Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

if domestic is worth just $10million then what is TT worth?

Yes, a bit more on top. But say an Oz comp (8 to 10 weeks in 2021) is $10 mill.

What's to stop a TT Champs Cup and/or TT Challenger Cup following on after that?

That's plenty more than $10 million.

I had always understood that the value from broadcasting came from the WBs and that money propped up Super. If that concept is correct, and say each franchise needs $5m a year, then $10m for the 2nd tier and WB income separately - might not be that far away from reality.

Indeed

Imagine the position we could be in if we get a little bit of help to squeak by the next year or two (cap out to twiggy). Home RWC and Lions tour, more development in direct sports streaming services like DAZN/OPTUS/Twitch/Hulu?, potential time to develop own broadcast/production opportunities.

Yep. McLennon mentioned looking at an initial 2-year option some weeks back.

 

[dru]

Indeed

Another thing to keep in mind - the shrink to greatness policy seems inherently flawed with a concurrent shrinkage in broadcasting $.

Any solution proposed that at least attempts to overcome the perceived lack in broadcasting value has also the possibility of turning the down trend and gradually building both support and broadcast $. Super has , so far, completely failed here.

 

[hoggy]

The Australian today reported that a domestic comp would be worth just $10 million and Tests another $10 million.

So how much more would a TT be worth on top of that $10 Million, because surely you would need to factor in some further equity available in a champions league, after your domestic league.

My point is maybe overall TT has the biggest value(but does not seem by a lot), so surely this would be the time to go domestic and look long term.

The other factor (just speculation) is Fox just being lazy, a nice little TT comp used as filler to League and AFL it keeps there current subscribers and not much risk, you only have to look at this year, don't really give the impression of really wanting rugby, just don't want to lose it.

 

[Dan54]

Aoteroa wont be interesting. Crusaders will win it as they won Super Rugby the last three years and will probably continue to win it for several more given the relative youth of their team. Real competitive comp youve got there.

If anything, any comp excluding the Crusaders will be more competitive. The last team to beat the Crusaders in a final match was in fact an Australian team.

edit: this argument really grinds my gears. You use the inverse argument to suggest that South Africa must stay in. Even though South African teams are historically far worse than Australian teams. It's a nonsense and comes from Kiwi ego.

Yeah your teams are generally better (the Crusaders significantly so) but it's not like we are proposing to have 5 Shute Shield teams playing in the TT comp.

Double edit: I checked and Crusaders have only ever been beaten by another Kiwi team in the final once (three to Aus teams) despite 14 appearances. If your argument is that a Kiwi only comp will be more competitive I've got news for you.

I was agreeing that I thought Aus teams were competitive, but to make them properly competitive I feel they need a bit more depth, and before you get your tits in a tangle again, almost exactly what the chairman of RA said. I know you pointing out how many times Au teams have won the comp, and I not even going to ask how well teams have gone since expansion, I suggesting Australian teams are competitive, and we all want them beating NZ teams on a reasonably often occasion, or do you not think that is better? I think until you build a bit more depth buying in a few players is quite a good way to go. I not arguing for retention of SA over Aus players, I know I have always liked SA teams, but only I like the style of rugby they play, and I like to see different styles, just a personal preference. I know the Crusaders will now probably win the Super Aotearoa, but I wasn't that confident until last weekend. I will also point out when asked last night on Breakdown the general concencus was that it should be a 9 team comp, but may end up being 10. And from listening to Twiggy I wouldn't buy to many shares in Rebels!

And by the way, please show me where I have argued for how many teams should be in Super rugby,!

 

[Derpus]

Hrmm - fair enough. In that case, it follows that the other Kiwi teams should look at importing some talent as well given they aren't competitive with the Crusaders.

 

[D-Box]

When people complain about the start times in Perth and broadcast time in NZ it is presented as an insurmountable option but I really don't understand why. During Super there appeared to be a desire to run the games at 705 AWST on a Friday night to get the NZ/East Coast/Perth triple header. It was even worse on a Saturday when you would get a post 7pm kick off but no East Coast game. Why they were scheduled then I don't know. We also had the Tahs getting Sunday afternoon games. I would have loved to go to a Sunday afternoon game in Perth. KO at 3pm, 5pm KO in the east and 7pm in NZ.

Schedule the games to get a crowd in but to line up with the east coast time slots. So long as it is not every week a 5:40 Friday can be done and I am sure if RugbyWA only had to do it once or twice per year Seniors rugby can be pulled 30 min early to get people to a 5:40 or 6pm Saturday game.

 

[Dan54]

Hrmm - fair enough. In that case, it follows that the other Kiwi teams should look at importing some talent as well given they aren't competitive with the Crusaders.

If you think do, I don't and can see Crusaders getting knocked over before the end of comp. I think the Crusaders are a Mounga injury away from being prone to a loss, because they don't really have a top back up 10.. But by the way NZ have imported talent before, if you watched they had Marchant playing for Blues this year, James Haskell was out playing for the Clan. Ardron the Canadian captain with the Chiefs? Oh and Van Wyk for the Canes, see what I mean, it not the end of the world to suggest it.

 

[SteveWA]

When people complain about the start times in Perth and broadcast time in NZ it is presented as an insurmountable option but I really don't understand why.

It's all manageable with a bit of give and take. What wasn't sustainable was 4am games and no home games for weeks at a time.

 

[Derpus]

If you think do, I don't and can see Crusaders getting knocked over before the end of comp. I think the Crusaders are a Mounga injury away from being prone to a loss, because they don't really have a top back up 10.. But by the way NZ have imported talent before, if you watched they had Marchant playing for Blues this year, James Haskell was out playing for the Clan. Ardron the Canadian captain with the Chiefs? Oh and Van Wyk for the Canes, see what I mean, it not the end of the world to suggest it.

I was being facetious because i think the suggestion that we arent competitive enough is silly. Other Kiwi teams have just as bad a record against the Crusaders as Australians do against other Kiwi sides - so why doesn't the same argument apply to them? Granted you haven't actually argued it yourself - but it's a prevailing argument at the moment. 'cut another team or import more players to be more competitive, or we won't let you join us' - no thanks.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Japan was required to provide an inequitable contribution out of proportion to any other Franchise. Hardly a warm welcome or friendly hand to join us.

Wasn't it the Saffas that wanted them out?

Some Irony there, as they themselves leave the room

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

The Australian today reported that a domestic comp would be worth just $10 million and Tests another $10 million.

Rough numbers based on Super Rugby model as proposed back then and now
Original offer
$125m over 5 years
$25m/year
94 games (14 team round robin + 4 team finals) = $27k/game

New offer
$10m/year
22 games (3 team finals) = $45k/game

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

NRL season 204 games $120m/season = $58k/game
AFL season 207 games $146m/season = $70k/game

 

[rugboy]

Rough numbers based on Super Rugby model as proposed back then and now
Original offer
$125m over 5 years
$25m/year
94 games (if 4 team finals) = $27k/game

New offer
$10m/year
22 games (3 team finals) = $45k/game

Where was the suggestion that there would only be 22 games? Clark noted it as a domestic competition with international crossover. This would be considerably more than 22 games. Depending on the structure and how many teams are involved.
The quote from Clark was:
We have looked at different iterations around a domestic competition with an international crossover element. We are looking at the trans-Tasman competition as a foundation for expansion into the Asian Pacific. And a number of other iterations that involve new directions.

 

[hoggy]

Rough numbers based on Super Rugby model as proposed back then and now
Original offer
$125m over 5 years
$25m/year
94 games (if 4 team finals) = $27k/game

New offer
$10m/year
22 games (3 team finals) = $45k/game

Just looking at the figures did the $125M include Tests as well, and how do you work out the 94 - 22 games, not disputing the figures just not sure how you came to that.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Just looking at the figures did the $125M include Tests as well, and how do you work out the 94 - 22 games, not disputing the figures just not sure how you came to that.

Just edited.

Castle was working with the new Super Rugby format of a 14 team round robin competition (I added three finals matches) compared to the current Super Rugby Au format.

My understanding was the the original offer actually included Wallabies tests, Super Rugby and NRC.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Where was the suggestion that there would only be 22 games? Clark noted it as a domestic competition with international crossover. This would be considerably more than 22 games. Depending on the structure and how many teams are involved.
The quote from Clark was:
We have looked at different iterations around a domestic competition with an international crossover element. We are looking at the trans-Tasman competition as a foundation for expansion into the Asian Pacific. And a number of other iterations that involve new directions.

None of which have yet been presented to broadcasters. The first line of the article says "The tough financial reality for Rugby Australia is that their next broadcast deal is likely to be worth no more than $10m a year for its domestic competition."

 

[hoggy]

Just edited.

Castle was working with the new Super Rugby format of a 14 team round robin competition (I added three finals matches) compared to the current Super Rugby Au format.

My understanding was the the original offer actually included Wallabies tests, Super Rugby and NRC.

It shows that we're not that far apart though, if (and this is all speculation) we get $20 million were only $5 Million short, and considering Co-Vid, is that so bad, that doesn't factor in a champions league, but negatively a domestic league will require at least one more team (6) to start, the NRC is history but some club (shute/Premier) payments need to be factored as well.

The point though, its clear now that we may be broke but TT is not some pot of gold either.

 

[Dan54]

I wonder if SA do go north if it the end of RC? The club rugby up north is based around the 6N and could that cause SA to go into that comp?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It shows that we're not that far apart though, if (and this is all speculation) we get $20 million were only $5 Million short, and considering Co-Vid, is that so bad, that doesn't factor in a champions league, but negatively a domestic league will require at least one more team (6) to start, the NRC is history but some club (shute/Premier) payments need to be factored as well.

The point though, its clear now that we may be broke but TT is not some pot of gold either.

Some really good points and bonus is we have force back in and twiggy interested in investing (potentially) through his private equity arm...I feel more positive about the future of rugby seeing force back in the fold and twiggy and RA in positive dialogue.

 

[rugboy]

So you assume a click bait

None of which have yet been presented to broadcasters. The first line of the article says "The tough financial reality for Rugby Australia is that their next broadcast deal is likely to be worth no more than $10m a year for its domestic competition."

so you assume a click bait heading from a journo more reliable than a quote from the CEO? He cites that they have been working on domestic with international crossover, TT and other interactions of new directions. So either the domestic model with international crossover has been shopped to Fox along with the other models and returned a 10 mil commitment or the journo is pulling figures from thin air in which case all the discussion and hypothesis are worthless.