Where to for Twiggy Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

NZ involvement brings international interest and TV broadcasting revenue.

I think the NZ position on SA is changing rapidly. They won't keep playing South African teams if it no longer makes financial sense.

They're in a substantially stronger financial position than us due to the All Blacks being a more lucrative brand than the Wallabies but the arse has also fallen out of their Super Rugby crowds.

Everyone relies on the TV dollars that come from the big markets in Europe.

NZ is also a much smaller economy than Australia.

 

[Quick Hands]

The moment I hit “post” I realised I have more to add.

It has been claimed now and then that SH Super Rugby is the best quality club ruby in the world. This is something I no longer give a damn about. The only, ONLY thing I care about is whether the things we are involved in are making Australian rugby stronger.

We have been making SANZAAR stronger since it’s inception. From now on, with an absolutely determined implementation, it needs to be about whether SANZAAR is making us stronger.

I'm not even sure that Super Rugby really is the best elite competition in the world anymore. The Aviva in England is certainly better and I also think that Top 14 is better.

 

[TOCC]

I'm not even sure that Super Rugby really is the best elite competition in the world anymore. The Aviva in England is certainly better and I also think that Top 14 is better.

Top 14 maybe has 3 or 4 teams who could compete, but they aren't better then the top 4 teams in the Super Rugby comp. Likewise with the Aviva, they probably have 5 or 6 teams who could compete, but wouldn't beat the best in Super Rugby IMO.

 

[kiap]

Super Rugby has been like a share house. OZ, NZ and SA playing their ENTIRE top-level pro season under the one roof since the game turned pro.

Eggs 100% in one basket. Fun times … for a while. Then it gets stale

Well, the Saffers have started nicking off for their own dirty little weekends away. They know the frat house isn't working. We've also got to start making plans for ourselves.

By definition, that does mean cutting out New Zealand -- but not 100%. Australia just needs to be its own boss for, say, 60% of the season or a bit more.

Not a big stretch. Half the Soup is derbies anyway - but what's missing is control. There's upside to control over a competition and moving it the way you want.

But there can still be a champs league to play NZ (or SA and others for that matter) where that can be agreed on terms.

 

[dru]

So what about this Dru for a proposal. Would you accept this as being in the best interests of Aussie rugby?

12 teams, 2 pools of 6. Pool A = 5 Aussie Super teams, Sunwolves. Bool B = 5 Kiwi teams, Fiji Drua.

You play your own pool twice, and the other pool once. 15 games each with a six team finals.

It's not perfect, but I think it might be the best case scenario.
.

Hypotheticals, OK. I'm going to take a little time to work it through. Initially though, yes, absolutely much better than what is being offered right now.

 

[dru]

Top 14 maybe has 3 or 4 teams who could compete, but they aren't better then the top 4 teams in the Super Rugby comp. Likewise with the Aviva, they probably have 5 or 6 teams who could compete, but wouldn't beat the best in Super Rugby IMO.

TOCC, I'm genuinely interested - does how these comps fit (in terms of superiority) really concern you? I started with a position that it simply matters nothing to an Aus rugby fan. Our concern should be about what the premier competition does for our national strengths. Do you think I missed something?

 

[Quick Hands]

Top 14 maybe has 3 or 4 teams who could compete, but they aren't better then the top 4 teams in the Super Rugby comp. Likewise with the Aviva, they probably have 5 or 6 teams who could compete, but wouldn't beat the best in Super Rugby IMO.

Although I was talking more about the competitions as a whole, rather than individual teams. The top 4 Kiwi teams are good, the top SA team about the same, but after that there's fairly dramatic drop in standard.

I'd rate Aviva clearly the best competition, without question. Top 14, maybe has a similar drop in standard after the top 5 or 6 as super rugby.

But when you add into the mix that both of those competitions are played in the same time zone, so that everyone can watch every game that their team plays every week, there's simply no way that Super Rugby cuts it.

 

[TOCC]

TOCC, I'm genuinely interested - does how these comps fit (in terms of superiority) really concern you? I started with a position that it simply matters nothing to an Aus rugby fan. Our concern should be about what the premier competition does for our national strengths. Do you think I missed something?

It's not so much a measure of the level of superiority, rather it being a reflection of the skill, talent and competitiveness on show.

Any competiton that hopes to attract decent broadcaster dollars needs to be able to demonstrate that it's going to hold its own in terms of the product they produce. And like mentioned, that's measured by the talent, skill and level of competitiveness on show.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's not so much a measure of the level of superiority, rather it being a reflection of the skill, talent and competitiveness on show.

Any competiton that hopes to attract decent broadcaster dollars needs to be able to demonstrate that it's going to hold its own in terms of the product they produce. And like mentioned, that's measured by the talent, skill and level of competitiveness on show.

Other than the Kiwi derbies, I can't see how you could apply this to Super Rugby. Maybe a decade ago you could have but not now.

 

[Braveheart81]

The broadcast $ outside of Australia in the current set up is because the system presents very poorly to the domestic fan and income is poor. Resolve that with a home game each fortnight and chase some proper marketing.

It doesn’t need to compete for domination in the Australian market, just compete for a percentage that works commercially.

The broadcast dollars outside of Australia are there in the current setup because rugby is a popular sport worldwide and the demand for a quality rugby product is high. Even with the drop off in Super Rugby it still presents well with the top leagues available around the world.

If you didn't have that international appeal then I don't know a competition would be viable mostly from a domestic TV deal. Each game would need to rate as well as a decent test match to attract a viable TV deal. I don't know the demand is close to being there domestically.

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest there are hundreds of thousands of extra domestic fans who will tune into each match if it was a domestic only comp.

NZ is also a much smaller economy than Australia.

They provide the strongest rugby though. That is where so much of the value lies in our relationship with NZ.

 

[Quick Hands]

The broadcast dollars outside of Australia are there in the current setup because rugby is a popular sport worldwide and the demand for a quality rugby product is high. Even with the drop off in Super Rugby it still presents well with the top leagues available around the world.

If you didn't have that international appeal then I don't know a competition would be viable mostly from a domestic TV deal. Each game would need to rate as well as a decent test match to attract a viable TV deal. I don't know the demand is close to being there domestically.

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest there are hundreds of thousands of extra domestic fans who will tune into each match if it was a domestic only comp.




They provide the strongest rugby though. That is where so much of the value lies in our relationship with NZ.

THe demand will never be there domestically as long as Super Rugby continues to be a multi-continent, multi-time zone competition. Ever.

There is zero propect of domestic growth within Australia using Super Rugby as the vehicle. Zero. In fact we're probably now into negative growth territory using the Super Rugby model.

If your view is that the purpose of Australian rugby is to provide sporting content for parts of the world, then you're entitled to that view.

If your view is that you want to grow the game in Australia, the evidence is there from a range of other sports, that a national league is the way to go.

What you're essentially advocating is a sporting version of trickle-down economics as set in place by JON all those years ago.

The idea being that if the Wallabies went well then this success would trickle down to the super sides and the interest from watching the Wallabies win and the super sides being competitive would energise the grass roots and attract new fans and participants. After over 15 years of it, I think that we can pronounce the concept a failure and go to a bottom up model. This may involved short term pain, but long term it's the only way.

 

[dru]

So what about this Dru for a proposal. Would you accept this as being in the best interests of Aussie rugby?

12 teams, 2 pools of 6. Pool A = 5 Aussie Super teams, Sunwolves. Bool B = 5 Kiwi teams, Fiji Drua.

You play your own pool twice, and the other pool once. 15 games each with a six team finals.

It's not perfect, but I think it might be the best case scenario.
.

Hey B, I've slept on it.

The team selections - good. Conference system - good. I'd like a draw - but presuming it wasn't going to do funky things (eg Fiji can't play home and away in blocks thereby creating balance problems in the draw) it should permit generally a home game each second week - you'd have to be a problem child to create a poor draw. So good.

So what you have proposed is good, possibly very good.

What it needs, what any future system needs, is consideration of the administration and governance, and connection to the grass roots. Let's leave the grass roots thing to the side.

Is this competition going to be roughly a level playing field? IE with genuine competitiveness across the franchises?

No.

Not based on 2017 Super rugby.

Skill will be skewed to the Kiwis. In my mind competitiveness is more important to commercial success than skillset. This could be adjusted by changing the NZ rep selection rules - to be from the competition rather than NZ resident teams only. If the Kiwis aren't interested (they would be entitled to dictate this), the comp is not superior in my mind than a domestic only competition.

Governance also is an issue. The competition faces a saturated NZ market and highly competitive, but potentially rewarding, Australian conference. The competition as a whole is responsible for marketing in Aus. Are the Kiwis, Japanese and Fijians going to stand for that?

Team names need to reconsider identification for the Aus market - not just a minor issue if we are serious about building the pie. Will NZ concur?

You'd need a plan for covering Fiji costs, as they are not going to generate funds in Fiji. Sunwolves I would expect to ultimately be commercial. Very. They will end up sharing those broadcast $ with the rest of us. They need to be happy with that. of course their gate will be all theirs. OTOH you'd need to be prepared to assist the japanese. As I suggest that Kiwis need to share talent, the comp would need to intentionally take on Japanese players to help build their depth. And we need to provide pAus (and Kiwi) players to them.

It was something that was worth chasing in planning in stead of the shrink strategy, and look to change for 2020 - IE a 5 Aus franchises should have been mandated to ease this change. But what will happen with Tew governing SANZAAR and sycophant Clyne governing ARU, is wwe will have our teams continue to be whittled down in number in order to create competitiveness. And that will simply hasten the demise of Australia as an international force.

Now we have more work to do. All in all I don't see the Kiwis complying which makes the comp a pipe dream. And we end up returning to what suits Australian Rugby? In the absence of the Kiwis really engaging in such a plan, we need to go solo.

I'd be happy with a separate arrangement where State of Origin style rep teams (probably three of them) meet the Kiwis after the domestic season is done. That would be competitive and build to the internationals. 8 team knock out. Kiwis keep all the stuff they demand, but have to come up with a domestic comp to keep their franchises going. And we invest in ourselves.

We need to end the situation where we are dictated by what is good for the All Blacks.

 

[Braveheart81]

THe demand will never be there domestically as long as Super Rugby continues to be a multi-continent, multi-time zone competition. Ever.

There is zero propect of domestic growth within Australia using Super Rugby as the vehicle. Zero. In fact we're probably now into negative growth territory using the Super Rugby model.

If your view is that the purpose of Australian rugby is to provide sporting content for parts of the world, then you're entitled to that view.

If your view is that you want to grow the game in Australia, the evidence is there from a range of other sports, that a national league is the way to go.

I don't think the numbers are there for rugby. I think we need outside participants if this is the competition that is going to fund the bulk of our professional players.

The domestic leagues in Australia that do work generally have massively larger numbers of fans (AFL and NRL), are heavily subsidised by loss making owners (A League) or don't have external competition for their players (AFL, NRL to a large degree and Netball).

I am not advocating for the status quo. I am predicting that by 2020 when the Super Rugby deal is coming to a close the path forward will be a Trans Tasman competition with a couple of additional teams.

A domestic only competition would require an expansion in the number of teams which would need a huge amount of funding particularly if the wages available were at all reasonable to keep decent professional players in Australia.

What you're essentially advocating is a sporting version of trickle-down
economics as set in place by JON all those years ago.

It is hardly trickle down economics. Every professional sport in the world flows down revenue from the top professional levels to fund lower levels.

I agree that we can't have substantial professional competitions being perennially loss making but I also don't think we can have an expectation that a domestic pro comp is what is going to fund the sport in this country.

 

[barbarian]

Dru - I won't quote your post but I see all of your points.

I agree one of the risks of a Trans-Tasman comp is unchecked Kiwi dominance, but it's one we might have to take.

The issue I have with 'going solo' is I just don't know how we can afford it. If we're talking about an expanded NRC-type comp, then how do we sell TV rights? How do we pay players a competitive rate?

Without a big influx of cash (which we won't have by 2020), I really can't see how it's possible. But if we can find a way to make it work then yeah, it might be our best bet.
.

 

[Bandar]

Dru - I won't quote your post but I see all of your points.

I agree one of the risks of a Trans-Tasman comp is unchecked Kiwi dominance, but it's one we might have to take.

The issue I have with 'going solo' is I just don't know how we can afford it. If we're talking about an expanded NRC-type comp, then how do we sell TV rights? How do we pay players a competitive rate?

Without a big influx of cash (which we won't have by 2020), I really can't see how it's possible. But if we can find a way to make it work then yeah, it might be our best bet.
.

Maybe we need to go down the path of private ownership - I know it is very risky (the Rebels have shown how not to do it) But you only need to have an 8 team comp to start with - that is 14 rounds then go into regional playoff. The beauty is that the ARU are then only having to play match payments to the international players (and probably compensation to clubs who lose them) This would allow ARU income to be spent where it should - grassroots, coaching, marketing and refereeing We have got Twiggy, just need 7 more billionaires who are into rugby - anyone got some mates keen???

 

[Micheal]

Dru - I won't quote your post but I see all of your points.

I agree one of the risks of a Trans-Tasman comp is unchecked Kiwi dominance, but it's one we might have to take.

The issue I have with 'going solo' is I just don't know how we can afford it. If we're talking about an expanded NRC-type comp, then how do we sell TV rights? How do we pay players a competitive rate?

Without a big influx of cash (which we won't have by 2020), I really can't see how it's possible. But if we can find a way to make it work then yeah, it might be our best bet.
.

Even with NZ, I don't understand how a Trans-Tasman comp is financially viable unless Australia has a massive surge in rugby interest.

Australia + New Zealand's population = 24.2 mil + 4.7mil = 26.9 mil.

For comparison:

Population of the UK = 65.7 mil.

Population of France = 66.9 mil.

When you also consider the international aspect of the British and French leagues, you have an increasing amount of South African, Georgian, Argentinian, Italian, American etc. eyeballs watching their content.

They simply are worth far, far more in terms of sponsorship and broadcasting dollars.

I think for us to viable we really have to leverage World Rugby's willingness to spend money on Islander Rugby and cracking the Asian market.

I think we have to be careful how we go about cracking the Asian market however, as it has massive upside but also massive risk.

Proposed Super Rugby Format:

5 x Australian teams.
1 x Japanese team.
= 1 conference.

5 x New Zealand teams.
1 x Fijian team.
= 1 conference.

Proposed 3rd tier Format:

Australia and Asia-Pacific Conferences:

8 x Australian teams.
1 x Fijian team.
1 x Samoan team.
1 x Tongan team.
1 x Japanese team.
1 x Chinese team (Hong Kong).
1 X PNG team.
= 14 teams to be split over two conferences of 7 (a premiership and a championship).

& with potential to expand to other areas in Australia (e.g. Adelaide, Newcastle, a true Western Sydney presence), and the regions earmarked for Twiggy's comp (e.g. India, Sri Lanka etc.)

New Zealand Conferences:

(a) 7x ITM Premiership.

(b) 7x ITM Championship.

Playoffs:

Following the end of the regular season and the crowning of champions within each conference, there could then be a playoff system for a Bowl, a Plate and a Cup.

Even Twiggy's conference could be treated as another conference and there could be playoffs between the three conferences.

Once team's have had considerable success (on and off field) they could then be earmarked for graduation to Super Rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

It is hardly trickle down economics. Every professional sport in the world flows down revenue from the top professional levels to fund lower levels.

.

No, its' trickle down growth and interest. i.e. everyone will be so interested and engaged with the top, that they will spontaneously become involved in rugby at the bottom.

And it's been a failure of cosmic proportions.

 

[Quick Hands]

Dru - I won't quote your post but I see all of your points.

I agree one of the risks of a Trans-Tasman comp is unchecked Kiwi dominance, but it's one we might have to take.

The issue I have with 'going solo' is I just don't know how we can afford it. If we're talking about an expanded NRC-type comp, then how do we sell TV rights? How do we pay players a competitive rate?

Without a big influx of cash (which we won't have by 2020), I really can't see how it's possible. But if we can find a way to make it work then yeah, it might be our best bet.
.

As Michael notes in a subsequent post, without significant interest in Australia, a Trans-Tasman competition has all the same issues regarding funding.

I think a domestic league is feasible and with the right management it could be done. Sadly I have no confidence whatsoever the in ARU possessing the ability to do so.

Outsource the whole thing to Twiggy and let him employ highly capable sports adminsitrators and watch it happen.

 

[dru]

Australia + New Zealand's population = 24.2 mil + 4.7mil = 26.9 mil.

For comparison:

Population of the UK = 65.7 mil.

Population of France = 66.9 mil.

Michael - think about the National economies while you are running through these figures.

Nominal 2017 (Taken from a random search, there are quite a few sites that cover it):
UK: $US 2.5Tr
France: $US 2.4Tr

Massive, and "little" Australia?
Australia: $US 1.4Tr

But look at our current SANZAR partners:
Republic of South Africa: $US0.3Tr
New Zealand: $US0.2Tr

We punch above our weight. Our partners have little to offer on this scale, especially as they are basically already saturated in terms of $rugby. Australia is nothing like saturated, competes heavily in the domestic market and will never see rugby as number #2 winter sport let alone the top dog. But we don't need it, just a few percentage points improvement makes a difference. And unlike Japan, let alone China, has an already established (though being trashed) grass roots.

Clearly Japan and China are of interest:
China: $US11.8Tr
Japan: $4.8Tr

But start here. Domestically in Australia.If SANZAAR want to stay with us, they need to understand where the comparative market opportunities lie - Not in NZ nor RSA.

 

[barbarian]

As Michael notes in a subsequent post, without significant interest in Australia, a Trans-Tasman competition has all the same issues regarding funding.

I think a domestic league is feasible and with the right management it could be done. Sadly I have no confidence whatsoever the in ARU possessing the ability to do so.

Outsource the whole thing to Twiggy and let him employ highly capable sports adminsitrators and watch it happen.

I think a Trans-Tasman comp has a much better chance of securing a better TV rights deal, both locally and abroad (Asia, UK etc). And while I agree that the ARU are probably not capable of pulling off a domestic league, I think you put way too much faith in Twiggy. He hasn't delivered anything yet - all he's proven is that he's a good media performer. I've seen too many sports be burned by mining magnates to be willing to hand the reins of the entire sport to Forrest. .