Where to for Super Rugby?

[Brumby Runner]

Which is the crux of the matter. Nobody knows what is the best way forward. Maybe we should start at the other end. What is the least worst, and work forward from there.


The key question is, what do the New Zealanders really want? We need them more than they need us, but we still represent a potential viewing audience for their franchises, and therefore some potential spondulicks.

I would suggest the answer to that is the present situation we're in with the Super Rugby competition.

Not all doom and gloom though. The Aus conference sides have been much more competitive with their NZ counterparts this year, and even jagged a few wins.

 

[Dan54]

The New Zealanders want what they have got for the last 20 years a competition perfectly suited to there rugby set-up. We've been involved with NZ rugby for 20 yrs and where are we. It is this beggars attitude that holds the game back here in my opinion.
So is the solution to take the least crappiest deal that we can get.

I was at a BBQ yesterday with about 20 people, we had Fox in the lounge area, I just couldn't believe that for the whole day not once was Super rugby put on or even a score check done, it just blew me away.

I don't know what the answer is, but it sure ain't just more Super rugby.

Why do you think that super rugby is perfectly suited to NZ hoggy? It's NZ that wants the conferences scrapped, because it doesn't suit them. A lot of Kiwis think the comp is set to suit Aus ( it's not), just suits most people to think they are hard done by I think!
As for noone worrying about scores yesterday, even I wasn't to bothered, as the week before finals there wasn't a lot in it' as you only getting teams scrapping for bottom finals spots.

 

[half]

Which is the crux of the matter. Nobody knows what is the best way forward. Maybe we should start at the other end. What is the least worst, and work forward from there.


The key question is, what do the New Zealanders really want? We need them more than they need us, but we still represent a potential viewing audience for their franchises, and therefore some potential spondulicks.

I think you are wrong in your assessment.

My belief is after years of arguing, most agree we need some form of local domestic competition.

There are two issues as I see it in developing a local domestic competition.

First issue is you need a leadership who also accept the need for a local domestic competition, who are capable of developing and implementing a local domestic competition, instead of holding their hands out and hoping other nations will do our heavy lifting, and fund us.

Second, we lack, capital, teams, expertise, business acumen, government and business contacts. Thus we need to invite private capital to independently run their own competition, with their own teams, under a structure where RA issue a licence to operate such a competition.

 

[cyclopath]

I think you are wrong in your assessment.

My belief is after years of arguing, most agree we need some form of local domestic competition.

There are two issues as I see it in developing a local domestic competition.

First issue is you need a leadership who also accept the need for a local domestic competition, who are capable of developing and implementing a local domestic competition, instead of holding their hands out and hoping other nations will do our heavy lifting, and fund us.

Second, we lack, capital, teams, expertise, business acumen, government and business contacts. Thus we need to invite private capital to independently run their own competition, with their own teams, under a structure where RA issue a licence to operate such a competition.

You keep saying this, but what private capital individuals or entities do you think want to pour money into a pit that is of questionable viability? Besides Andrew Forrest, who is looking at an international and probably offshore based comp? I just can't see private equity thinking this is a good spend.

 

[half]

^^^
Cyclopath

First of all I have total faith and belief in rugby as a sport.

I assume my beliefs are not so way out that many others feel the same.

Where will the investors come from.

Some history from roughly 1990 to early 2000's the then National Soccer League went steadily backwards, to the extent soccer was, bankrupt, corrupt, inept in its management, ethnically divided, had zero media and what media they received was about violence, ethnic violence. Crowds averaged up 3K and without Pert Glory most likely under 2k. The NSL had never been on FTA and once every four years they lost a WC qualifer.

Its history now they started a new league with a new approach and they received 8 foundation members, today its a 10 team competition with 15 bids to join it with a massive price tag to join.

Soccer people at the time had faith and belief in their game and that their management was totally fucked. They reasoned if they changed the management system people would want to be involved.

Rugby in 2018 is in a far better position than soccer of 2002.

Believe and have faith in the game, change management systems, change structures, model ourselves set up worlds best practice models[IMO the USA formats]. This is whats needed.

Alternatively wish and hope the management structure and team that lead us here;- will lead us to better days, in a competition format that has failed the test of time.

 

[cyclopath]

Yay, another soccer anecdote. You still don't answer the question. Who are these private investors?
It's like Field of Dreams - build it and they will come. They're good slogans, but I just cannot see the meat on the bones.

 

[half]

OK have it your way, lets ignore whats happening around us and wait for someone to come up with a guarantee what they plan to do will work.

I think, no I know I see the world totally differently to many in the rugby world.

No offence meant by this but you seem to want some sorta guarantee based on past history that can be shown to have worked within the Australian sporting context. Further that most of what is done should be to benefit the national teams.

The future will not always reflect the past, and in our changing world very often a change in direction is needed.

What I see is successful global competitions all having a common factor, and that is an independent national competition. These competitions are largely run by the teams in them under licence from the governing body.

Deep down in my soul, I believe their are another 7 investors out there, and they in time will bring more.

I can't name them, nor can I prove they are there.

 

[kiap]

You still don't answer the question. Who are these private investors?

If he knew, we all would – Half freely admits that. You have to open the way first to see who is out there.

Yeah … Aus rugby has tried it before but they'll pick a bloke without enough cash and then boot one with plenty to the kerb.

Deep down, RA don't want to let go (yet) and would rather shrink the game.

But, as a teaser, I'll repeat Strewth's post from yesterday about an investor for a team that will lose around AUD 2m a year:

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/...new-club-in-sydneys-southwest-20180607-h112nh

Pay-walled, however the lede says this:

Billionaire Lang Walker admits to being more a rugby union fan, but he says he can see a good business reason for backing a bid for a new A-League soccer club in Sydney's south-west.​

 

[Strewthcobber]

One interesting thing about the ALeague ownership structure is that so many of the owners are foreign - 7 out of 10 teams.

Many of the more likely expansion teams have foreign backers as well.

What does that says about any possible future ownership of rugby sides here?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[hoggy]

One interesting thing about the ALeague ownership structure is that so many of the owners are foreign - 7 out of 10 teams.

Many of the more likely expansion teams have foreign backers as well.

What does that says about any possible future ownership of rugby sides here?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

What does it say about our current business model, aren't we pretty beholden to SA broadcast money already.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What does it say about our current business model, aren't we pretty beholden to SA broadcast money already.

To clarify - FFA have managed to convinced (mostly) foreigners to lose $300m on getting their comp to where it is today, and have 10+ more (mostly) foreigners queing up to pay $15m for the privelege of losing $2m+ a year in expansion teams.

Well done them. This is not a criticism of FFA or the investors

If that's the model we are chasing, are there that many foreigners interested in throwing money at Australian rugby? Or is soccer different?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

OK have it your way, lets ignore whats happening around us and wait for someone to come up with a guarantee what they plan to do will work.

I think, no I know I see the world totally differently to many in the rugby world.

No offence meant by this but you seem to want some sorta guarantee based on past history that can be shown to have worked within the Australian sporting context. Further that most of what is done should be to benefit the national teams.

The future will not always reflect the past, and in our changing world very often a change in direction is needed.

What I see is successful global competitions all having a common factor, and that is an independent national competition. These competitions are largely run by the teams in them under licence from the governing body.

Deep down in my soul, I believe their are another 7 investors out there, and they in time will bring more.

I can't name them, nor can I prove they are there.

I don't want some sort of guarantee, and I don't suggest the idea of private equity is bad at all, and I certainly don't want to status quo - I just honestly cannot see people wanting to buy in.
To answer Strewthcobber - yes, soccer is different, having a massively greater world appeal here, so the mega-wealthy (foreigners, as you put it) are far more likely to be inclined to back a soccer team than a more niche sport like rugby. In the longer run, it will be interesting to see how long that model works - i.e. losing money.
I'd be delighted if we find a bunch of cashed up investors who want to do that.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Reality is there is not a long list of wealthy benefactors lining up prepared to invest in rugby in oz....

Twiggy is the exception with WA interests at heart of it and wider oz interests a distant second. That is why Twiggy opportunity so huge to try and harness and why RA working with Twiggy - how closely and successfully we don't really know but in recent interview Twiggy gave - he was at least stating positive messages about the dialogue and about Castle.....

One can only hope as the investment case for oz rugby at present is not great so hence why many of us hope RA doing everything possible to collaborate with Twiggy and with an open mind given state of the game and need for change (and money for change).

Plus twiggy has well established Asian business connections which could hopefully lead to more wealthy benefactors investing in rugby in the region for Asian Pacific teams that form part of Twiggy's WSR which could provide indirect benefits to oz.

 

[hoggy]

One interesting thing about the ALeague ownership structure is that so many of the owners are foreign - 7 out of 10 teams.

Many of the more likely expansion teams have foreign backers as well.

What does that says about any possible future ownership of rugby sides here?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Sorry, my reply was a bit tongue in cheek, I completely agree with your analysis of the A-League model, and a prime reason of why rugby here especially is declining, without attracting that private investment, the game is struggling to compete, its financial options are to limited.

Even if you take Twiggy as an example, instead of having an avenue for him to invest in, were left in another no mans land.

But IMO, the problem ultimately lies in the national bodies not being prepared to concede any control due to there allegiance to Test rugby as primacy, in 2020 the main domestic comp will end in June, meaning half your season will be devoted to Test rugby.

But for Australia it means turning your Test team into a weekly revenue raiser, ultimately it simply will not be able to sustain the game, as we are already witnessing.

We may not be soccer, but without options that attract private investors, the game in Australia will as is happening slowly implode.

 

[wamberal]

Plus twiggy has well established Asian business connections which could hopefully lead to more wealthy benefactors investing in rugby in the region for Asian Pacific teams that form part of Twiggy's WSR which could provide indirect benefits to oz.

With the emphasis on the word "hopefully". I often get told that my Asian experience is out of date. Maybe it is, in terms of the calendar. On the other hand, most people who are rich in Asia are only interested in being benefactors to themselves, and their own families, that is the way it was when I lived and worked there, and from all accounts, that is the way it still is.

 

[cyclopath]

Reality is there is not a long list of wealthy benefactors lining up prepared to invest in rugby in oz..

Twiggy is the exception with WA interests at heart of it and wider oz interests a distant second. That is why Twiggy opportunity so huge to try and harness and why RA working with Twiggy - how closely and successfully we don't really know but in recent interview Twiggy gave - he was at least stating positive messages about the dialogue and about Castle...

One can only hope as the investment case for oz rugby at present is not great so hence why many of us hope RA doing everything possible to collaborate with Twiggy and with an open mind given state of the game and need for change (and money for change).

Plus twiggy has well established Asian business connections which could hopefully lead to more wealthy benefactors investing in rugby in the region for Asian Pacific teams that form part of Twiggy's WSR which could provide indirect benefits to oz.

Andrew Forrest is good for WA rugby (kudos to him) but it remains to be seen how that might translate across the country. Maybe, as you say, he might be the trigger to get like-minded patrons to buy in, I don't know, but I don't think we can hang our hat on him being the white knight for Aus rugby overall, and why should he?

 

[Brumby Runner]

He turned up on his white charger eager to help protect and defend the Establishment which was crumbling under attack by hosts of missing fans and their money, and was rejected. Indeed, why should he?

 

[kiap]

in recent interview Twiggy gave - he was at least stating positive messages about the dialogue and about Castle...

Not recent.

Seems to be a vibe now that Forrest is going to be forced … (see what I did, there?) … out of Australia.

 

[hoggy]

Not recent.

Seems to be a vibe now that Forrest is going to be forced … (see what I did, there?) … out of Australia.

Because as accommodating as Castle may want to be, sooner or later discussions end up meeting a rock. Yes we want your money, but here's a list of the strings attached.

 

[kiap]

Castle is paid to present that more inclusive public face. It's the only reason she was hired by the re-branded ARU. It's still the same dysfunctional organisation, though.

• RN's “long list of wealthy benefactors” go to soccer's door in the first place because they're invited.

• Strewth and Cyclo chose to focus on “foreigners” investing here, while brushing off—or ignoring—the two Aussie magnates quoted to them.

Australian rugby people are conservative people. That's not about political leanings, but being distinctly averse to change … to the point of incurring continuous significant loss to tread the old familiar path. This applies to the alickadoos at the top table, right down to the mug punters typing on this page.

To be fair, yes there should be some strings attached to investment. The reality is, however, that RA doesn't want significant investment with what it entails. They prefer sponsorship cash.

So the question of 'Where to for Super Rugby?' has to be about incremental change to evolve the competition. Without “foreign” money.

Baby steps.

The right ones can even help.