and because of that will always be there but they cannot generate the revenue needed to sustain the game in its current form. Australia's population is growing but it is growing through immigration not natural growth. This immigration is also not coming primarily from areas with an interest in Rugby therefore the population growth does not help grow the game in Australia.

I actually do not believe that there is more money available to the game in Australia so the opportunity to increase revenue significantly is not here. It is a catch-22 situation we need more money to help us compete with AFL and League but cannot make more money because that revenue is going to AFL and League. The only way to make the game sustainable is to cut costs across the board and therefore live within our means. That will require tough measures and probably a drop in the quality of Australian players playing on Australian shores. Our best soccer players all play overseas because of the money available to them but they all start here in the A-league that is the model we need to copy. AFL players and League players do not have anywhere else to go in reality the game here is the pinnacle of the game in the world. That is not the case with Rugby or Soccer and as such the games need to operate differently.

 

[Braveheart81]

Cutting costs across the board will also cause a sharp decline in revenue.

Based on your assumption shouldn't club rugby be thriving around the country because those clubs have far lower costs?

 

[sunnyboys]

Balancing commercial needs with player development and retention issues is the true juggling act when thinking about the next phase for rugby in Oz.
There is no doubt that Super Rugby has lost a large portion of the potential rugby fan base in Oz. So far the changes made haven't won any fans back. Crowds are stuck at around 9-15k. Viewers around 50-60k peaking at 77k.
This isn't sustainable and must have the various CEO's worried. You get the feeling the recent changes to Super Rugby were the last roll of the dice. The Super Rugby name is now very tarnished .. and i'm not sure the brand can be re-built.

It's time to also face the fact that the gulf between Oz rugby and NZ rugby is now entrenched. The idea that we can all of sudden have 4 top performing teams that win fans, is fanciful. Trying to win is actually what we have been doing for 15 years! but the results speak for themselves.

There are two key factors that need to be addressed. TV schedules/time zones and competitive relativity between teams within a comp.
I love sitting up late or setting my alarm for 2am to watch Wallabies v Wales ... its part of the romanticism of following a global sport. However, that doesn't extend down through the tiers. And frankly it just doesn't work in Super Rugby. Compounding this is the appalling scheduling of oz teams. In NZ this year, there is not one round where they don't have a prime time 7.30pm (NZ time) game every Friday and Saturday night. They know the importance of this clearly. We have this in only about 8 or 9 rounds from recollection. What does RA think rugby fans do on those nights? the NRL and AFL have their content on screens with absolute regularity.

Ultimately that leaves us with a solution that doesn't include SA/Arg for either all or part of the comp. But that comes with some commercial realities. It also then raises the issue of NZ participation as they have always stated they want SA exposure.

If we take this at face value it leaves Oz with having to build its own comp, and the commercial realities of that decision.

Staying in Super Rugby will only entrench the current low levels of support and potentially take them lower. At some point broadcasters will start offering less money and our revenues will suffer.

I would favour a 7 (or 8 if we invite the Drua) team comp running March to June. Full home and away - 2 bris, 2 syd, ACT Melb Perth and Fiji - 4 games a week - in our time zone with Australian players and fans feeling like winners.
Followed by July inbound tests
August - Oct could involve a few things - either retaining RC, perhaps reverting to tours by AB's or SA (depending on how they structure themselves), one of event games for Reds, Tahs (as these are strong brands and traditions worth retaining)... these could be Reds v Tahs games OR invitational games versus NZ/SA provinces. this shake up may even involve on single Bled games or even a series every second year or so. This period needs to comprised of Event games - games that make crowds want to not miss them.

Nov - NH tour.

I will admit that i have no idea how the money is produced and shared for all of this content and how big a drop in $ it would be. But i would definitely maintain the Giteau rule. Staying in oz to become a wallaby is still a good business decision for a player - it boosts their worth for later in their career when they do go OS. Yes there would be some drain on players initially. But at some time the chickens are going to come home to roost. the question is whether there is anyone left watching when they do.

 

[wamberal]

Either with us or against us type of statement


I'm happy for the Shute Shield that it might be shown on Fox - not disappointed just don't care enough to watch.

Well, in a way, it is a "with rugby or against rugby" type of statement. If you do not care about Australia's leading club rugby competition enough to watch it, that is your choice. Fox Sports is apparently assuming that enough rugby lovers will watch it to make it worth while.



Surely, surely, having a bit more local rugby on Fox Sports is worth celebrating.


And at the risk of thrashing this to death, this is a little bit analogous to what we hoped might happen when Super Rugby was launched. Totally different standard, of course, but how many of us knew or cared about that competition, which was composed of artificial (and sometimes bafflingly named) teams?

 

[Proud Pig]

Cutting costs across the board will also cause a sharp decline in revenue.

Based on your assumption shouldn't club rugby be thriving around the country because those clubs have far lower costs?

Absolutely correct it will cause a decline in revenue but I am not sure it will be a sharp decline. I believe there is a committed and passionate supporter base meaning there is a revenue stream available but not one that can support the current spend.

I am not suggesting that club rugby is thriving but it is surviving and that at the moment is a good result. The way super rugby is spending it only has one way to go and it is not pretty for Australian rugby.

 

[Bandar]

Surely, surely, having a bit more local rugby on Fox Sports is worth celebrating.

No problem with that at all and I agree the more rugby the better - I would live a dedicated rugby channel. I was more referring to your statement that if I didn't like the Shute Shield I didn't like rugby.

If it's on and I've nothing else to do, I'll watch but I won't be recording it or making sure I'm home to watch it because I don't care about the teams. I would prefer to have my local SIRU match of the round on TV because the teams mean something to me.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am not suggesting that club rugby is thriving but it is surviving and that at the moment is a good result. The way super rugby is spending it only has one way to go and it is not pretty for Australian rugby.

It's more complicated than that though. You can't look at Super Rugby in isolation because it is what supports the Wallabies by having a core group of good professional players in the country. The Wallabies are what generates the bulk of the revenue.

If the Wallabies were significantly weakened what would it do for the game in the country financially? Would those committed rugby fans be there in ten years time or would that group be far smaller still?

It is a complex issue and no one knows what the right answer is because there isn't clearly one.

Club Rugby still relies on money flowing down from above. In NSW for example the Waratahs distribute roughly $1m a season to NSWRU some of which funds the Shute Shield competition.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It's more complicated than that though. You can't look at Super Rugby in isolation because it is what supports the Wallabies by having a core group of good professional players in the country. The Wallabies are what generates the bulk of the revenue.

If the Wallabies were significantly weakened what would it do for the game in the country financially? Would those committed rugby fans be there in ten years time or would that group be far smaller still?

It is a complex issue and no one knows what the right answer is because there isn't clearly one.

Club Rugby still relies on money flowing down from above. In NSW for example the Waratahs distribute roughly $1m a season to NSWRU some of which funds the Shute Shield competition.

And that's probably the biggest issue with how we opt to run Rugby in this country. Everything is geared toward and solely reliant on the Wallabies. This means that the professional games is treated more as a extensive audition instead of it's own concern.

And that's why I welcome Forrest's model. Because it focuses on building the commercial side of that particular concept separate from that of any national team. We need to start treating our professional structures similar to that of practically every other professional sport in this country and look to grow and strengthen the game at that level.

This could mean the need to make some really major structural changes in the near future to the professional game both domestically and how we compete against our SANZAAR partners.

 

[Braveheart81]

And that's probably the biggest issue with how we opt to run Rugby in this country. Everything is geared toward and solely reliant on the Wallabies. This means that the professional games is treated more as a extensive audition instead of it's own concern.

I don't think that is really a choice though. The sport has always been based around the international game and that is where the revenue has been generated.

We have never had the market for a domestic product to drive revenue generation because we have a small local market. The places that do have that (primarily England and to a lesser extent France as that is backed by significant private money) have far larger populations. They have enough money in that level that the quality is high enough that it also drives global broadcasting revenue.

It is hard to know what to make of Forrest's planned competition because we are yet to see whether it is at all viable longer term, particularly if it is required to pay its own way.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not entirely accurate. Our overall market has proven that if the perceived value is there then it is willing to pony up big money. Our problem is and always has been that the near singular focus on the international game has meant we've neglected any attempt to really develop our market or our share of the overall market.

Even when taking the big risk of going professional we kept it safe in the model we used. Now we are in the position where we are damned if we do but honestly more so if we don't look to explore taking a truly bold and brave step into creating something that our market actually values.

And that's part of what is attractive about Forrest's proposal. It's taking that risk. Identifying a market and trying to develop something that can grow within it. And it's something we we should be looking to get on board with. We exist in the perfect position to look to enter the biggest market going. As well, as developing something more appealing domestically.

 

[Ulrich]

That is all well and good for SA but Australia is different. As far as public support goes rugby is well behind AFL, League, and Cricket, in fact they are not even close. If the truth be known we are now on a level with Soccer and Basketball. However, the game is trying to compete at the same level as AFL and League it is not a workable approach and is doomed to failure.

The Rugby support is passionate and committed and because of that will always be there but they cannot generate the revenue needed to sustain the game in its current form. Australia's population is growing but it is growing through immigration not natural growth. This immigration is also not coming primarily from areas with an interest in Rugby therefore the population growth does not help grow the game in Australia.

I actually do not believe that there is more money available to the game in Australia so the opportunity to increase revenue significantly is not here. It is a catch-22 situation we need more money to help us compete with AFL and League but cannot make more money because that revenue is going to AFL and League. The only way to make the game sustainable is to cut costs across the board and therefore live within our means. That will require tough measures and probably a drop in the quality of Australian players playing on Australian shores. Our best soccer players all play overseas because of the money available to them but they all start here in the A-league that is the model we need to copy. AFL players and League players do not have anywhere else to go in reality the game here is the pinnacle of the game in the world. That is not the case with Rugby or Soccer and as such the games need to operate differently.

As I said, I believe if all (or most) kids at school gets a choice between RU and AFL (or whichever other code) some will choose RU while others may attempt their hand at both even and make a choice later down the line. I just believe that if you can get rugby going at school level there will be natural support and interest from those kids' parents.

For those that are successful they will create permanent RU fans and so it will grow generation after generation. The trick is not to compete at the highest level at this point, eat into the meat at the bottom. I played rugby at school because we had rugby posts on our field.

When I lived in South America I played football (soccer) because we had goal nets on the field. Australia probably has the infrastructure at school to play RU already, but schools, teachers and kids need to be incentivised to take up the sport. That can be done through funding from the ARU until such time that those kids who mature need a professional domestic setup to fall into.

Then you look at your club rugby, then the unions and ultimately the Wallabies win.

 

[Bandar]

As I said, I believe if all (or most) kids at school gets a choice between RU and AFL (or whichever other code) some will choose RU while others may attempt their hand at both even and make a choice later.

And that’s Australia’s problem, most kids don’t try Rugby Union they get Rugby League offered. It has been very difficult to get into the local public schools with the amount of time they have dedicated to league and AFL



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The Chinese women have just qualified for the Women's circuit next season. And it was well deserved. Clearly the best team over the two days. They beat Sth Africa 29-14 in the final.

 

[dru]

I actually do not believe that there is more money available to the game in Australia so the opportunity to increase revenue significantly is not here.

It is easy to be influenced by our small footprint here in Australia as far as the sporting landscape goes. This should be balanced though by consideration of the comparitive macro economics of RSA, NZ and Aus.

Aus has a national GDP or approx $US1.2Tr, population of 24M, earning/capita are quoted as approx $US50k
RSA has a national GDP of approx $US300B, population of 56M, earning/capita $US5K
NZ has a national GDP of approx $US200B, population of 5M, earning/capita $US40k

Currently RSA is reasonably saturated in terms of rugby coverage and income. There is comparatively little national wealth available for marketing expansion of the game. OTOH there is huge potential for increasing what is already impressive playing stocks if transformation is successful. But they are better looking elsewhere if they wish to expand income.

NZ is also pretty much at marketing saturation, it is an incredibly successful story in terms of what they are generating in support of the sport. But again, there is comparatively little room left domestically for marketing expansion and increase in income generation. They either continue their undoubted success while the money gradually stagnates, or they look elsewhere.

In Australia there is comparatively little marketing penetration into the domestic sporting scene. That sporting world is crowded and difficult. But given that we are more or less at a nadir any step forward should have a disproportionate impact. There is undoubted challenge and difficulty to increase our market share. On the other hand small increases in the market share should have very substantial results. We are nowhere near the success of RSA and NZ.

There is difficulty but there is also far superior opportunity than either RSA or NZ.

The skew in these market opportunities is so strong, that surely independent review would suggest to NZ and RSA to get behind Australia.

If they don't see it, this does nothing to change the risks and opportunities to Australian rugby. It needs some balls, but if what SANZAR offers in taking Super forward does not totally suit an aggressive approach to the Australia market, providing substantially what the Australian market wants - then it is time to move without them.

 

[wamberal]

And what, in your opinion, does the Australian market want in terms of rugby?

 

[half]

Dru

You have identified we have the resources in Australia but do we have the intellectual ability to identify opportunities, and more importantly do we have the vision and leadership to create an environment to provide opportunities.

Cyclopath has correctly pointed out the need for a strong national team. While not the be all and end all it is still a very important foundation stone in building or sorry creating and environment whereby rugby creates opportunities. Cyclopath is 100% correct when he says we need a professional league to keep players and sponsors i.e. his and many others support for Super Rugby.

Risking the wrath of some, I will delve into some issues we need to consider and this involves looking at others. Hopefully I will be brief.

Most of what follows now will be based on the need to create a national domestic competition, essentially funded by private investment with AR setting and establishing guidelines for owners rather than AR having ownership of teams.

To start we need look at what’s happening and how this could affect us. E-games in particular are becoming mega huge and will challenge traditional sports within 15 years, so we need to prepare for this. X-games are increasingly in popularity and we need to be aware of this and again prepare strategies to align ourselves with X-games. The affect concussion reports will have on junior player numbers and sponsors. Look to how other codes have grown their national domestic competitions.

Could write a book on the points above, and so many things to look at in terms of how. The simple [he says as its not easy] method is to allow corporate money to own teams and corporations be prepared to lose money for a few years. Thus the Twiggies and Buildcorps are important.

Best working example I can think of is the MLS in America, today with a 23 team competition expanding to 28 teams by 2020 or 26 by 2020 & 28 by 2022. Each club is privately funded the competition is about 20 years old similar market to Australia.

We need clever thinking but we need capital investment for things to work.

 

[cyclopath]

Dru

You have identified we have the resources in Australia but do we have the intellectual ability to identify opportunities, and more importantly do we have the vision and leadership to create an environment to provide opportunities.

Cyclopath has correctly pointed out the need for a strong national team. While not the be all and end all it is still a very important foundation stone in building or sorry creating and environment whereby rugby creates opportunities. Cyclopath is 100% correct when he says we need a professional league to keep players and sponsors i.e. his and many others support for Super Rugby.

Not exactly. It doesn't have to be Super Rugby. And I am not a massive fan of the current set-up at all. But "it" must be at a commensurate level to Super Rugby. At the moment, despite the enthusiasm from many, we just cannot know if a new competition, maybe a development of Forrest's IPRC, will sit at that level. Which is why I get concerned when some posters have declared we should walk away from Super Rugby, without a well-defined replacement for it, and think some lower level "semi-pro" comp would be the same thing.

 

[kiap]

Not exactly. It doesn't have to be Super Rugby. And I am not a massive fan of the current set-up at all. But "it" must be at a commensurate level to Super Rugby.

There's no "must" about it.

Super Rugby itself won't maintain the level with its continued dwindling appeal.

It's dissolving through the fingers.

 

[wamberal]

Dru

You have identified we have the resources in Australia but do we have the intellectual ability to identify opportunities, and more importantly do we have the vision and leadership to create an environment to provide opportunities.



Most of what follows now will be based on the need to create a national domestic competition, essentially funded by private investment with AR setting and establishing guidelines for owners rather than AR having ownership of teams.

The simple [he says as its not easy] method is to allow corporate money to own teams and corporations be prepared to lose money for a few years. Thus the Twiggies and Buildcorps are important.



We need clever thinking but we need capital investment for things to work.

This is an over-simplification, but Australians are not usually keen venture capitalists. What do you think would happen if RA went to the capital market with a prospectus which, in essence, called for bids for the ownership of, say, twelve regionally based rugby franchises, with a view to setting up and selling a competition to one of the television companies?


Are there twelve possible angels out there, who love rugby, have very deep pockets, and are prepared to wait for a very long time to make money? No guarantees that they ever would make a profit, of course.