Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

The big flaw in this is that very few kids watch super rugby (which I assume is what you mean by domestic professional rugby). Th crowds are abysmal and the last time I went, most of the dwindling band were middle aged.

To be fair, once these kids hit 28 then, technically, they're middle aged …!

 

[Mr Wobbly]

To be fair, once these these kids hit 28 then, technically, they're middle aged …!
View attachment 10157

Well, as someone that isn't far off turning 57 (yes, male, pale, and stale), I find that infographic to be offensive. The government should ban all offensive infographics!

Also, average life expectancy for an Aussie male is about 82.5. So middle age = early 40s. You don't see too many 112 year olds walking around.

 

[Quick Hands]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...d/news-story/e193a8abe56ba0fe118c8442a0286036

Alan's back from holidays in the Australian, not so much going at Castle more the current board, basically saying they should resign, so she can start a fresh.

Don't agree with everything he says, but we need voices like him to speak out, or nothing will ever change.

Indeed. Voices of dissent in any society or group are healthy and often lead to relflection and positive change.

 

[kiap]

Well, as someone that isn't far off turning 57 (yes, male, pale, and stale), I find that infographic to be offensive. The government should ban all offensive infographics!

Also, average life expectancy for an Aussie male is about 82.5. So middle age = early 40s. You don't see too many 112 year olds walking around.

Don't worry, I'm offended by it myself.

But facts is facts!

 

[Braveheart81]

The big flaw in this is that very few kids watch super rugby (which I assume is what you mean by domestic professional rugby). Th crowds are abysmal and the last time I went, most of the dwindling band were middle aged.

They still follow the Wallabies, but you're overestimating the influence/appeal of super rugby on the young. Even my son's mates (who all play rugby) are more likely to follow NRL or AFL or Shute Shield than they are super rugby.

Even on these threads, many of the match threads struggled to make it to 4 pages, where a couple of years ago they would have run to 20.

This is a good point, do kids really look up-to the Wallabies, yes they generate the press but to an older market, what is the saying white/male and stale.

I agree, I think the Super rugby simply does not register on peoples radar, super rugby does not generate interest in the game outside of kids that were already in the so called family.

The main point I was making here is that sport is increasing becoming more elite at younger ages and participation drops away in the teenage years across all sports by the more social type players.

Your kids are into rugby because you've got them into it, but a lot of the kids that remain playing rugby in the older age groups do so because they are motivated to chase professional opportunities later.

If those professional opportunities cease to exist here do those kids keep playing rugby or do they look to another sport where they can see a pathway?

We are unbelievably reliant on parents who are rugby fans getting their kids into rugby because left to choose the kids are far more likely to be exposed to AFL etc. due to their reach. We are also very reliant on NZ and PI immigration to keep rugby alive. At all levels of the game they are strong and are bolstering our numbers.

If you want talented teenage sportspeople playing rugby they need to see that there is a professional pathway there, otherwise they will increasingly go to other sports.

I think the grassroots withers into little more than a social sport very quickly if you lose the professional side of the game here.

 

[barbarian]

Don't agree with everything he says, but we need voices like him to speak out, or nothing will ever change.

I can't agree with you there Hoggy. If the bloke fell of the face of the earth tomorrow I think the game would be much better for it.

'Voices like him' only feed the pale/male/stale thing that other posters rant about. He epitomises the 'let's go back to the 1980s' mindset that only holds the game back.

If you want someone to throw bombs at the ARU then fine, that's certainly something we need. But I'd much rather those bombs be thrown by Wayne Smith or anyone with half a brain rather than AJ.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

If you want talented teenage sportspeople playing rugby they need to see that there is a professional pathway there, otherwise they will increasingly go to other sports.

I think the grassroots withers into little more than a social sport very quickly if you lose the professional side of the game here.

But nobody has ever suggested doing anything which removed domestic professional rugby. On the contrary, many of us are advocating for an enhanced domestic professional rugby set-up. One of the reasons for my advocacy is to solve the issues to which you allude.

A domestic league gives kids a team to follow every week, in stark contrast to a team which is invisible for chunks of a season and which is almost impossible to follow on a week to week basis. I can't think of any professional competition in any sport which would allow it's teams to be absent from it's local area for weeks at a time.

A domestic league provides a professional pathway - and a better pathway than the current one. There's already a considerable departure from super rugby to other leagues. Money is absolutely a factor in that, but don't underestimate the impact of the travel burden - particularly on married players with a young family.

As I'm sure that you are aware, RA and SANZAAR actually decreased by 20% the professional opportunities in Australia. Any domestic league will correct this disastrous decision and provide something far better.

I just don't accept the idea that an economy the size of Australia can't support a domestic professional rugby competition. I have no real confidence in the current administration to execute the process, but the concept itself is very achievable.

Resistance to change is a natural human emotion and sport is no acception. Much of this resistance is often caused by fear of new concepts and fear of failure. Nobody was sure that super rugby would work when it first arrived. It was a considerable gamble at the time. It was able to provide a good product for its time, but more importantly it filled a void - never before in Australia had we had access to any elite rugby on a week to week basis. Over time though, its shortcomings have been exposed - partially through unwise decisions (super 18), but also because of structure issues - each of the partners have different and at times conflicting needs and objectives and most importantly IMO the very nature of the competition as a intercontiental, multi-time zone product make it quite unsuited to the modern, professional, elite sports market.

I understand the desire to cling onto something which was once worth clinging on to. But, it's time to let it go and move to something more attuned to our needs and the needs of a modern elite professional sporting competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

A domestic league gives kids a team to follow every week, in stark contrast to a team which is invisible for chunks of a season and which is almost impossible to follow on a week to week basis. I can't think of any professional competition in any sport which would allow it's teams to be absent from it's local area for weeks at a time.

A domestic league provides a professional pathway - and a better pathway than the current one. There's already a considerable departure from super rugby to other leagues. Money is absolutely a factor in that, but don't underestimate the impact of the travel burden - particularly on married players with a young family.

I'm all for it if there is enough financial backing.

I do not think any plan that involves a massively decreased spend per player is going to work though.

If it ends up being NRC level I don't think you get a good following regardless of being able to watch your team every week. I also don't think the majority of our Super Rugby level players are going to hang around if the financial opportunities contract substantially.

It's a tough situation. I'd love to see significant private equity come into the game. It really needs it. We need people willing to spend a substantial amount of money (i.e. lose money) to try and grow the professional game here.

The Force have managed really good crowds for their games this year. If we saw the financials of the advertising spend I doubt it would be pretty and thinking that this is possible for the other Australian teams or the NRC is pretty far fetched. It shows though that if you are willing to throw money at it, you can generate crowds.

 

[hoggy]

I can't agree with you there Hoggy. If the bloke fell of the face of the earth tomorrow I think the game would be much better for it.

'Voices like him' only feed the pale/male/stale thing that other posters rant about. He epitomises the 'let's go back to the 1980s' mindset that only holds the game back.

If you want someone to throw bombs at the ARU then fine, that's certainly something we need. But I'd much rather those bombs be thrown by Wayne Smith or anyone with half a brain rather than AJ.
.

I know what you mean regards Alan Jones, he's the king of pushing agendas. But it is clear he has a genuine love of rugby.

What it highlights is the issue of lack of alternatives when discussing the game. Pretty much being owned by a Pay TV company, there is such a limited avenue regards feedback that isn't compromised or tainted by those so called vested interests.

Yes Wayne Smith is great but we need more, so many have one eye on there pay check when making comments.

Yet compare this to AFL/NRL, both have vigorous social commentary around the game, things just don't get brushed under the carpet.

 

[barbarian]

Yes Wayne Smith is great but we need more, so many have one eye on there pay check when making comments.

Yet compare this to AFL/NRL, both have vigorous social commentary around the game, things just don't get brushed under the carpet.

I disagree. Who has 'one eye on the paycheck'? Name some names, please. OK I get the Fox guys are never super critical but I don't really mind that, they are there to promote the game.

The print journos I think all do a pretty good job balancing the need for game/player coverage and general game journalism.

Do you follow the AFL and NRL media? There are huge issues going on in both codes around the leagues' own media outlets (nrl.com and AFL house) dominating coverage and white-washing major issues.

Those codes have a very similar debate to ours, on a larger scale. A faction who want to talk up the game and be positive, and a faction who want to address the flaws of the game and be critical. Those two factions are going at each other on a daily basis, and rugby IMO is no different.
.

 

[wamberal]

The last print journalist that I can remember being unrelentingly critical of Australian rugby was Growden.


It would be nice to read or hear some well balanced, knowledgeable, reporting, for a change, instead of the pap we get most of the time. But no more Growdens, please.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm all for it if there is enough financial backing.

I do not think any plan that involves a massively decreased spend per player is going to work though.

If it ends up being NRC level I don't think you get a good following regardless of being able to watch your team every week. I also don't think the majority of our Super Rugby level players are going to hang around if the financial opportunities contract substantially.

It's a tough situation. I'd love to see significant private equity come into the game. It really needs it. We need people willing to spend a substantial amount of money (i.e. lose money) to try and grow the professional game here.

The Force have managed really good crowds for their games this year. If we saw the financials of the advertising spend I doubt it would be pretty and thinking that this is possible for the other Australian teams or the NRC is pretty far fetched. It shows though that if you are willing to throw money at it, you can generate crowds.

I think that everyone appreciates that professional athletes need to be paid an approriate wage or they'll go elsewhere, so yes, there would need to be enough financial backing.

I suspect that private money is more likely in a domestic competition with guaranteed exposure in the best timeslots every week for 18 weeks.

To get people to watch professional sport you need about three things: standard of play is high, fans are able to identify with the clubs and games need to be played at a time when the maximum number of fans can either go to the game or watch on TV.

 

[Bandar]

To get people to watch professional sport you need about three things: standard of play is high, fans are able to identify with the clubs and games need to be played at a time when the maximum number of fans can either go to the game or watch on TV.

Not just a high standard of play but also an unknown outcome. In fact I think you can have a lower standard of play if the outcome is not a foregone conclusion like we have now with the AB in the rugby championship or the Crusaders in Super Rugby

 

[half]

Let me start this post with an apology to those in say the “”status que”” who I have termed apologist or similar names often worst. Especially outside this forum I can be quite vocal, and in some rugby circles I am considered a serial pest I think.

That said I would argue I have been right. However much has changed recently, with the 9 / Fairfax merger, arguably the media group who over decades has supported rugby the most IMO Fairfax is now owned by a commercial FTA league network.

I no longer think, there is any sensible or logical argument for the continuation of Super Rugby. We essentially rely on SA & European TV ratings which to a considerable extent rely on SA remaining in Super Rugby and as each year passes that looks long term to be more a wish.

The reasons for a local domestic competition have been well explained by a number of posters, i.e. youth development, increasing juniors, pathways etc.

IMO arguably the biggest change in the sporting environment is FTA TV is declining and streaming is becoming the new king. Technical issues aside Optus would have broadcast most of the world cup instead of SBS.

In Australia streaming services like Bar TV are being used in many clubs and pubs especially in regional areas. Bar broadcast many sports but the NRL second division i.e. say Newtown V North Sydney are getting considerable views. Basketball has largely rebuilt itself on streaming, soccer’s say tier two games are streamed today and received considerable views.

IMO the time has come to analyse where we are, what resources we have, the future of broadcasting, and where the young watch.

Resources are near nothing, youtube / facebook / amazon are common names but Twitch/ Bar TV etc are their.

For discussion by GGRF, lets take it as a given super rugby is no longer in Australia’s interest in anything like it current format. Lets also take as a given FTA TV even if we could get on will not save us.

To add to my repeated posts, I want private capital to fund and run a competition licenceed to them by RA. I suggest this competition be streamed at relatively low cost to stream.

Assume, European, Australian, New Zealand, South African, and other countries ratings.

Assume, two million fans willing to pay $ 50.00 for a year’s subscription, that’s $ 100 million dollars. Based on 10 teams over 18 rounds that’s 162 games plus finals that’s say 170 games @ $ 300, 000 broadcast costs leaves roughly 50 million. BTE $ 50.00 divided by 170 games is $ 0.294 cents per game and can be viewed anywhere from the home to out at sea on a ship.

As an aside the recent world cup, broke TV rating records even allowing for a 40% drop in US ratings. BUT BIT BUT streaming of the world cup smashed all other streaming records.

Steady Eddie of AFL and game show fame has a broadcast company that does outside broadcasts and his company does a lot of work for sports. Meaning I guess we don’t need FTA or Fox to do the technical side of broadcasting. I have read that Eddies company cost about $ 250, 000 a game my other $ 50, 000 was the cost of the panel and other costs.

My solution, private capital and either facebook, youtube but for me personally Twitch streaming service as the broadcaster.

 

[sunnyboys]

Bandar - i couldnt agree more! Some of the issues we see in Super Rugby like dominance by NZ can be traced back to them concentrating talent that was once spread across the top NPC sides into just 5 Super Rugby teams. Now they have realised that the NZ derbies have an intensity too close to test rugby and its too taxing on players.

perhaps taking a step back, and giving other requirements such as predictability of outcome a chance could improve fan engagement.

it is after all, the reason NRL and AFL have talent equalisation measures like player mobility, salary caps and drafts. sure these comps could have a few teams with a concentration of top players, and you would see some games played at a higher standard, but at what cost??

 

[cyclopath]

Let me start this post with an apology to those in say the “”status que”” who I have termed apologist or similar names often worst. Especially outside this forum I can be quite vocal, and in some rugby circles I am considered a serial pest I think.

That said I would argue I have been right. However much has changed recently, with the 9 / Fairfax merger, arguably the media group who over decades has supported rugby the most IMO Fairfax is now owned by a commercial FTA league network.

I no longer think, there is any sensible or logical argument for the continuation of Super Rugby. We essentially rely on SA & European TV ratings which to a considerable extent rely on SA remaining in Super Rugby and as each year passes that looks long term to be more a wish.

The reasons for a local domestic competition have been well explained by a number of posters, i.e. youth development, increasing juniors, pathways etc.

IMO arguably the biggest change in the sporting environment is FTA TV is declining and streaming is becoming the new king. Technical issues aside Optus would have broadcast most of the world cup instead of SBS.

In Australia streaming services like Bar TV are being used in many clubs and pubs especially in regional areas. Bar broadcast many sports but the NRL second division i.e. say Newtown V North Sydney are getting considerable views. Basketball has largely rebuilt itself on streaming, soccer’s say tier two games are streamed today and received considerable views.

IMO the time has come to analyse where we are, what resources we have, the future of broadcasting, and where the young watch.

Resources are near nothing, youtube / facebook / amazon are common names but Twitch/ Bar TV etc are their.

For discussion by GGRF, lets take it as a given super rugby is no longer in Australia’s interest in anything like it current format. Lets also take as a given FTA TV even if we could get on will not save us.

To add to my repeated posts, I want private capital to fund and run a competition licenceed to them by RA. I suggest this competition be streamed at relatively low cost to stream.

Assume, European, Australian, New Zealand, South African, and other countries ratings.

Assume, two million fans willing to pay $ 50.00 for a year’s subscription, that’s $ 100 million dollars. Based on 10 teams over 18 rounds that’s 162 games plus finals that’s say 170 games @ $ 300, 000 broadcast costs leaves roughly 50 million. BTE $ 50.00 divided by 170 games is $ 0.294 cents per game and can be viewed anywhere from the home to out at sea on a ship.

As an aside the recent world cup, broke TV rating records even allowing for a 40% drop in US ratings. BUT BIT BUT streaming of the world cup smashed all other streaming records.

Steady Eddie of AFL and game show fame has a broadcast company that does outside broadcasts and his company does a lot of work for sports. Meaning I guess we don’t need FTA or Fox to do the technical side of broadcasting. I have read that Eddies company cost about $ 250, 000 a game my other $ 50, 000 was the cost of the panel and other costs.

My solution, private capital and either facebook, youtube but for me personally Twitch streaming service as the broadcaster.

Hate to be a pedant, but your maths is off.
10 teams = 5 games / round. 18 Rounds = 90 games + semi-finals and final = 93 games. Obviously, the cost / game is still cheap.

 

[Braveheart81]

Assume, European, Australian, New Zealand, South African, and other countries ratings.

Assume, two million fans willing to pay $ 50.00 for a year’s subscription, that’s $ 100 million dollars.

This sounds like an unbelievably wildly optimistic assumption.

 

[Rebels3]

This sounds like an unbelievably wildly optimistic assumption.

Essentially 1 in every 10 people would be that engaged with Rugby they would be willing to cough up $50 ea.

Would be more like 20,000 subscribers.

To put it in perspective Netflix only has around 3 million subscribers in Australia.

 

[half]

Hate to be a pedant, but your maths is off.
10 teams = 5 games / round. 18 Rounds = 90 games + semi-finals and final = 93 games. Obviously, the cost / game is still cheap.

This sounds like an unbelievably wildly optimistic assumption.

Essentially 1 in every 10 people would be that engaged with Rugby they would be willing to cough up $50 ea.

Would be more like 20,000 subscribers.

To put it in perspective Netflix only has around 3 million subscribers in Australia.

cyclopath

My bad, also reduces broadcast costs by half as well.

BH & Rebel

My subscription number of 2 million, OK Europe, USA, Asia, Australia, NZ, SA.

With the lower cost as only 90 games we can charge $ 35.00 for a years subscription.

 

[Braveheart81]

cyclopath

My bad, also reduces broadcast costs by half as well.

BH & Rebel

My subscription number of 2 million, OK Europe, USA, Asia, Australia, NZ, SA.

With the lower cost as only 90 games we can charge $ 35.00 for a years subscription.

Who is going to sign up to that outside of Australia? There is no shortage of rugby to watch.

You would essentially be needing to get all the viewers who currently watch Super Rugby because it is included in whatever TV package they have to pay an additional cost to watch a competition that is vastly inferior in quality.

Let me start this post with an apology to those in say the “”status que”” who I have termed apologist or similar names often worst. Especially outside this forum I can be quite vocal, and in some rugby circles I am considered a serial pest I think.

I know I am well and truly in your sights with this sort of comment.

I don't think anyone thinks the status quo is ideal or necessarily wants it to continue.

Raising issues with suggested alternatives is not suggesting that what we have currently is working or is the best way forward.

If we don't critically discuss issues we may as well just say that the best way forward is to have a well funded competition of 10 Australian teams that are privately owned by richlisters that are willing to plough money into it, they'll sign all our best players on great contracts, spend huge money on advertising and get 25,000+ people to every game and pay to put it on FTA.

Problem solved. Rugby Australia can thank us later.