Where to for Super Rugby?

[Wilson]

Its worth discussing, that it was said by a soccer person is not the issue, it applies more to us.

It's not the same though, soccer can take a hit to their bottom line and bleed players overseas because the health of the game as a whole is not reliant on the best players playing here - they already don't and the a-league is basically a zombie competition at this point.

For RA to do something similar, without a cash reserve would be a much greater risk, to the point of suicide. If we can't retain our best players the game (at a professional level) is pretty close to done. Even if we keep selecting them for the wallabies performances will likely decline, certainly they're unlikely to get better and the interest will disappear with it. T

hat's not say streaming platforms aren't an option, it just has to be done with a partner offering us a base level deal to carry us through to any potential greener pastures - like what optus may have offered before the pandemic.

 

[half]

^^^^^^^^^^^

I honestly have no idea how to say this any more clearly than i have.

But my two posts have nothing to do with soccer vrs rugby.

Its about how a senior FFA official identified and broke down the media metric from the reported Fox ratings to 9 platforms. I have never seen it so well explained and the platforms identified .

The official then went on to say we don't get a fair crack of the whip with many of the traditional sports writers.

I then said looking at this guy's breakdown, rugby is light years better positioned than soccer.

Then a separate article says a FFA think tank is suggesting FFA broadcast themselves as they can sell to 9 platforms.

I then said this equally applies to rugby and we could do better.

I wish this guy had been a banker for a major bank and said this.

Whats wrong can't we stick to the issue ...

I repeat this has nothing absolutely, nothing, zero, nil, znich, to do with a soccer rugby comparison its that a soccer person broke down IMO modern media metrics better than anyone else I have read or listened to before.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

His point was that the Fox rating are less than 20% of the ratings.

He nominated

NZ had 3, Sky, Sky Go, & a Sky Kayo . 3

In Australia, he identified, Fox, Fox Kayo, FFA my Football app, Telstra. 5

Internationally a Youtube channel . 1

Thats 9 platforms, with Fox rating less than 20%, when on FTA well under 10% was the Fox ratings.

To my earlier post, he received advice that FFA should broadcast themselves and FFA themselves have identified a broadcast of between 12 & 15 million.

Added to this was what the A-League head said was almost attack reporting by sports writers who essentially are AFL & NRL fan folk.

TO MY POINT

Rugby would have similar platforms and moreover receive poor reporting from the same sports writers.

But rugby in NZ is light years ahead of soccer, and certainty an Australia / NZ competition would get light years more international youtube watchers than Australian soccer.

Further our costs would be less as FFA would have more games.

I understand the Fox v Streaming debate this site had.

HOWEVER

The way this guy broke down the platforms opened my eyes he identified 9 platforms thats huge. We would have more i.e. PI nations, maybe PNG as well.

Also I don't know the answer but the media bias towards, cricket, AFL & NRL is true and the manner in which they downplay other codes and under report their achievements.

Its worth discussing, that it was said by a soccer person is not the issue, it applies more to us.

Just because he named 9 different platforms doesn't mean that Fox only represents 20% of the ratings. It means it only represents a little over 20% of the platforms. And it's easy to suggest there may be more viewers without actually quantifying that suggestion with actually numbers. I've been looking. I can find nothing in regards to what that broadcast in NZ is worth or ratings. I could say 1m people watched tonight game in Outer Mongolia knowing that as long as now one asks me to quantify them some people will assume that's significant.

Our main source of TV revenue comes from Australia. First and foremost. We to concern ourselves with our ratings performance here. Not in the UK or the US. I could list at least as many platforms as he did for Rugby but none of them pay enough if anything at all for content outside of our domestic broadcasters.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^^^^^^^^^^^

I honestly have no idea how to say this any more clearly than i have.

But my two posts have nothing to do with soccer vrs rugby.

Its about how a senior FFA official identified and broke down the media metric from the reported Fox ratings to 9 platforms. I have never seen it so well explained and the platforms identified .

The official then went on to say we don't get a fair crack of the whip with many of the traditional sports writers.

I then said looking at this guy's breakdown, rugby is light years better positioned than soccer.

Then a separate article says a FFA think tank is suggesting FFA broadcast themselves as they can sell to 9 platforms.

I then said this equally applies to rugby and we could do better.

I wish this guy had been a banker for a major bank and said this.

Whats wrong can't we stick to the issue .

I repeat this has nothing absolutely, nothing, zero, nil, znich, to do with a soccer rugby comparison its that a soccer person broke down IMO modern media metrics better than anyone else I have read or listened to before.

You're talking about the representation of ratings in the media. And following the line from the FFA where he tries to suggest that the ratings aren't tanking but hidden behind streaming platforms or tuning in from NZ or on YouTube. I understand your point. What you aren't grasping is that YouTube and NZ don't factor in to the conversation as they offer little to no monetary value to the overall broadcasting revenues for most any of our sports. Even the NRL struggled to draw in a deal for the Warriors last time round.

The only numbers that matter are on Foxtel and Kayo. Even following the reported ratio of 2:1 to close to 1:1 that still doesn't translate well. He's a CEO at the head of a competition that isn't sinking. It has sunk, broken up and beginning to dissolve. He'll try to make a bigger deal of anything he thinks could present a rosier picture of his charge. Fact or reality be damned.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Tonight’s game of rebels vs tahs to me just was reinforcing that if could get 3 quality imports super rugby Au would not be far of the pace but yes we need imports to improve quality given don’t have depth for 5 teams. I hope if we go it alone there is private equity investment so teams could invest in those 3 quality imports to lift the standards.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Just listened to the breakdown - the kiwi panelists really annoy me as a) keep talking about lack of depth to support 5 teams and not other options to plug that depth which is possible with open borders, marquees and private equity investment and b) this is what really got me when John Kirwan said can just merge two sides for ‘a year’

And they wonder why so many oz fans are pissed with nz...

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ lucky for you they're panelists on a TV show not NZR Board members then, innit? How's it any different to the shite we have to put up with from Kearns, Maaaarto, Kafer etc?

I watched The Australian Rugby Show midweek on which Drew Mitchell said RA should get over the perceived slights from NZR & get on with making a deal with them; Hoiles said he'd cut the Rebels: "in a heartbeat" were his words, I think; and Maloney or possibly Mitchell said that maybe NZR's appriach could be seen as somewhat arrogant but that someone had to take the initiative. Pretty similar views, really.

 

[Wilson]

Word is the contract freeze has been lifted:

When contacted by The Weekend Australian on Friday, Rugby Australia said the “freeze” would be formally relaxed and an email had already been sent to Super Rugby executives stating that player contracting could start up again. Player agents are yet to be informed the freeze will be lifted.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...r/news-story/2afdc9574ead3d7b6524f861e5f20925

Not sure if this means there's more confidence around next year's model, a reaction to the blow back from all the press around Sua'ali'i or just the simple need to start contracting again or risk loosing too many players overseas. Probably some combination of the the 3.

The article also goes into where Sua'ali'i sits if he's on the $3 million or if he's on the $1.7 million, but given it's in the vein of Halloran's other attack pieces it doesn't really mention where he sits if he's on the 200-300k reported elsewhere. It does give a general salary range across the RA contracted players though, and it's clear he'd come in below the lower end of that, about 100-200k less than Maddocks, Banks and Tom Wright:

Wallabies candidates Jack Maddocks, Tom Banks and Tom Wright are understood to be on wages just below $400,000.

Edit: Honestly I wonder if the article has confused Tom and Liam Wright here, it seems more likely that Liam is on wallabies money than Tom all things considered. It does seem high for either though.

That seems fairly reasonable given his potential. I do agree with point made that they should be directing more top end money towards a couple of locks, though if Sua'ali'i is on the lower figure reported it's a furphy to suggest he's getting money that should be going to them.

 

[Forcefield]

^^^^^^^^^^^

I honestly have no idea how to say this any more clearly than i have.

But my two posts have nothing to do with soccer vrs rugby.

Its about how a senior FFA official identified and broke down the media metric from the reported Fox ratings to 9 platforms. I have never seen it so well explained and the platforms identified .

The official then went on to say we don't get a fair crack of the whip with many of the traditional sports writers.

I then said looking at this guy's breakdown, rugby is light years better positioned than soccer.

Then a separate article says a FFA think tank is suggesting FFA broadcast themselves as they can sell to 9 platforms.

I then said this equally applies to rugby and we could do better.

I wish this guy had been a banker for a major bank and said this.

Whats wrong can't we stick to the issue .

I repeat this has nothing absolutely, nothing, zero, nil, znich, to do with a soccer rugby comparison its that a soccer person broke down IMO modern media metrics better than anyone else I have read or listened to before.

You had me at no Phil Kearns.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

^ lucky for you they're panelists on a TV show not NZR Board members then, innit? How's it any different to the shite we have to put up with from Kearns, Maaaarto, Kafer etc?

I watched The Australian Rugby Show midweek on which Drew Mitchell said RA should get over the perceived slights from NZR & get on with making a deal with them; Hoiles said he'd cut the Rebels: "in a heartbeat" were his words, I think; and Maloney or possibly Mitchell said that maybe NZR's appriach could be seen as somewhat arrogant but that someone had to take the initiative. Pretty similar views, really.

Yes could be worse though - we could have had a panelist (Phil Kearns) also being a board member. Yep panelists can be dicks in both NZ and Australia that we agree.

I don't think anybody would disagree that despite the perceived slights one still should be prepared to negotiate and see if terms can be agreed, as Mark Robinson still confirmed on the Breakdown he sees Aussies as critical to be in competition with. How critical we shall see. I am skeptical if terms can be agreed but the game changer would be if private equity investors flex their muscle or make it easier for RA and NZRU to come to mutually agreeable competition design.

Hamish has been quite open that we don't have the depth for 5 teams but looking at other options to build a future with use of imports etc. I just don't understand why RA's position reflected by Hamish has not been communicated as we are looking at a different model proposed here which is use of imports (he listed SA and Argentina players but could be open borders option with NZ as well) to build depth but this does not get airtime.

 

[dru]

^ lucky for you they're panelists on a TV show not NZR Board members then, innit? How's it any different to the shite we have to put up with from Kearns, Maaaarto, Kafer etc?

I watched The Australian Rugby Show midweek on which Drew Mitchell said RA should get over the perceived slights from NZR & get on with making a deal with them; Hoiles said he'd cut the Rebels: "in a heartbeat" were his words, I think; and Maloney or possibly Mitchell said that maybe NZR's appriach could be seen as somewhat arrogant but that someone had to take the initiative. Pretty similar views, really.

The Breakdown is one of the better rugby programmes going around. Inevitably (and understandably) with a Kiwi skew, which in many ways increases the rugby IQ of the programme. And in other ways not so much, such as the current discussions on the future of Aus rugby.

Aussies should surely expect the slant.

Regarding the Australian Rugby Show I can only agree with your view of the quality of the main contributors.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

To quote David Wessels



“And my view on it is very simple, which is every big city in Australia deserves to have a Super Rugby team and we live in one of the best economies in the world and if we’re talking about having to shrink to compete, it’s just the wrong conversation to be having.

“The conversation we should be having is how do we build the best franchise rugby competition in the world and how we build a version of IPL rugby and build that not only for the best Australian players but also for the best global players.
“How do we bring the Maro Itojes of the world and those sort of guys to Australia and make a product that’s really desirable for broadcasters and fans.
“I get a bit tired, to be honest, of this constant, sort of negativity around the game in Australia. It’s quite draining actually, to be honest.”

 

[Wilson]

To quote David Wessels
“The conversation we should be having is how do we build the best franchise rugby competition in the world and how we build a version of IPL rugby and build that not only for the best Australian players but also for the best global players.
“How do we bring the Maro Itojes of the world and those sort of guys to Australia and make a product that’s really desirable for broadcasters and fans.
”

I'm not sure that's what we want though. Europe, Japan and probably the USA in the future, will be able to out spend us on any competition that relies on bringing the best players from all over the world together and if we don't have the structures in place to see Australians playing at the top levels the wallabies will suffer as a result. I'm not opposed to the concept of foreign marquee players in the Australian game, but the IPL should not be the ideal model. It's not realistic and I don't think it's even particularly desirable. I'd much rather we focus on developing the identities and rivalries between our sides and those in the region and tying those sides more strongly into their communities.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I just found it interesting Wessels views...we could be the IPL of rugby long term if we look at population of Asia but realistically I think more just a competition that allows more free flow of players has to be the answer which was the vision rapid rugby had.

Visions of IPL perhaps a little too grand but concept of franchises less restricted by borders to recruit players is a much more attractive option.

Hamish very involved in concept of big bash and knows what marquees can do to help build a good team and I do see big bash concept as trans Tasman or own competition we should seek to build.

 

[Brumby Runner]

There is only two options I see will eventuate;

1) 10 team trans-tasman with an 11th team added for 2022. The 5 Aus teams will only be allowed on the provision that 2-3 imports of Super Rugby standards are to be proactively added to the squads to improve the standard (eg. Argentinian or South African super rugby standard players)

2) Both SRAU and SRNZ will continue to exist, but a Champions League type comp with Japanese teams from the Top League will be made to offer extra content.

Personally I think option 2 is the best as it still has a National champion to celebrate but believe option 1 would be the lowest odds available at the TAB. It makes the most sense and is the right compromise without anyone having to sacrifice anything overly significant

Option 2 is more fan friendly but when do we count?

 

[Mr Wobbly]

I'm not sure that's what we want though. Europe, Japan and probably the USA in the future, will be able to out spend us on any competition that relies on bringing the best players from all over the world together and if we don't have the structures in place to see Australians playing at the top levels the wallabies will suffer as a result. I'm not opposed to the concept of foreign marquee players in the Australian game, but the IPL should not be the ideal model. It's not realistic and I don't think it's even particularly desirable. I'd much rather we focus on developing the identities and rivalries between our sides and those in the region and tying those sides more strongly into their communities.

Yeah, but isn't it refreshing to hear someone actually express some ambition and optimism instead of the usual naysaying?

 

[Dan54]

Yes could be worse though - we could have had a panelist (Phil Kearns) also being a board member. Yep panelists can be dicks in both NZ and Australia that we agree.

I don't think anybody would disagree that despite the perceived slights one still should be prepared to negotiate and see if terms can be agreed, as Mark Robinson still confirmed on the Breakdown he sees Aussies as critical to be in competition with. How critical we shall see. I am skeptical if terms can be agreed but the game changer would be if private equity investors flex their muscle or make it easier for RA and NZRU to come to mutually agreeable competition design.

Hamish has been quite open that we don't have the depth for 5 teams but looking at other options to build a future with use of imports etc. I just don't understand why RA's position reflected by Hamish has not been communicated as we are looking at a different model proposed here which is use of imports (he listed SA and Argentina players but could be open borders option with NZ as well) to build depth but this does not get airtime.

Well I also heard Hamish say he didn't think Aus had the depth for 5 teams on Breakdown earlier in year, so I not sure why it upsets you that panelists say the same thing. I not sure that Hamish hasn't made it clear that he thinks imports are the option, but I not sure he wants to say so in Aus papers , because at moment he seems to be trying to prove to Aus press that RA has clout. I don't think either party are handling things as good as they could,we had NZR saying we setting up a comp that we want to be best in world,and it should be 8-10 teams, should of probably phrased it as we and Aus are hoping to set up comp that is best in world! I understand why RA seems to be going to press every couple of days to show how they flexing their muscles, as they have been copping [plenty of shit about their handling of things so want to get everybody on side, the latest is Hamish saying all NZ franchises want 5 Aus teams in, did that mean he had approached them? I really hope that behind the scenes RA is talking to players that they can import, and not just doing it in paper, and I hope both parties are talking behind scene, I know they were in Sanzaar hook up the other night! I get a bit annoyed at some of the comments from panelists at times, but I would rather have them to get pissed at than not, it means there bugger all rugby content on TV!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well I also heard Hamish say he didn't think Aus had the depth for 5 teams on Breakdown earlier in year, so I not sure why it upsets you that panelists say the same thing. I not sure that Hamish hasn't made it clear that he thinks imports are the option, but I not sure he wants to say so in Aus papers , because at moment he seems to be trying to prove to Aus press that RA has clout. I don't think either party are handling things as good as they could,we had NZR saying we setting up a comp that we want to be best in world,and it should be 8-10 teams, should of probably phrased it as we and Aus are hoping to set up comp that is best in world! I understand why RA seems to be going to press every couple of days to show how they flexing their muscles, as they have been copping [plenty of shit about their handling of things so want to get everybody on side, the latest is Hamish saying all NZ franchises want 5 Aus teams in, did that mean he had approached them? I really hope that behind the scenes RA is talking to players that they can import, and not just doing it in paper, and I hope both parties are talking behind scene, I know they were in Sanzaar hook up the other night! I get a bit annoyed at some of the comments from panelists at times, but I would rather have them to get pissed at than not, it means there bugger all rugby content on TV!

I was annoyed at panelists comments but not upset - more that the moot point is to build a successful franchise we are (rightly in my view) proposing a model that allows for more free flow of players which is why the previous incarnation of super rugby was always doomed (amongst other reasons). I truly believe we have the market for building a better audience for rugby in this country and the broader region with 'more' better quality content but need more than 3 teams to do so (given expanded domestic franchise content AFL, NRL and A-league offers) and hence require like A-league and others like Big Bash have done is to leverage imports but moreso to create effective regional competition is to allow more free flow of players and open borders policy especially for NZ and Australia.

We want more content as fans but also quality of product so to get the best content you don't shrink the content available but look at how you get find other ways to boost your content product quality. Long term is yes also about investing in grass roots, short term it is about allowing imports/marquees and pushing for more open borders that then attracts private equity investment and broadcaster interest with more quality content.

It is a model many sports franchises have proven successfully around the world and one Hamish is familiar with in the success of the BIG BASH he was behind. I just get frustrated by lot of traditionalist rugby commentators who can't see other options and think we should only have a model with australian teams that are just filled with australian players. So would I rather have 4 teams of 120 Australian players or 5 teams with 120 Australian players and 30 imports. I know what the answer is and don't know why it is so hard for others to not see how this would be better than cutting teams option (assuming private equity investment) and cutting ourselves out of key capital city markets for long term growth.

Yep like you I hope RA has been seriously looking at imports with private equity investment considerations and hope the latter much more advanced in discussions such that private equity investment a reality (as without it yep this is off the table).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'm not sure that's what we want though. Europe, Japan and probably the USA in the future, will be able to out spend us on any competition that relies on bringing the best players from all over the world together and if we don't have the structures in place to see Australians playing at the top levels the wallabies will suffer as a result. I'm not opposed to the concept of foreign marquee players in the Australian game, but the IPL should not be the ideal model. It's not realistic and I don't think it's even particularly desirable. I'd much rather we focus on developing the identities and rivalries between our sides and those in the region and tying those sides more strongly into their communities.

You could do both. There's no reason why you couldn't build say an 10 team league that draws in the best in the world alongside domestic talent while developing greater community links. And the IPL isn't the worst model to emulate. They do have foreign players quotas after all. Four imports on the pitch at any one time and no more than 10 in the squad overall. We could have similar in such a competition.

 

[kiap]

Yep like you I hope RA has been seriously looking at imports with private equity investment considerations and hope the latter much more advanced in discussions such that private equity investment a reality (as without it yep this is off the table).

There are different levels (i.e. quality) of both import players and private investment.

The first depends on the second. The second needs to happen first.

Itoje's name came up earlier. We won't be seeing the likes of him playing here in 2021 - or any time soon, tbh. However that level of name isn't needed, just good hard players.

As time ticks on, the more I'm starting to think that 2021 will be another 'gap year' season. So, while some players may be coming in from OS now, that can only really ramp up while quality investment starts to materialise.

A durable step up won't be instant, as kiwis will find out soon with their Hawaiian adventures.