Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

50m viewers for the year, of which we contributed around 5m
10% of the viewers and we get 1/3 of the money (approx obviously). It's a great deal for us - while that TV money is there.

As per your rider, while that money is there.

Although the much-touted dividend for community rugby is also yet to play out.

However:

• There is no way RA will get 1/3 of a new TV deal after being shrunk to 4 teams. More like a quarter at best.

• It is imperative for RA to find a way to regain viewers. Australia needs more local control over the local product.

• The competition as whole has shrunk by 3 teams to 15. Meanwhile NZ are talking about cutting the comp further to 14 teams.

• South Africa just might reduce that even further.

Does the overall deal go up?

Or down?

Those viewing figures posted above really do show why RA is so reluctant to leave Super Rugby though, for all the flaws in that stance.

I'd argue that Super Rugby and its TV deals by their nature, have been a large part of the erosion of public interest in Aus pro rugby.

A poisoned chalice for a decade and more. Great revenue up front but with an increasing trailing cost. There comes a point where it won't be viable for all partners and without a shake up I think Australia is at that point now.

For RA to have a hope of turning the figures around within Sanzaar – via more local control over Aus pro games – this needs closed conferences, IMO.

 

[Rebels3]

You are all looking at this far to simplistic. Numbers/reach/economy/impressions etc. all dictate its a far more detailed metric than 50% of this -10% of that etc. For instance, and not being condescending here, 10 SAF viewers is probably worth 4/5 Aussie viewers, maybe less than that. All purely on disposable income, then you have to weigh up the desire for companies to associate their name with the brand etc, cost of running a game day event, etc.

South Africa we all understand contributes the most but i don't think the discrepancy is as great as you'd think.

 

[sunnyboys]

Totally agree on closed conferences - SANZAAR should decide the playing window - and each country designs its own comp within that window - only want 4 teams go for it... want 8 go for it.

SANZAAR countries playing each other should kick in for a Southern Hem Provincial Championship - top 2 from each country from previous year (6 in total) played in 2, 3 team pools (each pool has one team from each country). 3 weekends of standalone games to get through those, these would interspersed throughout the national comps - with the GF played by top of each pool the weekend after the GF for national comps.

if you have 8 teams - full home and away is 14 weeks + 4 weeks for SHPC. 18 weeks. in 2018 that would have been feb 17th to June 15th. 2 weeks off before inbound NH tests under new world rugby calendar.

oZ could use reds, tahs, ponies, rebels, force, promote Drua, get a japanese club, western sydney team, etc.... or go for NRC style teams.

if i was running SA or NZ i'd schedule currie cup and NPC at those times as my comps and tap back into the old school rivalries and history.

 

[Rebels3]

The biggest issue if SAF left is what would that mean to the European money, removing the SAF timezone

 

[half]

From kiap post 12288
Ratings

Aust ==== 4.236 million
NZ ===== 10.352 million
SA ===== 26.625 million
Arg ===== 0.608 million
Jap ===== 0.739 million
Eup ===== 7.500 million

Totalling ====== 50.06 million
Less SA & Eup == 34.125 million

Leaving 15.935 million with Jap & Arg rating lucky to pay for the air fares.

Meaning Australian rugby is entirely dependent on SA remaining in Super Rugby.

Hoggy’s post 12296 highlighted the thoughts of many in SA.
Hoggy’s link repeated http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/super-rugby-has-lost-its-magic

So all those arguing for Super Rugby, and defending it, and insisting on almost having a gilt edge guarantee before even considering changing. What will happen if SA pull the pin, nay what will happen when SA pull the pin and move to Europe.

It will be more money, same time zones, and get more soft influence for the SA gov in Europe. They will then buy Australia, NZ & PI players at will as will European clubs.

The above rating to me scream and yell get working on plan "B" tonight and keep working on it. By light years the most important thing IMO on RA's many issues to solve.

Here's your plan B. SA seem to have a bunch of voices calling for the move north. While some seem to think joining the 6N's is possible it's not. So them competing against us on the international stage isn't likely to change any time soon. So the RC should remain at it's current four. But professionally in the tier below let them go north.

A bit of a hard luck story. But the Jaguares can either look to find a place in Europe for themselves (possibly based out of Spain) or disband it and focus on the emerging Sth American league and select players from Europe. Sanction the IPRC and encourage Japan to link up with it in whatever form they prefer. This would leave our current 4 and NZ's 5. Add in a combined PI squad based either here or in Fiji for 10 total. Play each other twice for 18 rounds home and away. NZ will just have to suck it up on the derbies.

Put into play plans to kink up with the IPRC to run a Champions Cup structure or some such in the future and look to involve teams from the MLR and Sth Am league in time.

I have my own thoughts on what plan "B" is.

As I have mentioned a few times my plan "B" is we lack capital, business & government contacts, business savvy generally, and sponsorship / advertisers.

Meaning as I see it, creating a competition within Australia, established by RA and licensed out to private investors who hopefully combined have these skills and the capital to establish and maintain the competition.

 

[kiap]

You are all looking at this far to simplistic. Numbers/reach/economy/impressions etc. all dictate its a far more detailed metric than 50% of this -10% of that etc.

It is simplistic, but I'd suggest people here are aware of that.

The bottom line, of course, is dollars but the fully detailed financial figures are not publicly available.

It's a case of using what proxies are available and talking in round numbers.

For instance, and not being condescending here, 10 SAF viewers is probably worth 4/5 Aussie viewers maybe less than that. All purely on disposable income,

That's not as clear-cut for South Africa as you might think because the average disposable income for the country does not have much bearing on TV rugby subscribers.

I could make an estimate – and have done so in the past to come up with a much closer ratio than yours – however it is still only an estimate.

And so is yours.

then you have to weigh up the desire for companies to associate their name with the brand etc, cost of running a game day event, etc.

South Africa we all understand contributes the most but i don't think the discrepancy is as great as you'd think.

We're talking talking about TV money here. The contribution from each TV market is more or less fixed five years in advance.

Obviously the impact (up or down) of ratings within those markets doesn't hit Sanzaar within that span. The hit will be on the next deal.

The unfortunate thing for Australia is the cumulative viewers for our market are trending lower. Unless that is turned around, RA's cut of the next deal (if there is one) will only be down.

 

[barbarian]

Unless that is turned around, RA's cut of the next deal (if there is one) will only be down.

Do you know how SANZAAR determine the split of TV revenue? I'd be interested if anyone did, or if it was just an even split among all parties, or if there was some sort of formula they use to determine it.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you know how SANZAAR determine the split of TV revenue? I'd be interested if anyone did, or if it was just an even split among all parties, or if there was some sort of formula they use to determine it.
.

When we added a 5th team it moved to an even split because all three parties had 5 teams. Prior to that we had a smaller share.

I'm not sure what happened when we went to Super 18. I don't think there was any change in allocation when it went back down to 15 teams this year though as it was still during the current agreement.

 

[Lindommer]

The lack of a third tier prior to the ARC/NRC also affected our share. IIRC it was one reason for getting the third tier up, NZ and SAf held it against us in one of the earlier carve-ups.

 

[Strewthcobber]

2016 revenue - the difference is mainly revenue from Currie Cup/ITM IIRC

(2016 was the England tour here too)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11847059

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I find this stance so bizarre.



It's a game of rugby. I go to Waratahs games because I support the team. I prefer it to Shute Shield games because the standard is much higher.



I'm not taking a political position by attending a sporting event. I agree Rugby Australia needs to make some changes and Super Rugby needs to be restructured/renamed. Whatever we end up with is still going to be rugby matches and will probably involve a lot of the same teams.



Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I think people are kidding themselves if they think a different competition is going to attract new fans in droves.

Fair enough if you feel that is bizarre but that is because you and others I feel have missed the point I was making here.

Many have a negative attitude towards Super Rugby as don't feel it is a well run competition and just feel jaded by the whole thing and fiasco that has been Super Rugby and cutting the force and the challenges Super Rugby still pose and with no real obvious commitment to make major changes to fix broader issues. Crowd figures don't lie so you might call a lot of those former fans turning away bizarre.

It is not really a political position but rather my point being the product/competition is not as good as it could be, past its use by date and just lost my interest and would take a lot to get it back as not just about having a team but having a competition it is played in that is appealing. There was no politics in that message - I was only going further to reason to state I believe the product/competition is not as good as it could be because hijacked by meeting NZ/All black interests but it could well be other reasons (SANZAAR incompetent and Rugby Australia as well for example) but whatever is the real reason that is not important. But rather the crux of the mater yes I find it difficult to support a competition that feels is not well run or designed to meet fans needs like myself and yes past events has further alienated me and will make it harder for me to get back to supporting super rugby unless more appealing, better designed rebranded competition offering more local quality product/content on offer etc etc....

 

[Quick Hands]

Fair enough if you feel that is bizarre but that is because you and others I feel have missed the point I was making here.

Many have a negative attitude towards Super Rugby as don't feel it is a well run competition and just feel jaded by the whole thing and fiasco that has been Super Rugby and cutting the force and the challenges Super Rugby still pose and with no real obvious commitment to make major changes to fix broader issues. Crowd figures don't lie so you might call a lot of those former fans turning away bizarre.

It is not really a political position but rather my point being the product/competition is not as good as it could be, past its use by date and just lost my interest and would take a lot to get it back as not just about having a team but having a competition it is played in that is appealing. There was no politics in that message - I was only going further to reason to state I believe the product/competition is not as good as it could be because hijacked by meeting NZ/All black interests but it could well be other reasons (SANZAAR incompetent and Rugby Australia as well for example) but whatever is the real reason that is not important. But rather the crux of the mater yes I find it difficult to support a competition that feels is not well run or designed to meet fans needs like myself and yes past events has further alienated me and will make it harder for me to get back to supporting super rugby unless more appealing, better designed rebranded competition offering more local quality product/content on offer etc etc..

To reinforce your point, after winning a close quarter final before a small crowd, the Waratahs immediately jetted off across 7 or 8 time zones to play their semi-final in the early hours of Sunday morning. This is nuts. This has now become a competition set up to fail in terms of growing or even maintaining local interest amongst all but the most rusted on of fanatics.

 

[KevinO]

The biggest issue if SAF left is what would that mean to the European money, removing the SAF timezone

Wrong, SA games clash with local content in UK and Ireland. Those games are not popular against Premiership rugby and soccer and pro 14.

Aus and NZ games attract more viewers as no other sport is on.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

Wrong, SA games clash with local content in UK and Ireland. Those games are not popular against Premiership rugby and soccer and pro 14.

Aus and NZ games attract more viewers as no other sport is on.

I've seen that stated before and it sorta makes anecdotal sense.

It might've even been in an earlier post on the subject by your good self, I dunno.

But, perchance, do you have any ratings data from up north that draws that picture?

 

[kiap]

To reinforce your point, after winning a close quarter final before a small crowd, the Waratahs immediately jetted off across 7 or 8 time zones to play their semi-final in the early hours of Sunday morning. This is nuts. This has now become a competition set up to fail in terms of growing or even maintaining local interest amongst all but the most rusted on of fanatics.

Yeah, the Super season is very disjointed and disrupted for fans.

I suppose the jet setting timezones are somewhat more understandable in the finals series … on the basis that South Africa remains in the comp and there's gotta be some intercontinental matches played.

But take the 2018 season of 19 rounds - 2 for byes + 3 for playoffs = 20 weeks.

How about if ten weeks (the first 10 weeks straight) were guaranteed for Australia (or in tweaked versions for NZ and SA) to include:

1. a prime time game every Friday night,
2. a prime time game every Saturday night, and
3. one more weekend match in a nice watchable timeslot on the Saturday or Sunday?

That'd be longer than the Mitre-10 or NRC regular season. Every second weekend, regular as clockwork, the Oz franchises get a home game to build their regular supporter base and team campaign.

I think a watchable, reliable schedule like that is needed to regain some lost ground in Oz.

After that first phase, all Super teams would be streamed into competing for either a Super Champions Cup or Super Challenge Cup depending on their earlier performance. Further home and away games focusing on overseas opposition followed by knockouts for the titles.

 

[Quick Hands]

How about if ten weeks (the first 10 weeks straight) were guaranteed for Australia (or in tweaked versions for NZ and SA) to include:

1. a prime time game every Friday night,
2. a prime time game every Saturday night, and
3. one more weekend match in a nice watchable timeslot on the Saturday or Sunday?

Absolutely correct. I've advocated this earlier in the thread. Have a 6 team Aussie competition means a 10 week home and away season followed by a final between 1st and 2nd perhaps. This guarrantees a 7.30pm game every Friday and Saturday night plus a Sunday afternoon game for 10 weeks. Quite appealing for TV I'd have thought. I can't imagine Foxtel executives would be that pleased with the lack of games currently played in those timeslots.

This competition to lead into the June series against NH teams. Immediately after this a Champions league structure - say 2 teams from Aus and SA, 3 from NZ and one from Argentina. All over before TRC begins.

 

[Bandar]

Absolutely correct. I've advocated this earlier in the thread. Have a 6 team Aussie competition means a 10 week home and away season followed by a final between 1st and 2nd perhaps. This guarrantees a 7.30pm game every Friday and Saturday night plus a Sunday afternoon game for 10 weeks. Quite appealing for TV I'd have thought. I can't imagine Foxtel executives would be that pleased with the lack of games currently played in those timeslots.

This competition to lead into the June series against NH teams. Immediately after this a Champions league structure - say 2 teams from Aus and SA, 3 from NZ and one from Argentina. All over before TRC begins.

It just makes too much sense for our powers that be to adopt it though...

 

[hoggy]

Absolutely correct. I've advocated this earlier in the thread. Have a 6 team Aussie competition means a 10 week home and away season followed by a final between 1st and 2nd perhaps. This guarrantees a 7.30pm game every Friday and Saturday night plus a Sunday afternoon game for 10 weeks. Quite appealing for TV I'd have thought. I can't imagine Foxtel executives would be that pleased with the lack of games currently played in those timeslots.

This competition to lead into the June series against NH teams. Immediately after this a Champions league structure - say 2 teams from Aus and SA, 3 from NZ and one from Argentina. All over before TRC begins.

The issue that arises with that is viability of the teams. I agree that we have to go closed conferences, and 6 teams to start is the most logical step, but if your team does not make the finals then your season is only 10 matches long, I would argue that is not sustainable for running a professional team, or for those teams to be able to sustain or even grow a sufficient fan base

Yes closed conferences with a champions league style competition as well is the best way forward, but you will need more guaranteed content for each team to make it viable.

 

[barbarian]

Absolutely correct. I've advocated this earlier in the thread. Have a 6 team Aussie competition means a 10 week home and away season followed by a final between 1st and 2nd perhaps. This guarrantees a 7.30pm game every Friday and Saturday night plus a Sunday afternoon game for 10 weeks. Quite appealing for TV I'd have thought. I can't imagine Foxtel executives would be that pleased with the lack of games currently played in those timeslots.

This competition to lead into the June series against NH teams. Immediately after this a Champions league structure - say 2 teams from Aus and SA, 3 from NZ and one from Argentina. All over before TRC begins.

Let's dive into this concept a bit more then. Given we're talking 2020 here you have to assume the June internationals are being pushed back to July, so we have a clear timeline of Aussie Comp/Champions League/July Internationals/TRC.

I assume by 6 teams you are talking about the current four plus Force and Sunwolves. Fiji Drua could be a good addition too.

My one thought is do you think it would get a bit stale? Playing the same teams, watching the same teams, playing in a competition with low stakes? There is no trophy at the end, just a chance to play in the 'Champions League'.

I think it could help the top teams, for sure. There would definitely be interest in the Champions League once it starts. But would the lower teams supporters get along to the 'Challenge Cup' or whatever you call the 2nd tier league? I'm not sure.

So you might end up with the Tahs playing in front of 20k while the Brumbies play in front of 2k.

Not trying to appear overly critical, I like this idea. Just want to dive into it a bit more and work through the kinks.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

The issue that arises with that is viability of the teams. I agree that we have to go closed conferences, and 6 teams to start is the most logical step, but if your team does not make the finals then your season is only 10 matches long, I would argue that is not sustainable for running a professional team, or for those teams to be able to sustain or even grow a sufficient fan base

Yes closed conferences with a champions league style competition as well is the best way forward, but you will need more guaranteed content for each team to make it viable.

I agree with this. The finances around running a club with only 5 guaranteed home games would be pretty diabolical.

Local derbies are generally good for TV but it can't be ignored that a significant portion of the rugby supporter base are expats. The Rebels for example have often had their best crowds against NZ teams because those fans turn up to those games.

Change is needed but it is crystal clear that there is no option that is obviously the best way forward.