Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

I think the only people you could really say have vested interests are the players.

They wield a significant amount of power and they are not going to be in favour of an option that would see their financial opportunities in Australia dwindle significantly.

No administrators are getting rich out of working in the game in Australia. Most of the senior ones could be earning more if they worked in the private sector rather than working in rugby because they are passionate about the game.

A competition that involved significant amounts of private equity would be ideal because it would take away the financial liability of paying the bulk of the professional players from RA. This would be a win/win for them. They'd be able to keep players in Australia and not have to effectively employ most of them.

Facilitating the introduction of more private equity is the difficult part. I think the outcome of World Series Rugby will be important for this. If enough people come out of the woodwork wanting to throw money at the game then that is what will change things. Money talks and if it is enticing enough for the players RA will end up getting dragged along (as they did with Super Rugby in 1996).

I don't think it works in reverse though. You can't say we're going to start a brand new competition in 2021 with privately owned teams that will sign all our best players and then expect those owners to come out of the woodwork with the requisite dollars.

No one running the game at any point is going to want to be the one who risks making the decision that bankrupts the game in Australia. Expecting someone to take that leap of faith with no evidence that it is likely to succeed seems like both wishful and misguided thinking.

 

[Quick Hands]

Would the NZRU really be against a trans- tasman competition where there were no restrictions on player nationality between teams ala NRL? While this might result in 70% of all players coming from NZ and the PIs surely it would result in the strongest competition and best product. There would probably initial decline in the strength of the Wallabies but would likely lead to a more sustainable competition.

Their repeated position that they want to test themselves against South African opposition as it's a different style of play and the ground conditions in SA are different to NZ. They believe it provides better development for their players.

 

[Quick Hands]

No one running the game at any point is going to want to be the one who risks making the decision that bankrupts the game in Australia. Expecting someone to take that leap of faith with no evidence that it is likely to succeed seems like both wishful and misguided thinking.

Although those running the game were happy to leap into Super 18 and assure us all that it would be the saviour of Australian rugby. That seems to have been wishful and misguided thinking?

Going into super rugby in the first place was a leap of faith, and I'm not criticising that decision at all. I believe that at the time it was the best option for Australian rugby. However, circumstances change and past decisions need to be re-evaluated and there needs to be a real and detailed look at different options which suit Australian rugby beyond 2020, rather than stick with a patched up version of the 2000 model.

 

[Braveheart81]

Although those running the game were happy to leap into Super 18 and assure us all that it would be the saviour of Australian rugby. That seems to have been wishful and misguided thinking?

Going into super rugby in the first place was a leap of faith, and I'm not criticising that decision at all. I believe that at the time it was the best option for Australian rugby. However, circumstances change and past decisions need to be re-evaluated and there needs to be a real and detailed look at different options which suit Australian rugby beyond 2020, rather than stick with a patched up version of the 2000 model.

Absolutely agreeing to Super 18 was a bad decision.

I don't think there was a choice back in 1996. The players were going to go regardless. I guess the only other option for the ARU at the time would have been to take a similar approach the Australian Cricket Board had to World Series Cricket of banning the players and picking a substandard side. Clearly that was a terrible decision and I'm glad they didn't repeat that mistake.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'd love to see a successful local competition as we all would. I'm just not sure we could survive all the hits we would have to take to get there. Reduced TV and crowd revenue would see us lose our top players, and I just don't think we could survive that and come out the other side with anything sustainable.

I disagree with those who say we need to copy the A-League, NRL and AFL, and say that local is the only answer. I actually think the international nature of rugby and Super Rugby can be used to our advantage - indeed that's what set it apart at it's peak, it's why people flocked to it. This wasn't just the best in Australia, it was the best in the Southern Hemisphere.

.

Crowd revenue is already down and there's no reason to expect that TV revenue will not follow it. In the changes to super rugby Steve Tew said that the current division of broadcast money would remain for the current TV agreement, but beyond 2020 it would reflect SA and Aus having less teams.

Let's agree to disagree about the possibility of an Australian domestic league. My view is that it is possible and further that if it isn't, then rugby as a game faces existential issues in Australia.

We would still get the best of the SH during TRC, plus the best of NH during June tours. The international connection remains beyond super rugby.

 

[barbarian]

Let's agree to disagree about the possibility of an Australian domestic league. My view is that it is possible and further that if it isn't, then rugby as a game faces existential issues in Australia.
.

I don't think a local league is impossible, I just haven't seen a model I like yet. Specifically, one which doesn't completely demolish our major revenue source (TV rights).

For all the talk of issues in the game, it's important to remember the desire for the top product (Wallabies) is still there. We just witnessed three sold out (or close) matches against good international opposition. We've got issues, sure, but when we get it right then people are still willing to fork out to be a part of it.
.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think anyone would disagree that you could setup a national domestic competition, that would be sustainable.

The NRC is just about there already.

The issue is really how much the players competing could be paid, what sports science/coaching resource can be paid for and then whether the teams would be competitive in an international cup comp.

If they can't be paid a competitive salary (and i suspect they can't), then there's a flow on issue with Wallaby competitivness.

Is a domestic comp worth a worse Wallaby team?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[sunnyboys]

Strewth, I think a "worse Wallaby team" will be the outcome form the current course we are on. I think its a matter of timing. As crowds and viewer numbers fall, as will broadcast dollars. The last deal is four years old... we havent seen it re-priced yet.

if we start seeing a stagnation of broadcast dollars, we will see a reduction in wages and more players going north. the english and irish series have been great, but the long term trend for Bled, SA and other tests has also been down. I cant imagine the fall in interest in Super Rugby wont eventually/isnt already impacting Test crowds and viewers.

the trends we are watching take 3-5 years to play out.... trends that started to show 3 years ago in Super Rugby are now fully being realised - those early warning signs are there for some test content as well. i hope those warning signs are heeded.

the success of the Eng and Ire series show that diversity of opponents is good at Test level - Rugby Champs and Bled have become somewhat stale - and unlike 6 Nats the likely winner of RC is 95% chance it being the same one team. In that way it has the same issue Super Rugby has.

The way I think about is this - Wallabies generate most revenue. so what difference does changing the layer under have to TV $. If Fox isnt showing Super Rugby, what is it going to show instead?

the unknowns of course is what % the wallabies generate as a whole, and what could be lost in $ by going to a domestic comp?would international markets pick up a local comp (remembering that Super Rugby wouldnt exist)? and would our test performances really suffer?

 

[Braveheart81]

The way I think about is this - Wallabies generate most revenue. so what difference does changing the layer under have to TV $. If Fox isnt showing Super Rugby, what is it going to show instead?

the unknowns of course is what % the wallabies generate as a whole, and what could be lost in $ by going to a domestic comp?would international markets pick up a local comp (remembering that Super Rugby wouldnt exist)? and would our test performances really suffer?

The biggest challenge here is what happens to the strength of the Wallabies if a lot of our best players stop playing domestically.

The international windows where players would be available are way shorter than we currently enjoy by having the bulk of our players based domestically.

How much would our ability to compete with other tier 1 nations decrease if rather than 1 or 2 players joining the squad late, it was the bulk of the team?

 

[Strewthcobber]

S
The way I think about is this - Wallabies generate most revenue. so what difference does changing the layer under have to TV $. If Fox isnt showing Super Rugby, what is it going to show instead?

the unknowns of course is what % the wallabies generate as a whole, and what could be lost in $ by going to a domestic comp?would international markets pick up a local comp (remembering that Super Rugby wouldnt exist)? and would our test performances really suffer?

There's a couple of issues there - if we're going to do it, it would involve more teams than existing - so assume we can maintain ~$25m for salaries (optimistic!), that will be spread over 8/10/12 teams rather than the existing 4.

And you'd be wanting to use a lot more of the Wallaby funding for development/grass roots/juniors rather than the 2nd tier to make it worthwhile, so you're crunched at both ends - less revenue available + more demand from players.

My concern is not so much established Wallabies - they will make $$$ one way or another. It's convincing the next level below, and especially fringe pro players to stay with the game in Australia, if their salaries are reduced and not competative. That has the big 5-10 year flow on effect that you talk about too.

 

[barbarian]

The way I think about is this - Wallabies generate most revenue. so what difference does changing the layer under have to TV $. If Fox isnt showing Super Rugby, what is it going to show instead?

the unknowns of course is what % the wallabies generate as a whole, and what could be lost in $ by going to a domestic comp?would international markets pick up a local comp (remembering that Super Rugby wouldnt exist)? and would our test performances really suffer?

That's the question, isn't it.

The thing people miss in the discussion of TV revenue, is the amount that comes from overseas deals. Europe, Japan, Americas. A comp with international appeal puts more money in our pocket. We go domestic and I'm not sure that interest is there anymore.
.

 

[hoggy]

I don't think anyone would disagree that you could setup a national domestic competition, that would be sustainable.

The NRC is just about there already.

The issue is really how much the players competing could be paid, what sports science/coaching resource can be paid for and then whether the teams would be competitive in an international cup comp.

If they can't be paid a competitive salary (and i suspect they can't), then there's a flow on issue with Wallaby competitivness.

Is a domestic comp worth a worse Wallaby team?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

But can't we just turn that around, how much has been sacrificed to ensure a competitive Wallaby outfit.

You can argue the Wallabies are no more competitive than they were 20 years ago, in fact maybe less competitive.

But what has it cost the game at a grassroots level to ensure those overseas wages were matched.

 

[Braveheart81]

But can't we just turn that around, how much has been sacrificed to ensure a competitive Wallaby outfit.

You can argue the Wallabies are no more competitive than they were 20 years ago, in fact maybe less competitive.

But what has it cost the game at a grassroots level to ensure those overseas wages were matched.

Where do you think any revenue comes from for the grassroots otherwise?

What sort of revenue do you think could go to the grassroots if we decided we weren't going to pay our top players somewhere approximating market wages?

 

[Quick Hands]

That's the question, isn't it.

The thing people miss in the discussion of TV revenue, is the amount that comes from overseas deals. Europe, Japan, Americas. A comp with international appeal puts more money in our pocket. We go domestic and I'm not sure that interest is there anymore.
.

If the product is good enough, it will get interest from overseas. You only have to look at some of the content on pay TV hear - French Top 14, English Premier rugby, US college gridiron, various national soccer leagues. In most cases there isn't huge interest here in any of them, it's content at a reasonable standard to fill time on the channel in many cases.

I've just spent a month in Britain, Ireland and France and the overwhelming view from rugby people that I know there is that once they thought that super rugby was fantastic, but now they think that their standard is better (it's improved) and that super rugby has stagnated or even declined.

I'm not saying that broadcasters won't still watn super rugby, but I think that you'll find that it's viewed as a much diminished product and thus likely to be worth less moving forward.

 

[sunnyboys]

Quick Hands - i'm not surprised that NH fans are thinking of Super Rugby in that way. it truly has been hollowed out of the best players from the participating countries. whereas the northern players have stayed put and the standard of player further enhanced with the SH players.

The concern shown for performance of the Wallabies is an interesting one - it's hard to quantify what keeps the Wallabies in that 2nd to 5th band of countries. what we can clearly say is that Super Rugby hasnt enabled us to win a Bledisloe Trophy - and in fact over the last 15 years the wins have mainly come in dead rubbers. That record is hardly an endorsement.

is a comp that has been deserted by local fans worth continuing because other offshore are happy to pay and watch? i wouldnt think that a sustainable proposition on multiple fronts.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I get the international aspect of the game and its appeal but probably the biggest issue with Super Rugby has been just that. All the participating nations view it as a primary development tool for the international game and have failed to develop it as a separate going concern in order to build upon commercial opportunities from within. While that attitude continues Super Rugby as a product will continue its slow death.

It's been that very attitude that has seen SANZAAR at time blatantly refuse to look to develop its largest potential market in Australia. A market that has proven that its more than willing to pay good money for something it see's value in. Having international viewers is all well and dandy but if you get the mix right here you can essentially eliminate the reliance on NH viewership in short order.

The biggest question is how best to structure such a competition in order to provide that market with something it see's value in? Look at the available demographics. The expat populations and rivalries that actually matter in our competitive landscape. A purely domestic competition in probably isn't do-able in the short or medium term but there merit in a TT/Pacific based competition that can be grown from there.

What's needed are more hard decisions regarding the likes of Japan and Argentina, a change in how the SANZAAR nations look to compete with one another and most importantly a complete overhaul of how Super Rugby or whatever comes next is viewed as a business and not just a development structure. Because, bare with me for a second. Imagine if we had two revenue sources for the game.

 

[Bandar]

What sort of revenue do you think could go to the grassroots if we decided we weren't going to pay our top players somewhere approximating market wages?

You mean allow clubs to pay their wages and we select who we want to play for Australia???

We still have our most valuable TV product with the best players available (released in the test windows) so we shouldn't take a hit on the TV revenue front and we save on player wages.

The down side for RA is the loss of ownership of the professional players.

In my mind the big question is do we encourage clubs in Australia (under private ownership) to pay our best players or do we give up and say we can't compete and let European and Japanese clubs pay their salary in between tests?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You mean allow clubs to pay their wages and we select who we want to play for Australia???

We still have our most valuable TV product with the best players available (released in the test windows) so we shouldn't take a hit on the TV revenue front and we save on player wages.

The down side for RA is the loss of ownership of the professional players.

In my mind the big question is do we encourage clubs in Australia (under private ownership) to pay our best players or do we give up and say we can't compete and let European and Japanese clubs pay their salary in between tests?

If we give up and go down that route without even trying to establish something that appeals more to our market first then we well and truly deserve to ride off into oblivion where we belong.

 

[Braveheart81]

You mean allow clubs to pay their wages and we select who we want to play for Australia???

We still have our most valuable TV product with the best players available (released in the test windows) so we shouldn't take a hit on the TV revenue front and we save on player wages.

The down side for RA is the loss of ownership of the professional players.

In my mind the big question is do we encourage clubs in Australia (under private ownership) to pay our best players or do we give up and say we can't compete and let European and Japanese clubs pay their salary in between tests?

My post was a reply in relation to the suggestion that preferencing the Wallabies has damaged the grassroots. So it was a reference to the past I guess that somehow the grassroots would have ended up with more money if we hadn't been focused on trying to get the best results for the Wallabies.

If we can come up with a privately owned domestic competition (or Trans Tasman or whatever) that can pay the players well then I am absolutely in favour of it. I don't see a downside in this for Rugby Australia. Both need our top players here to be successful. No one is going to make a financially successful domestic competition if the standard is NRC at best. It needs top line players.

 

[hoggy]

Where do you think any revenue comes from for the grassroots otherwise?

What sort of revenue do you think could go to the grassroots if we decided we weren't going to pay our top players somewhere approximating market wages?

My point is that to much of that revenue is required to maintain that top level and it is essentially revenue that we are not earning.

You are right Braveheart in pointing out that the players are the ones who the have vested interests. They are getting paid market dollars (whether we like it or not for a product that is not generating enough to pay those wages)

What many argue is the balance of that distribution of revenue. We need $100 to feed the family a $1.

In fact many have argued that funding is now at such a level that the grassroots would not notice much if the Wallaby and Super rugby gravy train ended.