Where to for Super Rugby?

[ForceFan]

RA need to sit down and work out the MOST ACHIEVABLE model that is in the best interests of Australia and try to navigate towards that. It will then come down to negotiation, just like every other commercial situation in the real world. If it can't be negotiated with NZ satisfactorily then fuck em, go it alone.

RA and Australian Super Rugby franchises are broke so what negotiating power does Australia really have?
Without a significant level of PE - possibly from a number of sources - Australia has little to bring to the table in any TT negotiation.

Australia may have no choice but to go it alone for a couple of years as both RA and Australian rugby rebuild from the grassroots.

 

[hoggy]

I don't think it's in our best interest to reduce the amount of teams we currently have.....

And I don't think it's in our best interest not to partner with NZ, as the research has shown there's considerable interest here in their teams and they provide us with the highest quality opposition.

Isn't part of that interest kiwi expats, something like 500,000. Weren't the Blues the second most supported franchise in Aus.

 

[Derpus]

RA and Australian Super Rugby franchises are broke so what negotiating power does Australia really have?
Without a significant level of PE - possibly from a number of sources - Australia has little to bring to the table in any TT negotiation.

Australia may have no choice but to go it alone for a couple of years as both RA and Australian rugby rebuild from the grassroots.

Except 5 established teams with fan bases etc. NZ can go it alone sure, but it's a 5 team comp which is a bit silly long term. As WO has pointed out several times - there's really no space to expand NZ's number of domestic teams.

So they can either continue with Super Rugby Aotearoa, abolish their existing franchises and go with a beefed up Mitre 10 cup (which would be insane IMO) or join with Aus and have a 10 team comp.

As Reg points out - going it alone effectively means a return to semi-professionalism. Personally, i don't think Rugby will ever come back from that.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

A lot of people on here seem to be taking the approach that the comp(s) should have 'x' teams @ $'y' to run each of them therefore RA has to somehow or other come up with $'z' to make it viable. I think it's far more likely that RA (& NZR) are looking at it from the POV of having $'x' available to fund the comp(s) @ $'y' to run a team therefore the maximum number of teams they can field is 'z'.

The NZR-SkyTV deal, reportedly worth $NZ100Mn p.a., would have been based on annual domestic content of up to six AB tests, up to 36 Super Rugby matches, a similar number of M10 matches, & other content e.g. Women's & 7's. Obviously if S14 v2.0 doesn't happen Sky can't be held to that figure & if it comes down to say $NZ80Mn p.a. that then affects NZR's ability to fund the franchises it already has, let alone any extra.

RA's position is worse than NZR's as they don't even have a deal for S14 & no obvious alternative to taking whatever Fox offers for whatever comp(s) it wants to broadcast & hope it's enough to keep them afloat until they find (or establish) an alternate broadcaster. If you couldn't afford five S15 franchises (& Twiggy's $$$$ notwithstanding) you sure as shit aren't going to be able to afford five TT or eight domestic-only ones*.

* Edit: fully professional & including at least most Wallabies.

 

[Derpus]

A lot of people on here seem to be taking the approach that the comp(s) should have 'x' teams @ $'y' to run each of them therefore RA has to somehow or other come up with $'z' to make it viable. I think it's far more likely that RA (& NZR) are looking at it from the POV of having $'x' available to fund the comp(s) @ $'y' to run a team therefore the maximum number of teams they can field is 'z'.

The NZR-SkyTV deal, reportedly worth $NZ100Mn p.a., would have been based on annual domestic content of up to six AB tests, up to 36 Super Rugby matches, a similar number of M10 matches, & other content e.g. Women's & 7's. Obviously if S14 v2.0 doesn't happen Sky can't be held to that figure & if it comes down to say $NZ80Mn p.a. that then affects NZR's ability to fund the franchises it already has, let alone any extra.

RA's position is worse than NZR's as they don't even have a deal for S14 & no obvious alternative to taking whatever Fox offers for whatever comp(s) it wants to broadcast & hope it's enough to keep them afloat until they find (or establish) an alternate broadcaster. If you couldn't afford five S15 franchises (& Twiggy's $$$$ notwithstanding) you sure as shit aren't going to be able to afford five TT or eight domestic-only ones*.

* Edit: fully professional & including at least most Wallabies.

None of that sounds like it results in a viable comp for either country to be honest.

 

[KevinO]

If you couldn't afford five S15 franchises (& Twiggy's $$$$ notwithstanding) you sure as shit aren't going to be able to afford five TT or eight domestic-only ones.

Disagree,

Super rugby gets no commercial presence here at all, why? Becuase it's a crap product that's to hard to follow for the everyday arm chair fan.

The thing that Domestic or TT offers is a easy to follow competition that majority of arm chairs fans will understand.

Also allows new adverting and marketing.

I remember when Cricket fans said the Big Bash will never work cause it's no longer state based, now it's bigger than International T20 and One day games combined.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ Difference being that the money for Big Bash came from a broadcaster desperate for content.

 

[KOB1987]

I don't think Wayne Smith considers the fact that if there's one team the Kiwis wouldn't want in a TT competition because of their time zone - it's actually the Western Force.

Which was no doubt part of the consideration back in 2017. But this time around, if it's not in our best interests to retain the Force, and NZR don't want to participate in that, then we part ways with them.

 

[Derpus]

Just need to whore ourselves out to PE then, eh.

 

[KOB1987]

Just need to whore ourselves out to PE then, eh.

Quite possibly yes. I don't see that as a bad thing as long as it's done right. Remember it's only the competition and/or teams at the pro tier they will own, not the Wallabies, and the players are contracted to these teams just like they are now.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

None of that sounds like it results in a viable comp for either country to be honest.

Which is why TT is the only way to go. As above, how many teams from Oz & NZ depends entirely on the $ value our respective broadcasters place on it plus whatever sponsorship, PE etc. each Union can raise. If that initially means 3 x Oz & 4 x NZ then that's what it is. Anything else ends in bankruptcy IMO.

 

[ForceFan]

Except 5 established teams with fan bases etc.

A TT competition doesn't gain any traction in NZ because the Kiwis want some competition.
There is no pulling power in NZ from games against Australian Super Rugby teams.
Kiwis will still attend Bledisloe games (but even those in decreasing numbers)
This has increasingly been the case in recent years.

Generally the Aussie teams have been easy beats.

Look at the standing and results from the start of Super Rugby 2020..
Only the Brumbies offered any level of competition:

Brumbies - 4W 1L - 2nd
Rebels - 3w 3L - 9th
Reds - 2W 5L - 10th
Waratahs - 1W 4L - 14th

At least the fan base that you talk about have been increasingly returning to club rugby.
Hence my comments of the return to grassroots.

With the upheaval at Board level it seems that the focus on those remaining in RA has been on 2020 ONLY.
Meanwhile the rugby world moves on.

There are lots of fanciful ideas being presented but from where are the enabling $$s coming?

 

[Derpus]

A TT competition doesn't gain any traction in NZ because the Kiwis want some competition.
There is no pulling power in NZ from games against Australian Super Rugby teams.
Kiwis will still attend Bledisloe games (but even those in decreasing numbers)
This has increasingly been the case in recent years.

Generally the Aussie teams have been easy beats.

Look at the standing and results from the start of Super Rugby 2020..
Only the Brumbies offered any level of competition:

Brumbies - 4W 1L - 2nd
Rebels - 3w 3L - 9th
Reds - 2W 5L - 10th
Waratahs - 1W 4L - 14th

At least the fan base that you talk about have been increasingly returning to club rugby.
Hence my comments of the return to grassroots.

With the upheaval at Board level it seems that the focus on those remaining in RA has been on 2020 ONLY.
Meanwhile the rugby world moves on.

There are lots of fanciful ideas being presented but from where are the enabling $$s coming?

Well we've been more competitive historically than SA, so is that the real reason? NZ can't really put forward a viable Super Rugby competition on their own, so the fact that only one or two Aussie teams are going to be a finals contender doesn't really seem a real issue to me.

 

[The Honey Badger]

If I think of the dialogue from Hamish - discussions with PE - and commercial realities..forget a 8 team pro domestic competition - at least short term.

Rather I think they are looking at trans Tasman competition with say 3 to 4 oz sides which includes the force (assumption force twiggy funded) ie brumbies and rebels merger. The offset will be this national club competition it appears but that would require funding and assumption is PE investment is what is required to use some of the funds for this.

Problem is how realistic is PE investment - well at least with global calendar and nations cup concept plus cvc investment activity it is at least plausible.

Well if Twiggy is funding the Force, why cant we keep 5 teams?

If Twiggy wants to keep going with GRR, then we should have 4. Crazy to reduce it any more

 

[Rebels3]

Broadcasters will be wanting 16-20weeks of content. Guaranteed timeslots and regular fixtures in timeslots they can monetize.

For Aus 3 will fail to achieve the timeslots issue, there will be weeks where there is only 1 game on at prime time. This has been an issue for Fox. For NZ a 5 team competition is okay however as Sky’s primary subscription driver it isn’t long enough to attract customers. That’s the reality of everything that will drive broadcaster decisions.

A decline of around 20% of current money offered by broadcasters could easily be absorbed in reduction of travel and accommodation costs and improved sponsorships due to increased visibility. As well as the fact the broadcasters would know they can monetize the games on offer with advertising with an increased improvement on consistency of timeslots, etc.

 

[wamberal]

Well if Twiggy is funding the Force, why cant we keep 5 teams?

If Twiggy wants to keep going with GRR, then we should have 4. Crazy to reduce it any more

Because the assumption is that the cousins will not go with 4.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

I think this might be Rugby Reg explaining to Sully how to troll NSFW match day threads.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Which is why TT is the only way to go. As above, how many teams from Oz & NZ depends entirely on the $ value our respective broadcasters place on it plus whatever sponsorship, PE etc. each Union can raise. If that initially means 3 x Oz & 4 x NZ then that's what it is. Anything else ends in bankruptcy IMO.

View attachment 11533

Yeah I really hope this is where we get to. I like the idea of an OZ competition but commercially it's got to involve the Kiwi teams to ensure long term commercial viability.

 

[barbarian]

Yeah I really hope this is where we get to. I like the idea of an OZ competition but commercially it's got to involve the Kiwi teams to ensure long term commercial viability.

And as the weekend showed, it will just be heaps better rugby.

 

[RedsHappy]

Foxtel viewership Highlanders v Chiefs: 42,000