Where to for Super Rugby?

[Slim 293]

I hope you're right. You would think that if they were going to cut some teams, they would need more than a few "days" to consult with the broadcasters as SANZAAR has stated.

Unless. could they have already negotiated this earlier with the broadcasters as a real option? I hope not

I'm pretty certain Foxtel already came out during the week against cutting an Australian team..........

 

[Braveheart81]

I hope you're right. You would think that if they were going to cut some teams, they would need more than a few "days" to consult with the broadcasters as SANZAAR has stated.

Unless. could they have already negotiated this earlier with the broadcasters as a real option? I hope not

I don't believe they could have had concrete discussions with the whole range of broadcasters without a lot of the detail leaking out.

The discussion is obviously very different with each broadcaster depending on which teams are being dropped so it couldn't just be really general with just a drop to 15 teams without saying which ones.

 

[mudskipper]

I read recently and agree with O'Neill:

O’Neill stressed the ARU’s “overriding objective” job was to act in the best interests in Australian rugby.​

“The ARU’s job is not to save world rugby. It is to fundamentally look after the game in the toughest, most competitive sports market in the world,” he said.​

“Latitudinal competitions — east/west competitions — do not work.​

“What Australian rugby needs is prime time content. Everyone knows content is king. The version of Super Rugby before they went to 18 teams, where we had 15 teams in three conferences and everyone played home and away in your conference, that was a terrific outcome for Australian rugby.​

“For the life of me I can’t understand why we moved away from that. The broadcasters loved it, the sponsors loved it, the crowds loved it, the players loved it.​

 

[mudskipper]

continued:

O’Neill said he would have opposed the inclusion of three extra teams and unwinding that mistake should be SANZAAR’s first priority. Argentina were included after lobbying by World Rugby and South Africa’s government pushed for a sixth, black-majority franchise. Japan were added to create a balanced 18 teams.​

“Personally, I would not have agreed with South Africa going to six teams. That’s a domestic issue that they should have been told to sort out,” O’Neill said.​

“Bringing the Pumas into the Rugby Championship, I was massively supportive of that. I would have never agreed to bring an Argentinian team into Super Rugby.”​

 

[Twoilms]

It does seem like a tournament that covers four separate continents is rather unwieldy. They really should have considered a meta-tournament system that Football uses to allow for interesting international club games whilst keeping things functional.

 

[dru]

I read recently and agree with O'Neill:

O’Neill stressed the ARU’s “overriding objective” job was to act in the best interests in Australian rugby.​

And isnt that a painful place to be!

(I'm with you, by the way.)

 

[No4918]

JON, was waiting for him to chime in. And how clever he looks after the fact. It's amazing. As if reading Grumbles column recently praising him for always doing what's best for Aus rugby wasn't bad enough.

 

[stoff]

Just imagine, if he had seen out his contract instead of pissing off with the big bonus he could have been an integral part of seeing that happen. I think the sixth SA team was announced within months of him quitting. But I guess this is the bloke who was single handed my responsible for our womens gold medal at the Olympics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zer0]

A South African piece suggesting that neither SARU nor the ARU vetoed the NZRUs proposal of a reduced 15 team competition.....

The Cheetahs are one of three teams who could lose their Super Rugby status if the competition is reduced from 18 to 15 teams next year.

A motion to cut three teams from the tournament was put forward at a Sanzaar meeting in London on Friday, and according to reports, New Zealand Rugby has given its backing to the Jaguares and Sunwolves and proposed that two South African teams and an Australian side get axed instead.

Any Super Rugby changes require a unanimous vote by all national unions. It is believed neither the Australian Rugby Union nor SA Rugby vetoed NZR’s proposal, and that a decision has been reached and will be announced in the coming days.

The Kings finished 17th on last year's combined 18-team Super Rugby log and are clearly South Africa's weakest franchise again this year.

According to Rapport newspaper, the Cheetahs' position is weakened because they don't have the economic power of the Bulls, Lions, Sharks and Stormers regions.

For example, if only 10% of potential rugby viewers in and around Pretoria attended a match at Loftus, the stadium could be filled six times over. In contrast, 10% of potential rugby viewers in and around Bloemfontein would only attract about 15,000 to Free State Stadium.

While the Australian side to be cut is a toss-up between the Force and Rebels, the most likely scenario from a South African point of view is that the Cheetahs and the Kings will fall victim to the new Super Rugby model.

Sanzaar and SA Rugby have dismissed the claim as mere speculation.

'Following two days of robust discussion, there are a number of tournament considerations that now require further discussion and consultation,' said Sanzaar chief executive Andy Marinos. 'This includes final consultation within the national unions and discussion with key stakeholders that would allow the adoption of changes proposed by the strategic plan.

'Sanzaar will make a formal statement on the future of the organisation, Super Rugby and the tournament format in the coming days once these further meetings have been concluded.'

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/cheetahs-facing-super-rugby-axe

 

[Braveheart81]

JON was renowned for being very persuasive at SANZAR meetings and getting more favourable outcomes for Australia than our contribution demanded.

He also managed to get the ARU to pay him a ridiculous salary and golden parachute that far exceeded what the sport in Australia could afford to pay him.

He also presided over reckless overspending by the ARU where they spent way more on players than their CBA obliged them to and frittered away the big financial reserves the ARU had from the 2001 Lions Tour and 2003 RWC without realising any long term structural benefit for rugby in Australia.

He is now always happy to criticise the current ARU leadership and somehow claim that everything done under his watch was great for rugby in Australia.

 

[RedsHappy]

Well, the general consensus seems to be that we have over-extended ourselves both financially and in terms of talent. That's why we are talking about a contraction in the first place?

Presumably, if the ARU moves to remove a team a cost-benefit analysis has been conducted. How much Revenue do the Rebels really bring in?

Also, i agree that there will be a lot of short term damage to the fan base, particularly in the region that is directly hit. But, given Rugby's current trajectory, if nothing changes there won't be any fans left anywhere in a decade.

Of course in essence you are right Twolims and the ARU know full well that a inexorable trajectory whereby (a) Super TV viewership continues to decline and (b) Super home crowds continue to decline (and 2017's crowds to date are commercially disastrous if sustained at those levels) and (c) Australia's State RU's all or most increasingly need large injections of ARU cash just to survive as their Super gate and local sponsor revenues fall away, well, in aggregate that is catastrophic for rugby in this country.

Further, many comments here re Pay TV (Foxtel's in particular) revenue to the ARU being irrevocably dependent upon the quantity alone of Australian Super teams playing (and thus X games per week involving say those 5 Super teams) are very superficial and incorrect in their assumptions as to how Pay TV constantly looks at the cost/benefits of the sports rights it acquires.

Yes, there is an element of Pay TV's business model for sports' rights relating to the raw quantity of games and teams played and playing. And an element of 'rugby fans will only get live Super with us so we gain exclusivity and gain and hold those X thousand subscribers', etc.

But Pay TV players are not so stupid as not to know that their advertisers and subscribers - the total source of their income - do not ever sign up to them for anything like the period they themselves sign up to SANZAAR for, namely 4-5 years typically.

On the contrary, their advertisers are tightly observant of monthly individual program and program type viewership levels and if measured viewership declines materially for a particularly brand or format of live sport, the advertising revenue $s Pay TV operators can obtain from it for that sport will decline and decline markedly.

Ditto the subscriber base - if those Pay TV subscribers who subscribe principally to obtain a particular live sport stop watching that sport decline in material quantities, then the 'churn' they get from such subscribers leaving - potentially never to return - will serve in part to invalidate the $ sums Pay TV paid to gain exclusive rights to the sport. Further Pay TV players are having to shorten their own subscriber contract periods and disaggregate subscriber program packages making their income even more volatile and niche-related in nature.

If Pay TV operators experience these two negative income impacts in parallel - which is likely with a sport's viewership decline - the total consequence is severe financial losses re the sport's rights deal they are locked into (assuming that is that their rights deal does not contain terms that lower their rights $ payments if viewership declines beyond a defined set of thresholds over time, and some rights deals do contain this fine print unsurprisingly).

The upshot of all this is simple: the Pay TV operators who have committed to Super 18 rugby via SANZAAR have a massive and very clear self-interest in agreeing to adjust the Super format, potentially radically, if it is clear that to not do so will endanger the entire commercial and shareholder-related validity of their long-term, locked-in payments for those rights. They typically have to commit long-term for rights, though the income that validates that commitment is highly volatile and relatively short-term necessitating their flexibility in lock-step with the ultimate rights holders if those holders credibly argue that change is essential to forestall a major drop in a sport's attractiveness and Pay TV viewership levels.

 

[No4918]

So in summary, if total viewers remains the same because the competition is better, then conceivably the broadcasters can maintain their income from advertising as it will sell for more and isn't just based on the hours they can broadcast. Kind of a less is more approach.

Pretty sure that is what RH said in that very detailed and relevant argument above.

 

[mudskipper]

So in summary, if total viewers remains the same because the competition is better, then conceivably the broadcasters can maintain their income from advertising as it will sell for more and isn't just based on the hours they can broadcast. Kind of a less is more approach.

Pretty sure that is what RH said in that very detailed and relevant argument above.

Production costs for the broadcaster is larger... Costs for a NZ + ARU Trans Tasman comp could work well with more accessible local broadcast times.

Let's support Australian rugby, Australia can't be asked by SANZAAR or the IRB to sacrifice local teams to support failed business venture. If we fail to support our own teams its to our own great shame...

 

[p.Tah]

You know we're in trouble when the League commentators are feeling sorry for us:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...n/news-story/5a50a5018c1c30ea14393a0592f6993b

 

[mst]

A South African piece suggesting that neither SARU nor the ARU vetoed the NZRUs proposal of a reduced 15 team competition...



http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/cheetahs-facing-super-rugby-axe

See post #352

 

[Rugbynutter39]

You know we're in trouble when the League commentators are feeling sorry for us:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...n/news-story/5a50a5018c1c30ea14393a0592f6993b

And you don't think Mathew johns suggestion of having 3 teams does not know which code would be the major beneficiary of that.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

JON was renowned for being very persuasive at SANZAR meetings and getting more favourable outcomes for Australia than our contribution demanded.

He also managed to get the ARU to pay him a ridiculous salary and golden parachute that far exceeded what the sport in Australia could afford to pay him.

He also presided over reckless overspending by the ARU where they spent way more on players than their CBA obliged them to and frittered away the big financial reserves the ARU had from the 2001 Lions Tour and 2003 RWC without realising any long term structural benefit for rugby in Australia.

He is now always happy to criticise the current ARU leadership and somehow claim that everything done under his watch was great for rugby in Australia.

Good summary BH. May I add to it:

IMO, JO'N's (and his then ARU board btw) gravest failing with immensely negative strategic consequences was/is this:

His core proposition in establishing an expanded 'national footprint' for rugby (and that led in its assumptions to the establishment of the Force and the Rebels) and that such an expansion was essential for the future commercial and game strength of of the code here, was fatally flawed in one utterly critical dimension.

Namely, this type of high-risk expansion will only ever work if in parallel you design and deploy an equally ambitious and far-reaching strategy to ensure that the innate and enduring quality of sporting product provided throughout this 'national footprint' is enhanced and sustained at a higher level than that existing before the footprint was expanded.

If you cannot fund, conceive of and deliver that deep overlay of 'product' quality improvement essential to mitigate the multiple risks of serious size expansion, then don't expand at all, rather just build around what you have today.

This principle is a golden rule of any quality business and strategic practice. It was not followed by JO'N or the ARU and today we reap the deleterious consequences of a materially expanded national game delivering lower and lower standards of rugby across far too many frontiers and outlets.

Everything has accordingly suffered badly, from the Wallabies right down to the very base of the game, the local clubs and our base level of essential rugby skills. Today, purely for example, we have many Wallabies who cannot pass and kick from hand properly.

Those negative consequences are now glaringly obvious.

If we were to expand as dramatically as we did we needed a parallel strategy and process to ensure (a) that our players and playing quality matched and ideally exceeded our scale and (b) that we could enhance our long-term elite level playing quality to adequately compete against the world's best and thus protect our long-term code income potential vs the large costs and risks of code expansion.

To do this we had to undertake, inter alia, at the very least, the following 5 streams of what might be usefully called 'rugby product quality enhancement and growth':

- accelerated grass roots development, grassroots reach and quality ensuring and enhancing local rugby club solidity and its viable expansion potential in both player numbers and local player development quality and rugby community support programs

- (hugely important) a major, well-funded program to recruit for and develop in-depth rugby core skills enhancement programs and, related, pervasive coaching and coach-development quality from schools and grassroots programs up through all levels of the code

- a major program a la the AFL's Auskick aimed at dramatically improving (and even as needed cash subsidising) rugby's take-up and penetration of State schools so as to increase the national player base of the code and lessen the very risky, dangerously narrow reliance on the NSW and QLD GPS rugby schools factories

- a serious, sustained national program in core rugby skills areas designed to particularly aid the mid-level rugby player strata and above, such as: set-piece, kicking, ensemble attack modes, mental skills and preparation, injury avoidance and specialised S&C, etc.

- centralised governance and rigorous quality control over both the senior management ranks of each RU and ditto the senior coaching ranks of each RU, this to ensure the ongoing viability of each State RU in business leadership and playing capability terms

We gained a huge $ surplus from the RWC 2003, we expanded to the Force in 2006 and the Rebels in 2011. In 2017, that surplus is totally dissipated and we are consumed with economic and pervasive code quality issues on virtually every front.

Essentially, none, not even 1, of the 5 investment and long-term quality- and depth- assuring streams above ever occurred, not even close.

Now we stand at the precipice of a chronic failure of the code's survival potential in Australia.

 

[zer0]

See post #352

My bad. Missed the link you posted at the end.

 

[Gareth Wasik]

They should have two tiers starting with the two newest (sunwolves and Jags) sides knocked back into a second tier with a promotion and relegation set up. With the three existing conferences the top three sides from the second tier come up in the next year. It promotes growth etc in the southern hemisphere.

Teams in the second tier could include - Sunnies, Jags, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, China(Hong Kong), uruguay.

 

[Braveheart81]

They should have two tiers starting with the two newest (sunwolves and Jags) sides knocked back into a second tier with a promotion and relegation set up. With the three existing conferences the top three sides from the second tier come up in the next year. It promotes growth etc in the southern hemisphere.

Teams in the second tier could include - Sunnies, Jags, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, China(Hong Kong), uruguay.

The competition is struggling financially as it is. It can't afford to fund a whole host of second tier sides in uneconomic markets.