Where to for Super Rugby?

[Strewthcobber]

Pro14 crowd size this week
7.3k, 12k, 4k, 4k, 6k, 7k, 2.4k (average 5.6k)

This isn't much better than NRC. There has to be other sources of funding

 

[Braveheart81]

It's pretty true of all domestic comps isn't it? - the crowds and TV money doesn't cover the cost of the teams, you need to find another source

That could be clubs/pokies, spendthrift owners, subsidy from the national team etc etc. But it's got to be something

For sure, and I think the only realistic option here is private ownership that is willing to pour in a lot of money.

 

[sunnyboys]

Happy to acknowledge those crowd figures Strewth. But ours is a different story - its about the decline - the trend is your friend as far as analysis goes, and ours has all been downward. If it was only crowds declining but our TV audience stayed the same, it wouldnt be such an issue. But our TV ratings have mirrored our crowd sizes.

Its been a large decline in total eyeballs - either at grounds or on TV. especially over the last broadcast deal timeline.

One can only guess how foxsports have reacted to any request to increase the deal this time round...

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the SS does demonstrate is that there does exist an appetite for a sense of community in the game. Something the current professional model tends to not necessarily ignore but does appear to be disconnected from. Now I agree that the SS or some kind of club structure isn't a viable alternative. They just aren't set up to be that alternative.

Which is why I tend to believe an elevated NRC should be the pathway forward. A fully professional competition featuring all the best available talent in Australia. But not focused toward playing out of largely empty stadiums but with a focusing on the smaller more intimate grounds allowing for spectators to get up close and personal with the players (NB: I'm not talking about club grounds more like places like Redfern Oval etc.)

We talk about costs and our ability to afford it. At present we have four independently run Unions administering the game in Super Rugby. From previous investigations it costs roughly $16m a year for these to run independently plus RA grants. There's a heap of duplication among these Unions that could be streamlined via centralisation. This would in itself save a significant amount of money that could be redirected.

Maintain the current HP operations at the current bases including in both NSW and Queensland with both squads training out of Ballymore and the UNSW facility respectively. But everything else is run from a single central office. If you just manage to save 10% of the combined costs of running the four individual Unions you'd have enforce a hard cap of $4m by distributing the balance of what would be needed to maintain that level of cap with the two extra teams based in both NSW and Queensland.

With the Force independently run while it may first appear to be an overall reduction of spend per team the pool of many would actually grow allowing us to keep our best talent onshore.

What would make this even more palatable would be a reorganization of the current schedule. With the NRC coming first and then some form of Super Rugby tournament featuring in the current window before moving to TRC after the NRL/AFL finals series.

 

[half]

For sure, and I think the only realistic option here is private ownership that is willing to pour in a lot of money.

Hallelujah, praise the lord and pass the plate, the converting thing is happening.

Scene, Star Wars movie, with half talking to the evil Emperor on the star ship.

Emperor === Half are you converting anyone to running a local domestic competition owned and run by private companies.

Half ==== Yes master, the converting of the population is now in full swing even some of key opposition identities are now openly discussing the change.

Emperor ==== That is good, do you have a time frame yet.

Half ===== Master, by 2022, in 2020 the media deal and broadcast rights will be such that people will be desprate.

 

[half]

Just as an additional subjective method of judging viewership and engagement look at the posting on the forum. Look at the Argie game tonight, when was the last time you can remember a Wallabies game attracting so few posts. I would also point out that a great many former regular posters have left and some that I know do not watch pro Rugby at all now. From Rugby tragics to disengaged and disinterested people who will still turn up and watch their club level grass roots sides, but don't ask them about anything above that level, they are not interested at all. In many cases I think that they are lost to the Pro game as fans, they have been so totally alienated and disenchanted that even people engaged with our game at a lower level no longer support the game in any way at Pro level.

The original post was in the TV & Crowd thread, I have replied in the Super Rugby thread as I don't want to recreate the same arguments in a different thread.

Gnostic you are clearly right in fact I would go far as to say a very large % of our hard core base have gone across to AFL, as the thought of going to league or soccer would just to to hard.

What can Super Rugby do to stop the trend or have we passed the tipping point and its only a matter of time before we can no longer its current format support a professional league.

We can all see the issues but RA seem trapped in their own in-decision, reactionary behaviour, vision and leadership is missing. Arguably;- also the knowledge, skill and determination to turn the ship around is lacking as well.

The Argie game on Fox rated 104K, and on FTA TV did not make the top 20. No 20 was 232K. At best say 330k, but that assumes, we where just out of the top 20. Its equally possible the number was below 200k and we did not reach a combined total of 300K. OK I know AFL & NRL finals.

The number in and of itself is far less important than the message it sends to business, sponsors, and broadcasters.

With netball, basketball gaining more traction for their internationals and soccer internationals both male and female gaining a massive following, rugby's reliance on the Wallaby's being the international code and therefore that will carry us through has IMO more holes than Parramatta Road.

People are voting with their feet and eyes. League & AFL are running full on into their women's competition. The W-League in soccer now has all games broadcast. All this is new competition and we seem incapable of reacting.

Lets not even talk about E-Sports as they grow at a very rapid clip.

AFL rule changes are coming or being trailed.

Soccer has announced a four week experiment in the A-League with the FFA selling fans safe flares to use during matches they plan to copy the Big Bash and play music when goal kicks are being taken. The music may not work but they are trying things.

RA's inability to control the professional game in Australia as we need the other countries to agree means we can't react or develop local ideas or sides.

Gnostic, has shown a fact we all know, and IMO without urgent action within a few years we won't have a professional league as we know it today.

 

[papabear]

Out of interest, what does AFL do or not do, that sets it apart from Soccer or Rugby League as a sport to follow when Rugby Union isn't travelling well?

 

[Rebels3]

Being in Melbourne it's a culture thing, plus the fans genuinely believe their sport is the greatest.

In my eyes the biggest thing separating the different codes is the following

AFL - culture, public perception is everything but this is derived from a mafia like influence the AFL has on the media. It's in the interests of all stake holders to talk the game up, but most importantly for the 18 teams in the comp, for the 9 teams that are doing terrible there is 9 teams doing well.

NRL - lacks the culture and most importantly they have almost no influence over the media, however again for the 16 teams in the comp there is 8 that are performing terrible there is 8 that are performing well. So always a positive to outweigh the negative.

A-League - for those that might be on the outskirts is actually performing terribly, no crowds, no tv audience etc. they mainly suffer from inferiority complex of football fans believing its a competition of second rate players not good enough to make it overseas. Of course there is some positives (WSW and Melbourne Victory) but apart from that the rest are doing about as well as any super rugby side, some worse. The administration is complex and full of infighting.

 

[kiap]

Out of interest, what does AFL do or not do, that sets it apart from Soccer or Rugby League as a sport to follow when Rugby Union isn't travelling well?

You must be located east of the Barrassi Line.

The AFL are ruthless in capturing hearts and minds. Their kids programs are second to none and they pour real dollars in. These kids become the supporters of tomorrow.

Aussie rules is also successful in capturing female support for the sport itself. This matters a lot more than most folk in the rugby codes realise.

While rugby union may be ahead of RL in this respect (it would be hard not to) it's way behind soccer and AFL.

 

[lou75]

^^ grass roots funding , fan engagement for starters

 

[Strewthcobber]

^^ Pokies in their clubs which means they need less funding from the AFL and more can be spent on marketing/members services/engagement and grass roots

The Alliance for Gambling Reform estimates that AFL clubs take in $93 million a year through their poker machines, with the average punter losing $21,000 a year.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2018/03/21/afl-poker-machines/

 

[kiap]

^^ Pokies in their clubs which means they need less funding from the AFL and more can be spent on marketing/members services/engagement and grass roots

https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2018/03/21/afl-poker-machines/

That doesn't set them apart from NRL, though, Strewth.

Your $93 million figure there for the entire AFL is almost matched by the mob at Raelene's old gig on their own. Bulldogs pull in about $75m (and yet still a basket case), Parra about $50m, Panthers $65m and so on.

All sixteen NRL clubs run poker machines. Only eight in AFL (three clubs announced they're out, as of this year).

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Living in a state dominated by Aussie Rules (I refuse to call it AFL), it obviously has to do with history in part. The AFL themselves are very good at grass-roots promotion of the game through Auskick and the like. There are thousands and thousands of kids playing at ovals across the state every weekend and the programmes are very well run (and funded). We've started to see more airtime for rugby in WA due to the Force and more recently through Twiggy's (and Bankwest) Rugby Roos. You see ads on the telly all the time. My understanding is that the participation rate of club rugby in juniors especially has grown significantly over time here, though I don't have the numbers to hand. The NRL and league barely features on our sporting radar's over here.

 

[RugbyReg]

Out of interest, what does AFL do or not do, that sets it apart from Soccer or Rugby League as a sport to follow when Rugby Union isn't travelling well?

own the sport. That's what AFL does that sets it apart.

Plus no clumsy national team rediverting funds from the grassroots.

 

[papabear]

You must be located east of the Barrassi Line.

The AFL are ruthless in capturing hearts and minds. Their kids programs are second to none and they pour real dollars in. These kids become the supporters of tomorrow.

Aussie rules is also successful in capturing female support for the sport itself. This matters a lot more than most folk in the rugby codes realise.

While rugby union may be ahead of RL in this respect (it would be hard not to) it's way behind soccer and AFL.

I am east of the barassi line.

Rugby League put a fair bit of money into grass roots / club support etc, not as much as the AFL but percentage wise to revenue it wouldnt be that emabrassingly different I wouldnt think, atleast I would be surprised if it was worse then the ARU.

I think the biggest issue rugby league faces with kids is the same one union has but worse, it is a violent game, more violent then union, union appears to have acknowledged this by running non contact for juniors, whilst the NRL seems to be pushing touch footy and tag more and more.

Thats why i like the games, but lets be honest lots of mums and dads are going to be scared of little timmy learning to take a hit and get his but up again.

 

[papabear]

That doesn't set them apart from NRL, though, Strewth.

Your $93 million figure there for the entire AFL is almost matched by the mob at Raelene's old gig on their own. Bulldogs pull in about $75m (and yet still a basket case), Parra about $50m, Panthers $65m and so on.

All sixteen NRL clubs run poker machines. Only eight in AFL (three clubs announced they're out, as of this year).

Doesnt union in canberra run a club / group bigger then the raiders?

Regardless of what you think of pokies, enjoying a sporting match due to their pokie involvement seems odd to me.

 

[papabear]

own the sport. That's what AFL does that sets it apart.

Plus no clumsy national team rediverting funds from the grassroots.

without the socceroos where would soccer be.

I love the world cup and watching the socceroos as much as the next bloke, but not many actually give a shit about the a league or local comp.

And tbh, I am pretty sure the AFL's "national afl/gaelic football" team costs them more money then it makes them. Not to the same degree, but we all know any other country in the world gave a shit about the AFL the AFL would be dropping big dollars promoting the shit out of a national match / matches.

 

[papabear]

Living in a state dominated by Aussie Rules (I refuse to call it AFL), it obviously has to do with history in part. The AFL themselves are very good at grass-roots promotion of the game through Auskick and the like. There are thousands and thousands of kids playing at ovals across the state every weekend and the programmes are very well run (and funded). We've started to see more airtime for rugby in WA due to the Force and more recently through Twiggy's (and Bankwest) Rugby Roos. You see ads on the telly all the time. My understanding is that the participation rate of club rugby in juniors especially has grown significantly over time here, though I don't have the numbers to hand. The NRL and league barely features on our sporting radar's over here.

To be fair the AFL branded themselves the AFL.

NRL just on that bandwagon too. What about soccer though, I imagine soccer is big in the juniors in WA as it is everywhere.

 

[papabear]

The reason I posed the question, is to me union and league are more similar (to be fair they were the same thing 130 years ago), whilst soccer has more history and tradition in one hundredth of its history then our traditional historical cult loving friends at the AFL can point to over their entire existence.

For me how well a sport is administered doesn't really do it for me, it is when i sit down in front of the telly and watch how hard and skilled the blokes are that flogging themselves to get a result in the contest. I.e. the game matters more then tv ratings / attendences / etc etc. I.e. the product.

You don't buy an ice cream because of its administration you buy it because of the product. I get a lot of people might be effected by the quality marketing campaigns and engagement one sport has over another, but really rusted on union supporters in the east of australia already would have a decent amount of exposure to other sports that you would think tastes more then marketing would sway them.

 

[kiap]

Doesnt union in canberra run a club / group bigger then the raiders?

Regardless of what you think of pokies, enjoying a sporting match due to their pokie involvement seems odd to me.

I haven't posted any opinion at all on pokies …

… other than to point out that the NRL relies on them as much as — and even more so — than AFL.

By the by, I do have a point of view on pokies but just don't deem chatting about it on this thread to be worth my while.

Others can!