Where to for Super Rugby?

[hoggy]

What makes anyone think this would have interest from FTA to be shown in prime time? The ratings are unlikely to be anywhere close to high enough.

It's not just a case of being third behind AFL and NRL. It's a question of whether reruns of a crappy sitcom on the secondary channel that cost them almost nothing would outrate it.

its the catch 22 of Australian rugby, we can't outrate a crappy sitcom on a secondary TV channel, yet lets start planning to win the 2023 World Cup.

 

[Derpus]

It’s their own comp with a cup comp around it, no need to go into semantics.

What - the details are fairly important......

They have viable comps upon which to base a champions league. 5 team comps don't seem viable to me.

 

[rugboy]

A domestic comp replicating similar teams/locations as NRC as the second tier is completely different to the NRC. Standard will be higher to start with given that the Wallaby squad are integrated within the teams.

How will this happen? Will the Reds and Brumbies willingly release their contracted PONI squad members? Can RA force that? I would doubt in a commercially competitive environment any of the existing franchises would willingly forego their on field advantage for the good of the game. Professional sport and Ra have a long history of protecting their own self interests. We have an open free player market, players will want to play in strong teams to increase their selection in the national teams, coaches will want to have strong teams to re-enforce their reputations and careers. You can just force a spread of talent.

possibly NSW and Qld all Super franchises have been "contrived regional teams" so logic that it will work in one scenario should follow with consistency into a different format.

They are state based teams. NRC teams like Qld Country, NSW Country are nomads with no real connection anywhere. Will diehared Waratahs fans suddenly become Sydney fans or Reds become Brisbane City fans to accomodate these extra or regional teams? Take away these strong brands and you risk alienating these diehards and further deteriorating the supporter base.

The NRC is a relatively short comp that is set through the internationals, where viewing and broadcast preferences are obvious. The issue is eradicated with a true domestic second tier.

It is new because the previous versions have all failed with little interest in the product.

What should be common with the NRC is a relatively level playing field and Aussie winners.

As mentioned already unless you can enforce this distribution of talent which, in a free market could more than liklely be a restraint of trade then this wont be achievable in the short term and possibly at all.

More importantly the Super has an inherent commercial flaw that we have been calling (sarcastically) "shrink to greatness". As we reduce the number of teams to match the available cash, the cash also shrinks. This is based on broadcast interest with minimal content for the broadcaster in prime Australian time slots, and consistency of viewing - among other things. These matters are eradicated with a domestically based comp. Or at least, if the proposed alternative does NOT achieve this then it is not a place the comp should go.

Super's issues are wide and varied although the content issue is based around poor time zones and convoluted pools making it difficult to follow seem to be the most accepted reasons for the failure of the competition diminishing relevance and shrinking broadcast deals.

Similarly consistency of home games to build a home crowd and fan base has proven unachievable in Super. Another issue resolved by a domestically based comp.
The reality is that Super has NOT "brought the viewers" and suggestions that a TT, with reduced Australian input, will perform better seems - well specious. Certainly unreasonable.

Again, the recent difficulties in following the Super rugby competition probably lend themselves to poor crowd and attendances. It was only 6 years ago with a 15 team competition that the Waratahs had over 65k people attend the final at ANZ. The viewers are again related to poor competition structure and time zones, what is noticeable with current ratings is that even though Tahs are so poor currently they are still the highest rating Australian Franchise while the least recent the Rebels are consistency the lowest. Further emphasising that newer teams without the hardened supporter base struggle to get the viewership needed for broadcast money. In fact looking at some of this years ratings Round 2 had the Tahs v Blues at 61k while the 2 smaller Australian Franchises Brums v Rebels had 49k. Oz teams player each other with Wallabies present doesnt guarantee stronger support, it is the stronger teams with bigger supporter bases.

others I would be quite happy with a TT championship sitting between the tier 2 comp and internationals. And as it is obvious that standard of the leading Aussie teams, certainly initially, has little likelihood of matching the Kiwis - then some form of representative involvement would be smart. For both sides of the Tasman and would double as providing selection criteria for the internationals.

It is not what we are going to get, unfortunately. And all these claims that the TT either with
a) continued lack of competitiveness, continued insufficient local content,
or
b) reduced Australian franchises and even less sufficient local content,
are simply wishful.

But it does kick the can down the road, a little longer for pro rugby.

We could do better.

McLennan has mentioned it is the preferred option for Broadcasters to see a TT format. It is the only sensible option at this point and who knows with the exciting crop of young players coming through maybe all the Oz franchises can lift to the recent level of the Brumbies of the former level of the Tahs and see the crowds return to those lofty days and the eyeballs glued to outr elite players going head to head with the Ki]wis at international and TT level.

 

[The Honey Badger]

^^^ That post is spot on Dru.

I think we can do both and please everybody. A revamped NRC with all the star players involved. 100% national comp with an AUS winner (I am open to 1 or 2 foreign sides (Fiji/Japan) to increase the numbers, but should be limited)- This comp will have a lot of semi Professional players on small money. In time as it become more popular and income increases from all sources then it may become fully professional for all players. But in the first instance the only fully Pro players will be the ring fenced Wobs and the next say 20 players of National significance.

After that comp plays, then select a SOO NSW WARATAHS and SOO QLD REDS plus the highest ranked NON NSW or QLD NRC team (Could be Western Force/Rebels or Brums) and they can select a team from anywhere even non selected Nsw & Qld players. At squads of 35, this should represent the top 100+ players in the country to then play in a TT or Championship series.

 

[eastman]

People need to stop assuming that a TT and the previous form of Super Rugby, are the same and would lead to similar outcomes.​

​

A TT competition ensures that there is constant accessible content (teams don't disappear to South Africa/ Argentina for 4 weeks), it removes the lower profile/ less popular teams and also provides the most attractive style of rugby (whether this is actually true or not, there is still the perception that all the SA teams do is kick and maul)​

​

The idea that a domestic product is the most 'obvious' is what I would call 'specious'. If there was such latent demand and potential, don't you think that this is the model that broadcasters would be insisting on? It's more unreasonable to believe that us keyboard warriors know more about consumer preferences than broadcasters.​

 

[Braveheart81]

A revamped NRC with all the star players involved.

If you had 7 Aussie teams and the quality of our star players playing domestically keeps dropping then are a couple of bonafide stars per team really going to do much to draw in fans?

The real disconnect I see is this thinking that a lot more people will start turning up and turning on to watch teams of lower quality than our Super Rugby teams just because they're playing in a different competition.

I don't see any evidence at all that should make us confident that will be the case.

 

[sunnyboys]

Braveheart - the same argument can be said of (Aus) Super Rugby at the moment.

For me TT has the ‘Bledisloe loss’ every week downside.

No Bled in 16 years. Rare comp wins in Super Rugby. Just recently a whole Super Rugby season without beating a kiwi team.

This, as much as timezones, disappearing teams etc is impacting Super Rugby crowds and viewers.

There is group who subscribe to the “Win More” strategy for rebuilding Oz rugby. And those same people will say TT solves all the issues - because they believe Aus rugby can deliver on “Win More”.

So let’s say we get a TT. And our current results vs kiwi teams continues - what then?? Do we really think that comp will be suitable as part of a growth strategy?

 

[Braveheart81]

So let’s say we get a TT. And our current results vs kiwi teams continues - what then?? Do we really think that comp will be suitable as part of a growth strategy?

It will be of significantly higher value because it will have overseas interest in the product. I don't think the same could be said for a slightly better than NRC quality comp that is purely domestic.

Given that larger overseas interest there is greater potential for growth to interest private investment. Ultimately you are looking for owners to fund an annual loss of an entity that is increasing in value.

 

[eastman]

^^^ That post is spot on Dru.



I think we can do both and please everybody. A revamped NRC with all the star players involved. 100% national comp with an AUS winner (I am open to 1 or 2 foreign sides (Fiji/Japan) to increase the numbers, but should be limited)- This comp will have a lot of semi Professional players on small money. In time as it become more popular and income increases from all sources then it may become fully professional for all players. But in the first instance the only fully Pro players will be the ring fenced Wobs and the next say 20 players of National significance.



After that comp plays, then select a SOO NSW WARATAHS and SOO QLD REDS plus the highest ranked NON NSW or QLD NRC team (Could be Western Force/Rebels or Brums) and they can select a team from anywhere even non selected Nsw & Qld players. At squads of 35, this should represent the top 100+ players in the country to then play in a TT or Championship series.

It's not spot on because there is absolutely not the demand for it - if there was it would exist or be getting plenty of traction by stakeholders. The public are not interested in watching Tevita Kuridrani running around for the Tuggeranong Vikings.

Whether you like it or not, a TT competition is probably the only viable option at this point in time- for the simplified reasons below:
- We are likely to only be able to obtain funding to support 2-4 proper professional teams.
- If you increase the number of teams, the resulting semi- professional environments and lower calibre of athlete is not going to be attractive to viewers, especially when they have the alternate options of watching the elite NRL and AFL
- Unfortunately 2-5 professional teams does not produce enough content for broadcasters, and any efforts to fill the content gap with a champions league competition or state of origin, adds additional risk and complexity for all stakeholders
- Including the NZ teams instantly provides you an additional 4-5 teams and enough content to appease broadcasters

A TT model is likely the only viable and bankable option at this stage. You can then start looking to increase the number of Australian teams, once this competition has proven to be stable and successful.

 

[sunnyboys]

Agree overseas money is a consideration - but it continues a trend of Aus rugby living off other people’s money. Was SA, then SA and OS... under a TT it will be NZ and OS.

At some point we will need to start increasing our own fan base and as a result our own broadcast deals.

This pandemic has revealed how weak our own market truly is. TT will be a big step down in money.

At some point our own frailties need to be addressed.


Braveheart - and just to add - you said TT would be higher value - that i agree on. But that isnt a growth startegy in my opinion.

 

[Derpus]

Agree overseas money is a consideration - but it continues a trend of Aus rugby living off other people’s money. Was SA, then SA and OS. under a TT it will be NZ and OS.

At some point we will need to start increasing our own fan base and as a result our own broadcast deals.

This pandemic has revealed how weak our own market truly is. TT will be a big step down in money.

At some point our own frailties need to be addressed.

Starting a new comp from scratch and getting it to a level where it is competitive, with NRL or AFL and salary wise with other professional rugby leagues, on our own is effectively a 100 year venture.

Have fun with that.

 

[Braveheart81]

Agree overseas money is a consideration - but it continues a trend of Aus rugby living off other people’s money. Was SA, then SA and OS. under a TT it will be NZ and OS.

At some point we will need to start increasing our own fan base and as a result our own broadcast deals.

This pandemic has revealed how weak our own market truly is. TT will be a big step down in money.

At some point our own frailties need to be addressed.

It's not other people's money though. It's about having a product that has broad appeal.

I don't get the thinking behind wanting to basically ensure that the only revenue our competition derives is from within Australia when we know that market is minuscule.

 

[eastman]

Braveheart - the same argument can be said of (Aus) Super Rugby at the moment.

For me TT has the ‘Bledisloe loss’ every week downside.

No Bled in 16 years. Rare comp wins in Super Rugby. Just recently a whole Super Rugby season without beating a kiwi team.

This, as much as timezones, disappearing teams etc is impacting Super Rugby crowds and viewers.

There is group who subscribe to the “Win More” strategy for rebuilding Oz rugby. And those same people will say TT solves all the issues - because they believe Aus rugby can deliver on “Win More”.

So let’s say we get a TT. And our current results vs kiwi teams continues - what then?? Do we really think that comp will be suitable as part of a growth strategy?

You're essentially saying that the most important factor for Australian rugby to be successful is the success of the Wallabies.

If that's true, and you insist on a purely domestic competition, the most pragmatic solution for Aus Rugby would be to allow its best players to move overseas where they can earn the most money, and then call them back for Wallabies duty. This would reduce their cost base significantly and potentially allow you fund a larger domestic competition of lesser quality

I don't think diluting the quality of the product just to ensure an Australian winner is the best option for sustained success, especially when it would potentially lead to the demise of the Wallabies over time.

 

[dru]

A TT might be a viable competition. It is not, however, a viable base for pro rugby in Australia.

Most of the differences in opinion have been well threshed by now. None of it reduces my despondency with RA leadership and the future of pro rugby here. Time will tell - though so far pretty much everything I have predicted over the years have come to be.

At any rate, being rust I’ll support whatever allows pro rugby. Worst case I get another couple of years.

 

[sunnyboys]

Revenue shoudnt be only from Aus - but at the moment Aus derived revenue is barely enough to pay 60% of wages. what bothers me, is that RA doesn't seem to want to do the hard work and address the question of why our market is minuscule... It feels like we take the easy option every time. Yet our fan base continues to shrink.

i'm not advocating for one particular comp over another.

I just think TT isn't going to deliver what some hope it will. and in fact will magnify issues around the competitiveness of Aus teams v NZ ones. I cant see where it grows viewers and fans - unless we somehow reverse our historical performance against nz.

 

[hoggy]

Starting a new comp from scratch and getting it to a level where it is competitive, with NRL or AFL and salary wise with other professional rugby leagues, on our own is effectively a 100 year venture.

Have fun with that.

Well their actually starting a new competition from scratch this Friday night.

 

[KevinO]

So let’s say we get a TT. And our current results vs kiwi teams continues - what then?? Do we really think that comp will be suitable as part of a growth strategy?

Yes, previous couple of years have been shocking. This year was 2 wins from 6 games with both wins on NZ soil, not as bad as previous years before the season came to a crashing halt.

TT is the best option, a lot of Kiwi games draw good crowds in Aus. A lot of kiwi games also draw decent numbers on TV. As for all the talk about broadcast deals being lower. The overseas money Super rugby attracts is to watch the NZ sides play, this comp would attract some decent European TV money still. It fills a morning time slot with live sport over there that they cannot get from anywhere else.

Australian TV will pay the same reduced amount for TT as it would for the current Super Rugby as they are the only games that rate, also allows broadcasters to have more say in the competition times and set up. Friday night games need to be back to 7:30 kick offs. Saturday can be earlier family friendly times.

 

[sunnyboys]

You're essentially saying that the most important factor for Australian rugby to be successful is the success of the Wallabies.

If that's true, and you insist on a purely domestic competition, the most pragmatic solution for Aus Rugby would be to allow its best players to move overseas where they can earn the most money, and then call them back for Wallabies duty. This would reduce their cost base significantly and potentially allow you fund a larger domestic competition of lesser quality

I don't think diluting the quality of the product just to ensure an Australian winner is the best option for sustained success, especially when it would potentially lead to the demise of the Wallabies over time.

No quite the opposite! whatever the second tier comp is, it must be interesting and compelling enough as a stand alone comp. It needs to bring fans to the grounds and to the tv. and it needs to do this year in/year out - whether the Wallabies are #1 or #7.

 

[hoggy]

It's not other people's money though. It's about having a product that has broad appeal.

I don't get the thinking behind wanting to basically ensure that the only revenue our competition derives is from within Australia when we know that market is minuscule.

But I don't get the thinking that talking down you own domestic product to such an extent that its nothing more than Sausage sizzle level, yet throw in a few Kiwi teams and all of a sudden your getting PE from all over the world thrown at you.

Wheres all that PE money from 20 years of Super rugby, wasn't that supposed to takeover the world, we completely neglected our domestic market for 20 years because we were told every year who needs it, we'll be swimming in pots of foreign Japanese/Chinese Gold by 2020, the American and Asian conferences should be kicking in by now.

Whatever its size, the biggest market ever available to Aussie rugby will be Australia.

 

[Braveheart81]

Wheres all that PE money from 20 years of Super rugby, wasn't that supposed to takeover the world, we completely neglected our domestic market for 20 years because we were told every year who needs it, we'll be swimming in pots of foreign Japanese/Chinese Gold by 2020, the American and Asian conferences should be kicking in by now.

Because it has never really been needed and hasn't been properly investigated.

In order for it to happen the control of the competition has to lie with the teams involved and their involvement in the broadcasting agreement direct.

Essentially they can't be virtual subsidiaries of Rugby Australia which has been the case to now.