T
TOCC
Guest
UBS is a major shareholder of nine, you need to take that report with a grain of salt, UBS have financial gain to be made by paying less for the rights.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
UBS is a major shareholder of nine, you need to take that report with a grain of salt, UBS have financial gain to be made by paying less for the rights.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
The weakness in the SA argument is that in many ways, they are the architects of this disastrous format. 3 x 6 might have been sustainable, but the unfathomable 4 conference system with bizarre permutations makes the whole thing a joke.
AS but one example, the Brumbies are currently 2nd in the Australasian group, by virtue of being first in the Australian conference. At the same time, they are over 20 points behind the Crusaders, who are 3rd in the Australasian conference. Rewarding such mediocrity is anaethema to competitive sport.
EDIT: What sort of system has a team placed 2nd having fewer points than the team coming 3rd?
Ulrich
Nev Cottrell (35)
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Absolutely, but their point remains nonetheless. If the reports are fair dinkum Nein is losing tens of millions of dollars every year. The problem cricket is going to have is that Ten can't afford cricket and Seven probably don't want it (they have tennis).
I actually reckon that a cooling off in the sports market, like for nearly every market, is generally a good thing. The amount of money changing hands for sports coverage compared to the commercial value of it has gotten a little out of control. I'm not a shareholder of any of these networks so I guess I don't care too much, but anything that can't continue in the long run generally doesn't. Just tonight on the news there was a report on the AFLPA and the proposed pay deal, which looks like being (on average) $371k per player, up from $309k. To make that the TV rights deal is going to have to be massive and I'm not convinced it will be.
All of that is a long winded way of saying that there could well be a reckoning in the sports market and I think it will be sooner than we think.
UBS Funds and UBS Research are pretty distinct.
The research guys are just pointing out fact - without competition, the amount paid for rights will fall
dru
David Wilson (68)
Very little of new information there. 10/10 to SARU for looking after their constituents. Way ahead of the ARU who seem simply happy to carve off a chunk of rugby.
The US connection is interesting but a furphy (Aus slang for tall story). But I'd be surprised if we dont see an African team playing in Europe.
Good work SARU.
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
Fuck yes! I would be queuing up to sharpen the guillotine. Blood on the stones and a party in my pants. Think of the things I could do with my fucken weekends without those exasperating shitheads ruining every f**ken weekend of the footy season on, let me see, a weekly basis. Could take up painting, or crocheting, or finally memorise the last 10 letters of the English alphabet, or singe my pubes, or become a world leader in the interpretative dance movement.
T
TOCC
Guest
Agree to disagree, anytime a report like this is released to the media by a party with vested interest, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Big business like UBS that supply a lot of these types of analyses must be regularly writing reports about business they hold interests in. UBS manages and would hold ETFs so theoretically can stand to profit from any report they write on ASX200 listed companies, amongst others.
The current ESPN lay offs does seem to lend credibility to the argument that sports rights may not be the investment they once were. I agree being a 10% stakeholder in Nine is a large holding so may not be a great look but where is the line drawn?
The sports market isn't what it used to be, yes. However there has been a massive failure by media companies to adapt to the changing market, especially in Australia.
Telstra's NRL app broadcasts on ipad screen size and isn't suitable for Television/Household subscriptions.
The AFL (though it took them until this year) allows the consumer to subscribe and stream / replay games online - however without a HD offering makes it's a feeble offering in this day and age.
All 4 of our footy codes (and cricket) are in the ridiculous position where it costs a fan $95 a month for them to be able to watch their team play in HD every week. Buyer beware though, a Grand a year can't even get you "On-Demand" replays. No amount of money in the world can. It's cooked.
Telstra's NRL app broadcasts on ipad screen size and isn't suitable for Television/Household subscriptions.
The AFL (though it took them until this year) allows the consumer to subscribe and stream / replay games online - however without a HD offering makes it's a feeble offering in this day and age.
All 4 of our footy codes (and cricket) are in the ridiculous position where it costs a fan $95 a month for them to be able to watch their team play in HD every week. Buyer beware though, a Grand a year can't even get you "On-Demand" replays. No amount of money in the world can. It's cooked.
Novocastrian
Herbert Moran (7)
Not quite true, it might be marginally more fiddly than just turning the Foxtel box on and there might be a few caveats re equipment/internet requirements but there's plenty of legit options out there to watch sport in HD.
2 I can vouch for are ESPN via a Sling TV subscription (currently using) and Rugbypass (trialed at the start of the year). $20 US/month each + a smart DNS/VPN option to get around geoblocking. Bloody good quality on a 10mbps 4g connection on my TV (via Apple TV) and phones/tablets/computers live and on demand. ESPN just has SuperRugby but Rugbypass has pretty much all rugby except 6N. ESPN also gives you A League and Rugbypass gives you pretty much all league - NRL, State of Origin, Auckland 10's, the Super League comp.ESPN also has a bit of cricket, pretty sure I've seen NZ, SA and England hosted matches on there in the past.
So there's options for 3 of the footy codes, for as little as about $30AUD a month so a lot less than a grand a year for HD on demand games!
Aus cricket you'd need Willow TV and for the aerial ping pong WatchAFL global is where to go. I'm not interested enough in either to test them out, but I suspect they'd have tv apps and be streaming in HD for a lot less than a non on demand Foxtel sub.
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
My feeling on bonus points change from day to day, tbh so I'm not necessarily married to having them removed.
My thinking at the moment is to remove all possibilities of a team with fewer wins placing above a team with a greater number of wins.
I just want a simple competition.
My thinking at the moment is to remove all possibilities of a team with fewer wins placing above a team with a greater number of wins.
I just want a simple competition.
Ben Coles doesn't really hold back in his opinion piece.
http://www.planetrugby.com/news/kings-force-going-down-with-a-fight/
Must admit, there hasn't been much in the Aussie mainstream media about the cut this week. Apart from Sharpie's plea on social media.
Dare say some serious negotiations are going on right now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.planetrugby.com/news/kings-force-going-down-with-a-fight/
Must admit, there hasn't been much in the Aussie mainstream media about the cut this week. Apart from Sharpie's plea on social media.
Dare say some serious negotiations are going on right now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dru
David Wilson (68)
I suspect there are a couple of non-franchise Provincial RUs in RSA, if given some appearance consistency and the funding to support it, like the Kings, would in time be valuable contributors to Super Rugby.
The problem for EP is the fan base and economic standing of Port Elizabeth.
This said, SARU are looking to reallocate Super funding so the franchises get more of it.
There are also options for EP to join Stormers, Sharks or Cheatahs. Merge or feeder is a different thing though.
If they are cut, they drop to the second tier of Currie Cup. Which will be messy.
Soon as I say there's been no news, I see this posted on the Oz:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/9f483cb003377ebe08deeedf3cbf8b74
Clyne stating te obvious...
And the reasons why
And the side story, the naive Western Australian government. THis reads like the Barnett government banked on Rugby being around for the long-term, which there was never any guarantees set in stone, only for the current broadcast agreement.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/9f483cb003377ebe08deeedf3cbf8b74
Clyne stating te obvious...
And the reasons why
And the side story, the naive Western Australian government. THis reads like the Barnett government banked on Rugby being around for the long-term, which there was never any guarantees set in stone, only for the current broadcast agreement.
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
Yeah the naive WA Gov who thought the Force would be around even though there was nothing set in stone except a legal binding document which stated otherwise.............
When you say document, I assume you mean the alliance agreement? This sets out the Western Force will remain in the comp for the life of the current broadcast agreement; this could be either 2018, or 2020, depending on legal interpretations, which no doubt will be tested in court.
If I was in government, and looking to invest in infrastructure, surely the business case would note a fairly long payback period for such a large investment? It would be more like 15 - 20 years, not 1 - 3 (as guaranteed by the alliance agreement). In terms of decision-making, it's not up there with great investment decisions. Is the business case for the investment publically available?
Don't worry, Victoria isn't immune to stupid investment decisions from their own governments; Ultranet, Myki. Done bo both shades of the political spectrum, been going on for decades.
If I was in government, and looking to invest in infrastructure, surely the business case would note a fairly long payback period for such a large investment? It would be more like 15 - 20 years, not 1 - 3 (as guaranteed by the alliance agreement). In terms of decision-making, it's not up there with great investment decisions. Is the business case for the investment publically available?
Don't worry, Victoria isn't immune to stupid investment decisions from their own governments; Ultranet, Myki. Done bo both shades of the political spectrum, been going on for decades.
- Status