Where to for Super Rugby?

[Teh Other Dave]

The big thing, though, is this: It's the continuous decline in interest across the board and downward broadcast value that has sealed the fate of Super Rugby. Beyond salvaging something to 2020, the regular season intercontinental model is bust - and the only sensible option is to exit. This Soup is done.

If you're right Kiap, we've all killed off a major source of revenue. After nailing the first decade of professional rugby, SANZAAR seems to have made a mess of the last 10 years, and it seems to be co-inciding with a decline in Australian and SA fortunes. Funny that.

 

[half]

This could be Bill as the star

 

[Slim 293]

Should we march on them a la this?

No, because those movies should be forgotten.........

 

[Dan54]

I sincerely hope that's right D54. I think you can understand where a lot of us Aussie fans are coming from though. There is a bit of resentment from a lot of us feeling like we're not in control of our destiny and a lot of decisions are going to be made that feel like we're going to be the big losers out of it.

I maybe understand where you coming form BH, but I suspect that Aus rugby is as much in control of it's destiny in Super rugby as NZ or SA etc, because evreyone gets the same vote.

 

[lou75]

Do you have a link for 2016? I haven't seen them published yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...k/news-story/255bc852aa4328ff38c48a30e8d8ac49
looks like Wayne has the story
"The breakdown of the distributions to the various franchises is intriguing, with Queensland and NSW each receiving $5.95m and the Brumbies $5.775m. The Western Force received $7.357m, which included the $3.7m paid to the Western Australia Rugby Union for the effective sale of the Force to the ARU in August last year. The biggest share, however, $8.3m, went to the Melbourne Rebels, though $2.6m of this was special funding relating the external private equity sale."
and that's all I have to say about fake news Slim 293 and others

 

[kiap]

If you're right Kiap, we've all killed off a major source of revenue.

Ja. Well, no. Fine.

Perhaps that image of Super Rugby is not a good likeness.

On net figures, Super Rugby could be considered a loss-leader. The picture painted below from the ARU's 2012 annual report gives this indication.

While the publication was four years ago and there may be some room for quibbling on income attribution, I suspect it gives a reasonably accurate impression.

Of course, this doesn't include numbers from the state franchises themselves, but I've looked at them previously and they don't alter the overall direction.

The Super Rugby salvage attempts are not going increase revenues to Australia. They'll drop revenue. The major source of revenue is, and remains, Test matches.

 

[lou75]

The major source of revenue is, and remains, Test matches.

The major source of revenue in the current accounts is not Test matches it is Broadcasting (which may include Test matches, but is not limited to these)

 

[kiap]

The major source of revenue in the current accounts is not Test matches it is Broadcasting (which may include Test matches, but is not limited to these)

No matches, no revenue (broadcast and otherwise) … essentially, when you boil it down.

When you break down all revenue, what does Super Rugby generate?

I'd ask these questions:

• Is Super Rugby generating more dollars for Australian Rugby than it costs?
• If so, then then why are we axing a team?

 

[lou75]

No matches, no revenue (broadcast and otherwise) … essentially, when you boil it down.

When you break down all revenue, what does Super Rugby generate?

I'd ask these questions:

• Is Super Rugby generating more dollars for Australian Rugby than it costs?
• If so, then then why are we axing a team?

No Super Rugby = substantially less Broadcasting Revenue
Why are we axing a team? I got nothing.

 

[Leo86]

To all supporters,

I've been reading intently on this axing debacle since it began, of which i obviously do not agree with Australia having the least teams in the SANZAAR partnership.

I would like to hope the ARU will listen to their fans in which the majority seem to not want to axe a team along with RUPA.

As a peaceful protest i would like to consider taping a number 5 to my Jersey to represent "stronger as five" as all the force home games

My question and request is, will all super rugby supporters from all teams get on board?

 

[Omar Comin']

It seems pretty clear that the NZRU's views around competition structure are primarily based on how to best prepare All Blacks and not about how to build a great competition in and of itself.

It doesn't really matter for them, they have 5 teams that cover all NZ's major population centres, and they have no competing sports that get anywhere near rugby's reach and quantity of local content.

Of course it's the opposite in Australia, where we have 5 and probably soon 4 teams that compete for hearts and minds against 18 AFL clubs, 16 NRL clubs, 10 A League clubs and others. Where we have just 1 team in both of our heartland states, that often go 3 weeks without a home game while the other sports have multiple games every weekend.

By giving up a team we're going to be giving up on rugby having a genuine presence in a big Australian market like Perth so that we can continue to give South Africa and New Zealand their optimal test preparation competition. There's not even a thought of expanding professional rugby's reach into places like Western Sydney, the Hunter and Central Coast regions, Queensland outside of Brisbane etc.

It's not working for Australian rugby and it's time to do something else.

 

[half]

Personal Observation of the change in this forum.

To suggest even 2 years ago Super Rugby was a broken system, would receive almost no support. To suggest an Australian only or Aust / NZ only competition received mostly negative comments.

Today even those arguing for a continuation of Super Rugby use lost revenue as the main reason. Which to me means most rugby fans actually want a end to Super Rugby as it is currently structured.

The elephant in the room in leaving Super Rugby is lost revenue.

I can't start a thread, but was wondering if someone could on how to structure and then fund an Australian and or Aust / NZ only competition because me thinks thats what people mostly want .

 

[Micheal]

Personal Observation of the change in this forum.

To suggest even 2 years ago Super Rugby was a broken system, would receive almost no support. To suggest an Australian only or Aust / NZ only competition received mostly negative comments.

Today even those arguing for a continuation of Super Rugby use lost revenue as the main reason. Which to me means most rugby fans actually want a end to Super Rugby as it is currently structured.

The elephant in the room in leaving Super Rugby is lost revenue.

I can't start a thread, but was wondering if someone could on how to structure and then fund an Australian and or Aust / NZ only competition because me thinks thats what people mostly want .

I'm sure you mean in terms of broadcasting and other revenue, the technicalities and the logistics but I was thinking last night that if the ARU / NZRU replicated the "Own the Force" campaign with a "Kickstart a Trans-Tasman Comp" campaign I'd happily chip in a grand to help initially prop it up.

Never going to happen for countless reasons but its nice to dream.

 

[half]

I'm sure you mean in terms of broadcasting and other revenue, the technicalities and the logistics but I was thinking last night that if the ARU / NZRU replicated the "Own the Force" campaign with a "Kickstart a Trans-Tasman Comp" campaign I'd happily chip in a grand to help initially prop it up.

Never going to happen for countless reasons but its nice to dream.

Your idea has a lot of merit and its the thinking we need.

I used to think I knew the answer. But I have been closely watching FFA and the trouble sorry difficulty they have had in obtaining meaningful funding from broadcasters. Meaning rugby will find it just as hard.

I was looking to a thread that would allow people to float ideas on how we could fund the development of an Australian or Aust / NZ competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

I was looking to a thread that would allow people to float ideas on how we could fund the development of an Australian or Aust / NZ competition.

Surely that can be included in this thread.

None of the threads stay with a singular theme so if there ends up being threads that cross over they end up covering the same ground, ultimately get merged and then the posts aren't sequential (because they are pushing back together two threads).

I think we can talk about plans for a new competition here because it very much fits Where to for Super Rugby?

 

[Omar Comin']

You'd have to consider costs along with revenue.

But the bigger question is whether a national competition would try to retain all our Wallabies or not. Would we continue with central contracts or just pick players from overseas (or maybe it could be both, with a smaller number of centrally contracted players).

If you want to keep all the Wallabies players (other than those with 60+ caps) based in Australia as we do now the revenue question is a bigger problem. If you relax that then the competition could just simply live within its means and be as big or as small as the market determines. In that case the competition could also be a fair bit longer as you wouldn't have to worry so much about stopping for the test rugby season, which would give every team a few more home games and thus more revenue than a shorter season.

If we did want to continue with a policy of picking almost all the Wallabies players from domestic teams then I think you'd have to have something like a 16 round regular season plus finals, and then some kind of state of origin or similar concept leading up the test season. And that state of origin concept would have to be fairly lucrative.

 

[Micheal]

Your idea has a lot of merit and its the thinking we need.

I used to think I knew the answer. But I have been closely watching FFA and the trouble sorry difficulty they have had in obtaining meaningful funding from broadcasters. Meaning rugby will find it just as hard.

I was looking to a thread that would allow people to float ideas on how we could fund the development of an Australian or Aust / NZ competition.

With the equity crowdfunding bill passing the Senate, given you needed $10 million to launch the competition (an arbitrary amount), you could set it up so that:

+ The ARU commits $3 mil.
+ The NZRU commits $3 mil.
+ The Japanese Rugby Union commits $x mil (if they are included in the Oceanic comp).
+ The rest is made up by selling $1000 dollar units to:

// Retail and wholesale investors (you, me, institutional investors).​

// Key stakeholders (NSWRU, QRU etc.)​

​

Perhaps you could set it up so that after the ARU/NZRU put in initial funding, 40% of the competition could be offered to investors, with $4 million dollars funding being the lower limit required. As a result, if $14 million worth of units were actually bid for (14,000 units), each $1000 unit would simply be diluted so that the $14 million makes the 40%.

​

As a result, participants in the campaign would own x% of the competition and therefore could receive potential dividends. Watch it on TV? The higher viewership means a better broadcast deal next time around and more $$$ for you.

If the fans owned 40% of the competition, they could also demand 40% of the board (with representatives to be elected by the fan shareholders) and this could lead to better fan consultation with key stakeholder groups.

I'm sure every Australian player and Kiwi player could be incentivised to purchase one (10 teams, 30 squad players = 300 applicants), as well as people like Bill Pulver who could probably afford to buy 50-100 shares.

Get Alan Jones and Nick Farr Jones and the rest of the Sydney attention seekers to put their money where their mouth is.

Get John O'Neill to cough up a bit of the outrageous salary he demanded to put us in this position in the first place.

Obviously there are endless flaws to that proposal (people are crying out for an independent body to manage Super Rugby at the moment given SANZAARS flawed structure and the above solution isn't much better) but we need to think innovatively in order to save the game.

Personally, I'm utterly sick and tired of:

+ Waratahs games at 4am.
+ Not knowing any of the South African players, or caring enough to even attempt to know who they are.
+ Teams like the Rebels having 1 home game and two byes in the first 7 rounds (how the fuck are you supposed to sell that experience to fans?)

A Trans-Tasman competition makes more sense in every single way.

Alternatively, the same process could be used to set up an Australian league:

+ 1. NSW Waratahs.
+ 2. Western Sydney Rams
+ 3. QLD Reds
+ 4. ACT Brumbies
+ 5. Melbourne Rebels
+ 6. Perth Spirit (far better name than the Western Force)
+ 7. QLD Country team
+ 8. Team from: Fiji, Newcastle, Adelaide etc.

The team quality would be lower but atleast Australian teams would win week in week out. Besides, a lot of people find lower levels more interesting (e.g. NRC, Shute Shield, Schoolboy).

 

[Omar Comin']

A Trans-Tasman competition makes more sense in every single way.

Agreed, but I think we have to stop talking about the Trans-Tasman or Australasian competition as the NZRU have repeatedly said it's not what they want. I still think they'd go for it if their choice was that or a competition with primarily South Africa, but we need a plan that assumes they're not going to go with us.

 

[Joe King]

Funny WOB, I was thinking exactly same thing, I have heard absolutely noone from NZR saying anything but that they want to work something out that suits EVERYONE, including NZ, SA, Aus ,Arg, and Japan. I keep hearing and reading how stuff the kiwis, Saffas, etc we will just play with ourselves, (and you can take it however you want), but if Aus pulls out of Sanzaar, the Aus teams will
a, win every week, b, have a lot less travel c, all the games played exactly at the time to view Aus viewers and d, will show the Sanzaar that it should be run ONLY to suit Aussie rugby.
The big risk is of course that a; There will be a lot less TV money coming in as I not sure if European TV will pay much for an Aussie comp (or maybe they do for NRC?)b; The rugby will stagnate as perhaps the 5 Aus teams playing each other will not give any diversity for players to improve, c;As Sanzaar runs TRC I assume that Wallabies will find another comp to play in, d;There will be stuff all quality players left in Aus as there will no money to compete with NH clubs.
Will be a shame because I consider myself (like WOB) as someone who wants to see Aus rugby doing well, as I do rugby in any country, but being involved in it here,I want it for Aus rugby a bit more than most others! But also like WOB I almost getting to point of saying ok go your own way!

But your main priority in not what's best for Oz rugby. Your main priority is what's best for NZ rugby. And that's fine. That should be your priority. Super Rugby, whilst not perfect, is working really well for NZ and your structures. But it's arguable that Super Rugby is the very reason rugby is failing to penetrate the sporting and cultural landscape in Oz.

You can argue that it won't be what's best for Oz rugby to leave Super Rugby (and you may be right!), but surely you can understand why some Ozzie's are wanting to try something different. It's not to stuff NZ or anyone else. I can't speak for others, but for me, it's either die slowly, or take a risk trying something different.

For me, that risk is calculated. I don't think it will kill rugby in Oz. I think if we went our own way for a spell of say, 5 years, there would be a possibility of returning to Super Rugby if it didn't work out. We may return wounded, but not dead. And at least we tried. But if there's nobody watching in Oz as a result of persisting with Super Rugby, then it won't matter how many people are wanting to watch us from Europe. We desperately need to re-engage the Australian market. Super Rugby can't do that for us for a variety of reasons. Lack of local content is one reason. And winning is too sporadic for Ozzie teams to gain much benefit for Australian rugby. In our competitive sporting market, that just doesn't help. Unfortunately, I don't see how cutting one team and spreading those players across the other 4 will make much difference. I actually think going it alone would give us fresh motivation to put all the right systems and structures in place to improve our skill levels, and maintain them.

Yes, we probably would lose revenue. But if we really could re-engage the Australian sporting landscape, and as you say, "a, win every week, b, have a lot less travel c, all the games played exactly at the time to view Aus viewers" then that might act as a bit of a counter to that, however small.

I'm sure the NZRU would have the wisdom and compassion to understand that if we were to leave, it would simply be trying to do what's best for Oz rugby. And I'm sure they would not make any silly threats to prevent us from playing in the RC. That wouldn't be in anyone's best interest.

 

[Braveheart81]

But the bigger question is whether a national competition would try to retain all our Wallabies or not. Would we continue with central contracts or just pick players from overseas (or maybe it could be both, with a smaller number of centrally contracted players).

You would need to plan a reasonable way ahead before you did anything because your contracting arrangements would have to reflect that.

If your revenue and ability to pay players changes substantially then they'd need to look at stopping contracting players beyond a certain year at some point in time to be able to adjust to that new position.

If the revenue was going to drop substantially then they may also need to look at a new CBA. Overheads will go up rather than down if more domestic teams are added and if revenue drops, they might no longer be able to afford as high a percentage of player generated revenue.