Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

My question on offshore broadcast dollars is this - how few viewers or live punters still justifies making a product for international audiences?

Are we happy with sub-10k crowds and sub 50k viewers as long as the money keeps coming from offshore?

What about 5k crowds and 29k viewers like the Tahs got this week?

When do domestic needs become greater than the offshore dollars?

The revenue the competition develops is clearly critical.

Most of the proposals being mooted would result in smaller crowds and smaller broadcast revenue but with proponents convinced it would provide a compelling product that would grow over time.

How do you finance those first few years and what happens if it doesn't grow rapidly?

Clearly there is a risk staying with Super Rugby as well, but I'm unsure how much of the domestic needs get met through a domestic competition. There is very little evidence I can see that entitles people to be confident that all a sudden more people would start showing up.

 

[sunnyboys]

"showing up"- its the key mystery isn't it. if 'they' wont show up for Super Rugby and its believed that 'they' wont show up for a new domestic comp, you have to ask do 'they' exist at all? has rugby so lost its audience that decent crowds and viewership numbers cant be re-established.

because that's what i'm hearing here.

 

[Braveheart81]

And we need to be asking exactly who is benefiting from Super rugby here, when quite clearly it is at the cost of a supporter base.

The professional players because it provides a competitive pro salary to a decent sized group of players and the Wallabies because it keeps a solid backing of professionals in the country such that our test players play a high standard of rugby outside of the test season and we have a solid pool of players to draw on.

The Wallabies will remain the biggest revenue raiser in Australian rugby and that needs to be supported as best as possible.

"showing up"- its the key mystery isn't it. if 'they' wont show up for Super Rugby and its believed that 'they' wont show up for a new domestic comp, you have to ask do 'they' exist at all? has rugby so lost its audience that decent crowds and viewership numbers cant be re-established.

because that's what i'm hearing here.

It's difficult. Changing demographics have hurt rugby because the game isn't nearly as popular in the private schools and country as it used to be. That was taken for granted and it has steadily diminished. Growth in the grassroots game getting more kids involved who will turn into fans is vital.

It's a problem that has been allowed to happen over a long period of time and will take a long time to repair. There has been some headway in that area in the last couple of years though.

The biggest short term fix though would be the Wallabies winning the Bledisloe Cup. The popularity of rugby in Australia has been so closely linked to the success of the Wallabies pretty much forever.

 

[half]

For me the question is simple.

We have a clear choice, Plan A is Super Rugby. Then we need to do Super Rugby better or simply do better with Plan A than we are doing.

Plan B, is accepting Plan A is not working and looking for a viable alternative.

Its wishful thinking to think from the get go Plan B will come close to Plan A revenue.

I also maintain Plan B will take about 4 years to get off the ground if we want to get everyone on board.

So the choice is simple, we do Plan A better. or develop a Plan B.

My vote is for a Plan B, but can see those not wanting to risk all on something unproven.

 

[hoggy]

The professional players because it provides a competitive pro salary to a decent sized group of players and the Wallabies because it keeps a solid backing of professionals in the country such that our test players play a high standard of rugby outside of the test season and we have a solid pool of players to draw on.

The Wallabies will remain the biggest revenue raiser in Australian rugby and that needs to be supported as best as possible.

It's difficult. Changing demographics have hurt rugby because the game isn't nearly as popular in the private schools and country as it used to be. That was taken for granted and it has steadily diminished. Growth in the grassroots game getting more kids involved who will turn into fans is vital.

It's a problem that has been allowed to happen over a long period of time and will take a long time to repair. There has been some headway in that area in the last couple of years though.

The biggest short term fix though would be the Wallabies winning the Bledisloe Cup. The popularity of rugby in Australia has been so closely linked to the success of the Wallabies pretty much forever.

Yes those demographic changes have hurt rugby, but it is the system that has allowed that to happen. That system is Super rugby. Why change when the gravy train cheque is forever in the post. Yes there has been some headway in the last couple of years purely because the whole thing is collapsing. None of those changes have come from genuine desire for change.

And yes the Wallabies are the biggest earner, of course they are, half the season is solely given to there presence, what alternative is there. Everything is sacrificed for them.

And ultimately how many short term fixes can the game survive, what happens when winning the Bledisloe is just a pipe dream. To remain competitive what do we next get rid of the Rebels, and then the Brumbies, where does it end.

 

[Killer]

imo if you can't get reasonable crowds in big cities with just one team eg Syd and Brisbane. Then either the system is broken or total mismanagement.
In rugby's case I think it is both. The solution needs to be top down, change the management and get them to formulate a plan B.

 

[kiap]

The biggest short term fix though would be the Wallabies winning the Bledisloe Cup.

It'd certainly be a good thing but I don't even think one jammy year with the Bled back in the broom cupboard would do it anymore in terms of restoring the game to something resembling anaemic health.

Rugby's stocks in this country have dropped too far below the threshold of public interest.

A lucky roll and let's say the Wobs blag two home tests from NZ in one season. Straight onto the northern tour and they win their usual 2 or 3 out of 4, with only the usual diehards tuning in after midnight, as always.

A new season starts and normal service resumes. More floggings at the hands of the kiwis in the soup and—especially—in the Bledisloe tests.

Australian rugby needs something more substantial to build on than a brief sugar hit every fifteen years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The revenue the competition develops is clearly critical.

Most of the proposals being mooted would result in smaller crowds and smaller broadcast revenue but with proponents convinced it would provide a compelling product that would grow over time.

How do you finance those first few years and what happens if it doesn't grow rapidly?

Clearly there is a risk staying with Super Rugby as well, but I'm unsure how much of the domestic needs get met through a domestic competition. There is very little evidence I can see that entitles people to be confident that all a sudden more people would start showing up.

The problem with the revenue the competition generates is 1) it's minimal and 2) has meant admin after admin have been rather lazy when it comes to actually develop our domestic market share. A market that with the right product on offer traditionally has paid goo money for content. Certainly well beyond any of our other major international markets.

With point 2, there has always been this perspective that we're an international game and we can make up for our shortfall there. Frankly, that's the wrong damn attitude. We have severely neglected to even really bother to try anything more than piecemeal and largely symbolic efforts to do anything domestically.

You point out the lack of interest in the NRC. That's a prime example. It is a woefully promoted and marketed competition. Which is lunacy as it's by far and away the best Rugby product we have. If the ARU were serious about actually trying to develop it into something of significance and appealing to the greater market they'd moved it back to a later timeframe (assuming we continue with Super Rugby) as not to fall into align with the NRL and AFL finals series to provide it with a little more breathing room. And run it over 12 rounds plus finals. Push the marketing side of it much more intensely and even look to organise some kind of simulcast of the streamed games Fox Sports currently run on FTA.

 

[wamberal]

Any serious rugby competition has to be played under the Laws of the Game, and that includesn points scoring.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Any serious rugby competition has to be played under the Laws of the Game, and that includesn points scoring.

I know you know that the NRC has reverted back to the current scoring system. And outside of a few minor tweaks such as the lineout runs under the current laws as well.

 

[kiap]

Any serious rugby competition has to be played under the Laws of the Game, and that includesn points scoring.

The NRC has standard points scoring.

there has always been this perspective that we're an international game and we can make up for our shortfall there. Frankly, that's the wrong damn attitude. We have severely neglected to even really bother to try anything more than piecemeal and largely symbolic efforts to do anything domestically.

You point out the lack of interest in the NRC. That's a prime example. It is a woefully promoted and marketed competition.

Yup. The game as a whole is badly run. There's been the odd few good years but they are the exception in aussie rugby.

TBF, the ARU has been wedged on Super Rugby five years at a time. Time is up though now.

Maybe it can be morphed into a shorter champions league style cup and survive, but the bulk of the season needs to be competition in our own timezone - marketed and promoted.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The NRC has standard points scoring.



Yup. The game as a whole is badly run. There's been the odd few good years but they are the exception in aussie rugby.

TBF, the ARU has been wedged on Super Rugby five years at a time. Time is up though now.

Maybe it can be morphed into a shorter champions league style cup and survive, but the bulk of the season needs to be competition in our own timezone - marketed and promoted.

Yep. It may not even need to be all that much of a departure from the current entities. The IPRC (I hate the World Series Rugby name) could be a solid alternative. Ideal timezones, more local content, more opportunity for local players and a move into a developing market with huge economic growth forecast.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The NRC has standard points scoring.



Yup. The game as a whole is badly run. There's been the odd few good years but they are the exception in aussie rugby.

TBF, the ARU has been wedged on Super Rugby five years at a time. Time is up though now.

Maybe it can be morphed into a shorter champions league style cup and survive, but the bulk of the season needs to be competition in our own timezone - marketed and promoted.

The game is not run as a business. At all. Particularly the professional wing. And that needs to change. The whole orientation of how it operates needs to shift to one where we need to need much more robust commercial perspective. From the bottom up. grassroots development and all. We need to look at expanding our reach in schools and the community by viewing those we engage not as participants but as customers and build up from there.

 

[half]

The game is not run as a business. At all. Particularly the professional wing. And that needs to change. The whole orientation of how it operates needs to shift to one where we need to need much more robust commercial perspective. From the bottom up. grassroots development and all. We need to look at expanding our reach in schools and the community by viewing those we engage not as participants but as customers and build up from there.

As part of that process we need to accept that """tick the box compliance """ is just that and while it helps with government grants etc it masks mega problems and so many people will defend rugby's admins if we compare their outcomes with what other codes do.

I recall having huge arguments with rugby folk and especially on this site about our effort on a government program aimed at getting primary school children into sport, I think around 2010 or 2012 but a while back. Rugby essentially did enough to tick the box to protect funding and be seen to do the right thing.

When challenged by people like myself many nay almost everybody defended rugby admins claiming we have done the same.

This is a very small example but to me it shows as a community we need to embrace change and look to what has the best probability of working. Rather than wishful thinking about what we want to happen. Also get the chip off our shoulder when rugby admins do poorly and admit it.

Its difficult to believe but in the 60's rugby was the NSW public schools winter sport. We have been miss managed for decades but as other codes get their act together it is now affecting us.

 

[Braveheart81]

The problem with the revenue the competition generates is 1) it's minimal

The four Australian Super Rugby teams are probably working with a budget of somewhere between 65 and 85m a year from the revenue they generate and their share of the broadcast revenue. That is hardly minimal.

 

[Joe King]

I think the Waratahs and Reds are entrenched enough as club/franchise teams that if we went the domestic route it'd be better to keep them as they are. Along with the Brumbies, Rebels and Force they would form the basis of a new national competition. They haven't been state rep teams for a long time now.

And just because you have a NSW (or Sydney) Waratahs doesn't mean you can't also have a separate West Sydney or Newcastle team. Same with the Reds and another Brisbane or QLD team. Nor does it stop you from having state rep teams.

I may be trying to have my cake and eat it too, but perhaps if the NRC teams included a Sydney Waratahs and Brisbane Reds, or even just Waratahs and Reds, then you might keep the current fans of those teams from Super Rugby, but distinguish them enough to still have a NSW Waratahs and Qld Reds rep team formed to play a SoO type match at some point.

 

[wamberal]

Yes those demographic changes have hurt rugby, but it is the system that has allowed that to happen. That system is Super rugby. Why change when the gravy train cheque is forever in the post. Yes there has been some headway in the last couple of years purely because the whole thing is collapsing. None of those changes have come from genuine desire for change.

A couple of points. First, professionalism in our game, which came just in time to save our elite player base from being enticed to league during the "Super League" wars (remember that?) changed everything. We had to move quickly, and Super 8 or whatever it was, came along.


Secondly, in its early days, and for a very long time thereafter, Super Rugby was actually a pretty popular (and pretty remunerative) entity.


If anybody was calling for alternatives, I do not remember. Maybe my memory is faulty.


I would argue that what has been happening in Australian rugby is simply a playing out of Darwin's theory. It looked as though we had a chance of breaking through into the big time when we hosted the World Cup, but we fumbled the ball. Again, I do not think that Super Rugby was either the cause, or even much of a contributor to that.


I would say that the two biggest mistakes that have been made were firstly, JON boasting that rugby would overtake league in popularity in Australia (thus alienating a large potential viewership) and then of course the failure of the ARC.


Far from being a hindrance to our game, Super Rugby actually saved it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The four Australian Super Rugby teams are probably working with a budget of somewhere between 65 and 85m a year from the revenue they generate and their share of the broadcast revenue. That is hardly minimal.

It's $55m a year. And they aren't splitting that four ways. It goes toward the overall operation of the Union. They receive a share.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's $55m a year. And they aren't splitting that four ways. It goes toward the overall operation of the Union. They receive a share.

That is the broadcasting agreement which includes the Wallabies.

The Waratahs have operated with revenue of $17.7m in 2016 (or which $6m was the ARU distribution). The QRU doesn't have a separate report just for the Reds but the whole organisation had $24m of revenue. If you approximated the same ratio as the Waratahs made up of the total revenue for NSWRU it would be about $19m revenue generated by the Reds.

 

[hoggy]

A couple of points. First, professionalism in our game, which came just in time to save our elite player base from being enticed to league during the "Super League" wars (remember that?) changed everything. We had to move quickly, and Super 8 or whatever it was, came along.

Yes the code had to move quickly but it took the first offer of the rank supplied by a Pay TV company that gave it exclusive rights over the game. Which goes against the number one rule in business


Secondly, in its early days, and for a very long time thereafter, Super Rugby was actually a pretty popular (and pretty remunerative) entity.

I agree with this in the early days the competition was popular


If anybody was calling for alternatives, I do not remember. Maybe my memory is faulty.

I agree everyone was happy, but very quickly the drumbeats of expansion were beating, (expand or die) yet the biggest issue was increased revenue always came in the from of expansion. Not the product increasing in value.


I would argue that what has been happening in Australian rugby is simply a playing out of Darwin's theory. It looked as though we had a chance of breaking through into the big time when we hosted the World Cup, but we fumbled the ball. Again, I do not think that Super Rugby was either the cause, or even much of a contributor to that.

Agreed we fumbled the ball, but sorry Super rugby has, is and will be(if it survives) the main driver of growth of the game here domestically, with that i cannot see how it then somehow gets a leave pass considering the mess we are in.


I would say that the two biggest mistakes that have been made were firstly, JON boasting that rugby would overtake league in popularity in Australia (thus alienating a large potential viewership) and then of course the failure of the ARC.

These I agree with, however i do not think they are the two biggest.


Far from being a hindrance to our game, Super Rugby actually saved it.

Sorry I think a massive part of the problem facing the game is due to Super rugby.