Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

SUPER RUGBY 2017

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:07

thatrugbyguy wrote:Just another point I noted watching the press conference. ARU boss mentioned that there appears to be a global trend that popular leagues around the world are starting to see fewer people attending and watching team sports on TV. He mentioned specifically the NFL which had a lot of bad attendances and TV figures last season. That's something to keep an eye on.


That sounds like bollocks. They're looking for excuses to hide their own failings.

This weekend we've had 160,000 across the 6 English rugby premiership matches, a new record. 51,000 yesterday in Marseille for Toulon v Toulouse. Several of the top English Premier League clubs are increasing or have just increased capacity to over 55,000 - Liverpool, Tottenham, West Ham, Chelsea, Man City. T20 cricket has exploded as a live spectator sport, particularly the IPL and Big Bash.

I checked the NFL and their attendances were up last season, and have fluctuated between 67,000 and 69,000 over the past 10 years. Really bad attendances.

Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:11

BertSolomon wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:Just another point I noted watching the press conference. ARU boss mentioned that there appears to be a global trend that popular leagues around the world are starting to see fewer people attending and watching team sports on TV. He mentioned specifically the NFL which had a lot of bad attendances and TV figures last season. That's something to keep an eye on.


That sounds like bollocks. They're looking for excuses to hide their own failings.

This weekend we've had 160,000 across the 6 English rugby premiership matches, a new record. 51,000 yesterday in Marseille for Toulon v Toulouse. Several of the top English Premier League clubs are increasing or have just increased capacity to over 55,000 - Liverpool, Tottenham, West Ham, Chelsea, Man City. T20 cricket has exploded as a live spectator sport, particularly the IPL and Big Bash.

I checked the NFL and their attendances were up last season, and have fluctuated between 67,000 and 69,000 over the past 10 years. Really bad attendances.


We should actually collect those. I start a new thread.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:16

ihateblazers wrote:Sanzar as an entity is useless for Super Rugby. I think over the past 20 years of professionalism they have showed they cannot come up with a unified objective. Thr International unions have too much say and in the end (especially in NZ) don't care about the commercialisation of Super Rugby as long as in the short term the International team is strong. If Australia doesn't get out of Sanzar i think union could be facing disaster by 2023. At least give the super rugby clubs more autonomy and allow them to grow and find there own path instead of gridlocking eveything.


Sums it up. The unions believe all domestic rugby should act as a feeder to the national team. So you get NZ pulling players out of SR for conditioning programmes. It's no wonder the competition is failing when its star names are missing regularly.

The clubs/franchises should be empowered to create a competition that fans want. That's why the Top 14 and English Premiership have been so successful.

User avatar
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby iul » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:26

Bogdan_DC wrote:
iul wrote:Australia should have pulled out of SR, added 3 teams and make their own domestic competition. At the very least they should have taken this idea to the TV channels to see if they'd be interested and how much they'd be willing to pay. Yes, I know they don't have the depth for 8 teams, but there are plenty of PIs, Romanians, Georgians, etc.. to be signed. The Aussies just need to pull their heads out of their own asses.

And play by themselves.You are an amazing source of brilliant ideas.

Thank you.
The audience for the aussie v aussie games is much higher in Australia than for aussie v someone else games. Also, many games are at very inconvenient hours. Playing by themselves would extract more money from their local market. mungoball, aussie footie, soccer and cricket all manage just fine by themselves, with a NZ token team maybe. It's only rugby that has a ridiculous competition. Also, that NRC local competition the Aussies started a couple of years ago has pretty decent crowds for a tier 2 club competition.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:50

Actually, NZ v NZ teams rate higher here.

In other news though, Western Force have lunched legal against the ARU. It's getting ugly. :(

Posts: 977
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby amz » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:51

@iul: There is another reason for which Unions wants Super Rugby instead of local competition and is its intensity and technical/tactical standards which are a tier up compared with any local championship; not even ITM Cup or Currie Cup will come even close with what we see in Super Rugby. SR will prepare much much better test players than any other competition SH may organize.

@thatrugbyguy: I saw on FB that Rebels are looking for lawyers too; Cheetahs released a statement earlier saying they won't go down without a fight.

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby sk 88 » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 13:54

thatrugbyguy wrote:
iul wrote:Australia should have pulled out of SR, added 3 teams and make their own domestic competition. At the very least they should have taken this idea to the TV channels to see if they'd be interested and how much they'd be willing to pay. Yes, I know they don't have the depth for 8 teams, but there are plenty of PIs, Romanians, Georgians, etc.. to be signed. The Aussies just need to pull their heads out of their own asses.


There isn't the money for it, we have the most competitive winter sporting market in the world. The NRL and AFL alone earned almost $5 billion combined during their TV agreements from 2 free to air TV networks. We only have one other TV network that could host a national rugby competition and they don't have the money for it.


You say that but do you know what the broadcasters are offering? No one can. Domestic matches are better for TV companies because you have two sets of fans watching. When Fox shows Brumbies v Force it gets fans from ACT & Perth tuning in as well as the neutrals. When they show Reds v Highlanders they only get the one set of fans tuning in.

I don't know the travelling costs but surely domestic flights are cheaper than trans taasman, let alone to SA, JPN or ARG and 8 teams would presumably have at least 3 teams in NSW/ACT area which can all drive to each other.

As for playing costs if you removed many, or even all, the barriers to foreign players you could access a lot of cheaper pacific island talent, most of which is Aussie anyway. With 8 teams you can have a lot of foreign players in the league without affecting the national side. If these teams were all privately owned but with a fixed subsidy and even a national team top up (like English ones basically are) then the ARU would not have to take the risk or be lender of last resort but could have a domestic pro comp.

And if the winter market is too competitive you could always switch to summer, people keep telling me this is a panacea for all ills in rugby ....

I think you are probably right but its not so clear cut that the ARU should dismiss it without properly evaluating it.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 14:06

amz wrote:@thatrugbyguy: I saw on FB that Rebels are looking for lawyers too; Cheetahs released a statement earlier saying they won't go down without a fight.


Great, just what we needs. Legal battles in two countries. 3 groups of 6, that's all they had to do. 3 groups of f**king 6. :(

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017,

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 14:10

sk 88 wrote:
You say that but do you know what the broadcasters are offering? No one can. Domestic matches are better for TV companies because you have two sets of fans watching. When Fox shows Brumbies v Force it gets fans from ACT & Perth tuning in as well as the neutrals. When they show Reds v Highlanders they only get the one set of fans tuning in.

I don't know the travelling costs but surely domestic flights are cheaper than trans taasman, let alone to SA, JPN or ARG and 8 teams would presumably have at least 3 teams in NSW/ACT area which can all drive to each other.

As for playing costs if you removed many, or even all, the barriers to foreign players you could access a lot of cheaper pacific island talent, most of which is Aussie anyway. With 8 teams you can have a lot of foreign players in the league without affecting the national side. If these teams were all privately owned but with a fixed subsidy and even a national team top up (like English ones basically are) then the ARU would not have to take the risk or be lender of last resort but could have a domestic pro comp.

And if the winter market is too competitive you could always switch to summer, people keep telling me this is a panacea for all ills in rugby ....

I think you are probably right but its not so clear cut that the ARU should dismiss it without properly evaluating it.


You aren't aware of how tough the winter sporting market is here and how much AFL and NRL dominate. And forget summer, temperatures can easily top 40 degrees in every capital city across the nation. Summer rugby is never going to happen here, players would revolt.

Posts: 977
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby amz » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 14:27

thatrugbyguy wrote:
amz wrote:@thatrugbyguy: I saw on FB that Rebels are looking for lawyers too; Cheetahs released a statement earlier saying they won't go down without a fight.

Great, just what we needs. Legal battles in two countries. 3 groups of 6, that's all they had to do. 3 groups of f**king 6. :(


I am ignorant here, I didn't followed the discussion but wasn't this option considered at all?

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 14:35

It would appear not.

User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby NaBUru38 » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 14:48

thatrugbyguy wrote:Just another point I noted watching the press conference. ARU boss mentioned that there appears to be a global trend that popular leagues around the world are starting to see fewer people attending and watching team sports on TV. He mentioned specifically the NFL which had a lot of bad attendances and TV figures last season. That's something to keep an eye on.

Association football is as popular as ever, if not more.

Posts: 335
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 16:27

An Oz only contest would not garner enough TV money to compete with the increasing TV money in Europe. Breaking the Japanese market is essential for SANZAAR as people will not turn up or tune in to watch a competition with few, if any, international stars.

Football in Europe provides the evidence. Up until the mid 1990s you had European champion sides from Scotland, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Netherlands etc. Since TV money inequality took off these countries never have clubs reach the latter stages of European competitions and the quality of their leagues has plummeted with few international stars. No matter the quality of their youth systems, they will lose all their best players and be inferior to some clubs in the lower leagues of bigger TV markets.

Rugby is still in the early stages of that journey but it is
abundantly clear that the Southrn hemisphere needs new, wealthy audiences. Cutting out a huge city like Perth or Melbourne probably isn't the best of moves.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 20:26

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:An Oz only contest would not garner enough TV money to compete with the increasing TV money in Europe. Breaking the Japanese market is essential for SANZAAR as people will not turn up or tune in to watch a competition with few, if any, international stars.

Football in Europe provides the evidence. Up until the mid 1990s you had European champion sides from Scotland, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Netherlands etc. Since TV money inequality took off these countries never have clubs reach the latter stages of European competitions and the quality of their leagues has plummeted with few international stars. No matter the quality of their youth systems, they will lose all their best players and be inferior to some clubs in the lower leagues of bigger TV markets.


But do you think cross-border leagues work? I think the jury is out.

Where countries have cultural and geographic common ground, and where a small country has a much bigger neighbour, they seem to work ok. So Canadian teams play in the NHL, NZ teams play in the NRL and A-League.

But in Super Rugby the teams are too widely scattered. Breaking the Japanese market is great in theory, but are fans really going to watch in big numbers?

Looking at most sports leagues worldwide, it seems to me that fans love the parochial rivalry of playing their near neighbours. In football, there’s been talk of a pan European Super League, but it would mean the likely end of ‘derby’ matches like Liverpool v Everton, which is why I think the concept has never gained much traction. I also think there will always be a lot of kudos about being champion of your country.

User avatar
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby iul » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 22:08

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:An Oz only contest would not garner enough TV money to compete with the increasing TV money in Europe. Breaking the Japanese market is essential for SANZAAR as people will not turn up or tune in to watch a competition with few, if any, international stars.

Football in Europe provides the evidence. Up until the mid 1990s you had European champion sides from Scotland, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Netherlands etc. Since TV money inequality took off these countries never have clubs reach the latter stages of European competitions and the quality of their leagues has plummeted with few international stars. No matter the quality of their youth systems, they will lose all their best players and be inferior to some clubs in the lower leagues of bigger TV markets.

Rugby is still in the early stages of that journey but it is
abundantly clear that the Southrn hemisphere needs new, wealthy audiences. Cutting out a huge city like Perth or Melbourne probably isn't the best of moves.

The NRL TV deal is 2x larger than the T14 and AP TV deals put together.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 02:39

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:An Oz only contest would not garner enough TV money to compete with the increasing TV money in Europe. Breaking the Japanese market is essential for SANZAAR as people will not turn up or tune in to watch a competition with few, if any, international stars.

Football in Europe provides the evidence. Up until the mid 1990s you had European champion sides from Scotland, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Netherlands etc. Since TV money inequality took off these countries never have clubs reach the latter stages of European competitions and the quality of their leagues has plummeted with few international stars. No matter the quality of their youth systems, they will lose all their best players and be inferior to some clubs in the lower leagues of bigger TV markets.

Rugby is still in the early stages of that journey but it is
abundantly clear that the Southrn hemisphere needs new, wealthy audiences. Cutting out a huge city like Perth or Melbourne probably isn't the best of moves.


Saying that there isn't enough money in Australia to support a domestic league fails to understand the Australian marketplace. If you are able to present an entertaining and compelling product on the pitch then the money is most certainly there.

One of the major issues with the SR concept in the Aus. market is that there is a significant disconnect between the overall competition and the nature of the market itself. The Aus. market in terms of sporting consumption is very similar to that of the US. Insular. Any external interest is considered a bonus but the primary focus is and has always been at the domestic level.

That is why broadcasters are willing to pay $2.5b for the rights to the AFL. They don't care about the international viewership numbers.

If say the ARU took any money saved from cutting a SR franchise and pumped that into promoting the NRC in order to build awareness and overall viewership over the next 3 seasons considering the particular style of play in that competition is highly entertaining they could effectively bring to market a product that has value domestically and potentially a realistic chance of garnering enough money to make walking away from SR not only possible but preferential. Such is the Aus. market,

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby TheStroBro » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 03:01

Looking more int centralized contracting, I think they're the worst thing known to man. Yes, it has helped keep NZ, SA, AUS really high up by telling guys they won't be selected if they venture overseas. But it will literally kill your level of play when Aviva and Top 14 is able to afford contracts athletes can't refuse.

Posts: 37
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2016, 04:18
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby eal22 » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 03:28

Shute Shield rugby used to be much more prominent in Sydney, but now nobody cares. If anything, any domestic Australian competition should be built around the traditional clubs, not made-up city teams. I believe Super Rugby is probably then only realistic path forward for Australian rugby, but if not, I think club rugby has much more chance than the ARC or NRC or whatever they call it.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby thatrugbyguy » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 03:51

Club rugby's opportunity to be the national domestic league evaporated years ago. There was probably a chance in the late 70's / early 80's for the Queensland and NSW leagues to merge and form some kind of super league, but that would have required some sacrifices from both competitions, and if there's one thing clubs are known for is putting the best interests ahead of everything else. If the will was there 3 decades ago the top 4 Sydney clubs, the top 4 Brisbane clubs, along with a Canberra club and maybe an Illawarra or Newcastle based club would have formed a national competition, with Perth, Melbourne, Townsville and Adelaide added years later.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby thatrugbyguy » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 04:28

ARU has postponed their announcement for who gets the axe. Looks like both the Rebels and Force might be taking them to court. This is about to get ugly, two important markets for growth in this countries, millions of dollars spent in trying to develop the two states, and now both clubs are pissed and seeking legal action against the ARU. First things first, the entire ARU board needs to be sacked. Second, I don't know what happens to Super Rugby if the courts find in favour of the Force and Rebels. Third, this has the potential to set rugby back 10 years in the country.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 05:19

eal22 wrote:Shute Shield rugby used to be much more prominent in Sydney, but now nobody cares. If anything, any domestic Australian competition should be built around the traditional clubs, not made-up city teams. I believe Super Rugby is probably then only realistic path forward for Australian rugby, but if not, I think club rugby has much more chance than the ARC or NRC or whatever they call it.


Anyone with any experience in the Premier level of the club scene in Sydney can tell you that unless these clubs are willing to actively cooperate and swallow a great deal of pride and self importance than there is no chance of club rugby ever assuming this role. And if they were being completely honest. That at best the NRC pathway is the only way forward.

I'm saying this as a former Randwick player. One who was active during previous murmurs of a pro club competition were being bandied about. Self interest has always been the achilles heel of the game at that level. And while the Shute Shield is now beginning to build its profile by expanding its broadcast reach it is still very much insular in its perspective.

If the clubs ever did achieve some kind of pro league it would be more a hybrid between them and the NRC franchises. But not singular.

Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 07:08

thatrugbyguy wrote:Club rugby's opportunity to be the national domestic league evaporated years ago. There was probably a chance in the late 70's / early 80's for the Queensland and NSW leagues to merge and form some kind of super league, but that would have required some sacrifices from both competitions, and if there's one thing clubs are known for is putting the best interests ahead of everything else. If the will was there 3 decades ago the top 4 Sydney clubs, the top 4 Brisbane clubs, along with a Canberra club and maybe an Illawarra or Newcastle based club would have formed a national competition, with Perth, Melbourne, Townsville and Adelaide added years later.


I doubt this chance was there until 1995. The magic word is amateurism. And when this hindrance fell, there was a pro league the very next year in place. AND what I couldn't even imagine until I read it up again just before this post: the Tri Nations started only that year as well.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 08:53

RugbyLiebe wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:Club rugby's opportunity to be the national domestic league evaporated years ago. There was probably a chance in the late 70's / early 80's for the Queensland and NSW leagues to merge and form some kind of super league, but that would have required some sacrifices from both competitions, and if there's one thing clubs are known for is putting the best interests ahead of everything else. If the will was there 3 decades ago the top 4 Sydney clubs, the top 4 Brisbane clubs, along with a Canberra club and maybe an Illawarra or Newcastle based club would have formed a national competition, with Perth, Melbourne, Townsville and Adelaide added years later.


I doubt this chance was there until 1995. The magic word is amateurism. And when this hindrance fell, there was a pro league the very next year in place. AND what I couldn't even imagine until I read it up again just before this post: the Tri Nations started only that year as well.


1995 was the window of opportunity. Rugby League tearing itself apart, AFL still largely ignored on the East Coast, the A-League a decade away.

SANZAR/ARU patted themselves on the back when Super 12 drew good crowds in the late 90s, but the conditions could not have been favourable. They had hardly any competition. Since then, as other sports have got their act together, Super Rugby has been shown to be a flawed concept, certainly in Australia.

A club-based competition established in 1995 might have had more chance of succeeding. But as we know, the blazers hate giving any sort of control to clubs.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 08:59

BertSolomon wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:Club rugby's opportunity to be the national domestic league evaporated years ago. There was probably a chance in the late 70's / early 80's for the Queensland and NSW leagues to merge and form some kind of super league, but that would have required some sacrifices from both competitions, and if there's one thing clubs are known for is putting the best interests ahead of everything else. If the will was there 3 decades ago the top 4 Sydney clubs, the top 4 Brisbane clubs, along with a Canberra club and maybe an Illawarra or Newcastle based club would have formed a national competition, with Perth, Melbourne, Townsville and Adelaide added years later.


I doubt this chance was there until 1995. The magic word is amateurism. And when this hindrance fell, there was a pro league the very next year in place. AND what I couldn't even imagine until I read it up again just before this post: the Tri Nations started only that year as well.


1995 was the window of opportunity. Rugby League tearing itself apart, AFL still largely ignored on the East Coast, the A-League a decade away.

SANZAR/ARU patted themselves on the back when Super 12 drew good crowds in the late 90s, but the conditions could not have been favourable. They had hardly any competition. Since then, as other sports have got their act together, Super Rugby has been shown to be a flawed concept, certainly in Australia.

A club-based competition established in 1995 might have had more chance of succeeding. But as we know, the blazers hate giving any sort of control to clubs.


The 'blazers' in our case are very much the clubs. Know the lay of the land before commenting.

Posts: 1318
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby 4N » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 09:05

The 'blazers' in our case are very much the clubs.


Yes. The elitist Sydney clubs pretty much destroyed the old Aussie domestic comp.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], olivier and 9 guests