Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:57 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38551
Location: in transit
eldanielfire wrote:

For making a similar point Ali's Choice just did? Maybe you can point out why the current money losing set-up is better than what I suggested?


It's not losing money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46109
On the injury point, we're seeing a big increase up here because of the law changes. Sides are having to make a lot more tackles and there's a lot more phase play. Tackles are the main source of injury.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:07 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
CrazyIslander wrote:
You fo know the highest paid netball players in Oz get less than the lowest paid fulltime SR player right?


That's irrelevant, the point was due to domestic match-ups getting higher ratings they could negotiate a better deal for TV and sponsorship. They haven't looked back since.

Quote:
Also, there's no audience for a domestic Aust comp.


Says who? People watch Super Rugby afterall. With a few more Oz teams and the games being on at good times for the domestic audience it may well be more attractive. Also I did say the domestic leagues should be coupled with a international club tournament like in Europe for the top teams that qualify. Super Rugby could continue on in that format. I suspect the less frequently match-ups would lead to greater interest in the rounds as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21836
JM2K6 wrote:
On the injury point, we're seeing a big increase up here because of the law changes. Sides are having to make a lot more tackles and there's a lot more phase play. Tackles are the main source of injury.



YOU MURDERED ROB HORNE, you FvcKErs!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26101
Monk Zombie wrote:
the super 12 was good and will be again.

The nineties are dead and so is Super Rugby, mate.The spinal cord was severed two years ago. It has become a zombie and it's now time to switch off the machine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:16 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

For making a similar point Ali's Choice just did? Maybe you can point out why the current money losing set-up is better than what I suggested?


It's not losing money.


Others disagree:

Ali's Choice wrote:
Why do the three SANZAR countries persist with Super Rugby?

It doesn't make financial sense. It runs at a loss for all three countries. They would be much better off financially not being involved in this tournament. In these tough economic times, when cashed up NH clubs are luring more and more SH players North on hefty contracts, surely loss making projects such as Super Rugby are a luxury that we cannot afford?


All the news media reports that Super Rugby made a loss for the past two years. It was financially bad, losing money back in 2014

https://www.ft.com/content/e5c94676-105 ... 8954394623

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/rugb ... 0ef3f87096

www.theaustralian.com.au%2Fsport%2Fopin ... nuAnIYVbHR

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... opulation/

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/ ... en-reports


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38551
Location: in transit
eldanielfire wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

For making a similar point Ali's Choice just did? Maybe you can point out why the current money losing set-up is better than what I suggested?


It's not losing money.


Others disagree:

Ali's Choice wrote:
Why do the three SANZAR countries persist with Super Rugby?

It doesn't make financial sense. It runs at a loss for all three countries. They would be much better off financially not being involved in this tournament. In these tough economic times, when cashed up NH clubs are luring more and more SH players North on hefty contracts, surely loss making projects such as Super Rugby are a luxury that we cannot afford?


All the news media reports that Super Rugby made a loss for the past two years. It was financially bad, losing money back in 2014

https://www.ft.com/content/e5c94676-105 ... 8954394623

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/rugb ... 0ef3f87096

http://www.theaustralian.com.au%2Fsport ... nuAnIYVbHR

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... opulation/

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/ ... en-reports



This is the same shit you tried pulling months ago and it seems you've learnt nothing or maybe you're just a determined troll.

Firstly, 'others' is AC who does love to run a sensationalist hook to drag in the responses. Well done on playing along. Secondly, apart from the paywall blocked article that I'm not bothering to try and get to, all of those article you post are focussed on the financial woes of the ARU.

The thread addresses Super Rugby. Tell me you know what that is and how it's run.

There is more money in SH rugby right now than there ever has been. There are definitely problems with the existing Super rugby model but most of the complaining you hear about that is from Australian sources. I suggest there's a performance related factor included in that and it's not just related to on field performance. The ARU has been poorly run for a decade. It's a basket case. Once again, that is the ARU, not Super rugby.

What is Super Rugby, Eldanielfire? In your own words.

Now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21836
Day-yum

I like this GS-as-Dr-Frank-n-furter dominator thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:45 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
guy smiley wrote:


This is the same shit you tried pulling months ago and it seems you've learnt nothing or maybe you're just a determined troll.

Firstly, 'others' is AC who does love to run a sensationalist hook to drag in the responses. Well done on playing along. Secondly, apart from the paywall blocked article that I'm not bothering to try and get to, all of those article you post are focussed on the financial woes of the ARU.


And South Africa!


Quote:
The thread addresses Super Rugby. Tell me you know what that is and how it's run.

There is more money in SH rugby right now than there ever has been.


That's not the same is SR making or losing money. Regardless Super Rugby isn't even competing with it's northern hemisphere counterparts financially with much fewer teams. Whether is financial losses or not, player drain, lowering attendances Super Rugby isn't presenting a very healthy case. To suggest otherwise doesn't make it bullshit nor does having an opinion on the current state of Super Rugby, some of it agreed with by several other posters, make somebody a troll just because you get all het-up and precious when someone suggest there is another way.

Quote:

Quote:
There are definitely problems with the existing Super rugby model but most of the complaining you hear about that is from Australian sources. I suggest there's a performance related factor included in that and it's not just related to on field performance. The ARU has been poorly run for a decade. It's a basket case. Once again, that is the ARU, not Super rugby.

What is Super Rugby, Eldanielfire? In your own words.

Now.


So there are problems, everyone agrees but must be bullshit and trolling when some one points them out ad offer their own ideas of solutions? You have the consistency of lumpy custard or just to precious to engage politely with those who have differing opinions to yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38551
Location: in transit
You can't back your opinion up though.

You can't even tell us what Super rugby is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:01 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
guy smiley wrote:
You can't back your opinion up though.

You can't even tell us what Super rugby is.



Eh? I just did. With a few examples.

All you've done is say nothing except complain I say there is a problem, then agree that there is a problem and there is plenty of references to them. Followed by inane strawman points to try to point score.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21467
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
I think it fits very well into the current set-up (but the conference system is fecked).

We have Super Rugby and Club rugby playing at the same time (albeit with a hiatus while the internationals make some money in June). Then the season splits with the top players moving into the Rugby championships and the lesser skilled ones combining with the top club players for the national championships.

I have never been a fan of the diluted conference system and my wish would be a return to Super 14 (sorry Japan and Argies).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:49 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
Enzedder wrote:

I have never been a fan of the diluted conference system and my wish would be a return to Super 14 (sorry Japan and Argies).



Racist! :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 428
Enzedder wrote:
I think it fits very well into the current set-up (but the conference system is fecked).

We have Super Rugby and Club rugby playing at the same time (albeit with a hiatus while the internationals make some money in June). Then the season splits with the top players moving into the Rugby championships and the lesser skilled ones combining with the top club players for the national championships.

I have never been a fan of the diluted conference system and my wish would be a return to Super 14 (sorry Japan and Argies).


Ditch the conference system and the sunwolves. Go back to Super 14 (5 NZ, 4 Aus, 4 SA, 1 Arg) each team plays each other team once = 14 games 7 home and 7 away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3015
Only thing wrong with super rugby is the conference system


It should be a knockout tournament only


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21467
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Quote:
Ditch the conference system and the sunwolves. Go back to Super 14 (5 NZ, 4 Aus, 4 SA, 1 Arg) each team plays each other team once = 14 games 7 home and 7 away.


Interested in why you would include the Argies - I reckon they add to the mediocrity of the tournament at the moment.

saffers will come good big time I am sure - they deserve 5 teams (even though I appreciate the irony in that comment)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
People are saying that we cannot get rid of SR because we'll lose too much money. The thing is, we don't really know what value might be placed on strengthened domestic comps in NZ and Australia. We never really saw what these comps might be worth because Super Rugby coincided with the advent of the pro-era. A strengthened NZ domestic comp, with all the All Blacks participating, would certainly be worth much more than the current Mitre 10 Cup. And whilst it may not be worth more than Super Rugby is to broadcasters, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be worth a third of the what SR is to broadcasters for NZ Rugby to be significantly ahead, because of the savings with the travel costs associated with SR. Ditto for a strengthened Australian and SA domestic comp. They only need to be worth a third of SR for each country to be well ahead. And I think this is certainly possible if not likely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 428
Enzedder wrote:
Quote:
Ditch the conference system and the sunwolves. Go back to Super 14 (5 NZ, 4 Aus, 4 SA, 1 Arg) each team plays each other team once = 14 games 7 home and 7 away.


Interested in why you would include the Argies - I reckon they add to the mediocrity of the tournament at the moment.

saffers will come good big time I am sure - they deserve 5 teams (even though I appreciate the irony in that comment)


On current form the Argies are better than the Aussies! Maybe we should have super 10, (5 NZ, 4 SA and 1 Arg!!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 428
Ali's Choice wrote:
People are saying that we cannot get rid of SR because we'll lose too much money. The thing is, we don't really know what value might be placed on strengthened domestic comps in NZ and Australia. We never really saw what these comps might be worth because Super Rugby coincided with the advent of the pro-era. A strengthened NZ domestic comp, with all the All Blacks participating, would certainly be worth much more than the current Mitre 10 Cup. And whilst it may not be worth more than Super Rugby is to broadcasters, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be worth a third of the what SR is to broadcasters for NZ Rugby to be significantly ahead, because of the savings with the travel costs associated with SR. Ditto for a strengthened Australian and SA domestic comp. They only need to be worth a third of SR for each country to be well ahead. And I think this is certainly possible if not likely.


One issue is the TV money. South African time zone is good for European TV. Aussie and NZ matches are normally at 6am and 8am, Not good for European TV. SA matches are normally at 2pm and 4pm. Much better for European TV. You need the South Africans for the European time zone matches


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
guy smiley wrote:
Firstly, 'others' is AC who does love to run a sensationalist hook to drag in the responses. Well done on playing along.


I just want to clarify that I like SR and would be very sad to see it dismantled. I'm just playing devil's advocate because I think we need to continually assess whether or not it is continuing to meet our needs. The Rugby landscape is changing and we need to improve or we risk dying.

I think that there is more earning and revenue generating potential in three strong domestic leagues across SANZAR than there is in SR. I was watching Outsiders yesterday on the ABC. They said that Super Rugby is currently out-rating the A League in terms of viewers. But the A league currently has a TV deal of over $100 million per year and RA only gets around $55 million a year for SR and test match rights. I think we're underselling the game and I think a big part of the problem is Super Rugby.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
mdaclarke wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
People are saying that we cannot get rid of SR because we'll lose too much money. The thing is, we don't really know what value might be placed on strengthened domestic comps in NZ and Australia. We never really saw what these comps might be worth because Super Rugby coincided with the advent of the pro-era. A strengthened NZ domestic comp, with all the All Blacks participating, would certainly be worth much more than the current Mitre 10 Cup. And whilst it may not be worth more than Super Rugby is to broadcasters, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be worth a third of the what SR is to broadcasters for NZ Rugby to be significantly ahead, because of the savings with the travel costs associated with SR. Ditto for a strengthened Australian and SA domestic comp. They only need to be worth a third of SR for each country to be well ahead. And I think this is certainly possible if not likely.


One issue is the TV money. South African time zone is good for European TV. Aussie and NZ matches are normally at 6am and 8am, Not good for European TV. SA matches are normally at 2pm and 4pm. Much better for European TV. You need the South Africans for the European time zone matches


You miss my point. I believe that all three countries would be better off alone. SA can cash in to the European markets as much as best as they can. It may slow down the rate of chicken running. Australian Rugby might be at a low ebb right now, but there are still more people watching it than the A League (local soccer comp) but they only get half as much TV money. And no-one really knows how much a domestic NZ comp featuring all their All Blacks would be worth.

Furthermore, there is no reason why a 'playoff' system over a few weeks still couldn't be utilised so the finalists of the three respective comps couldn't play off as a top 6 to crown an overall SH champion team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6556
I refuse to believe that it is losing money. The competition has been deliberately set up to favour broadcasters short term (which is what has hurt it long term).

and unrelated...

I have a theory that sports fans are inherently traditionalists. Sport appeals to that primal, tribal part of the brain. Sport fans don't like their competitions being mucked around with to suit the broadcasting men in suits. This is something the AFL has nailed.

I haven't watched a Super Rugby game this year - and I am the kind of guy who literally posts on rugby forums. I am sick of the arbitrary yellow cards and rules that I don't understand. The NRL is a far better product. If a staunch union guy is saying that, the game is fu%ked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
Ali's Choice wrote:
People are saying that we cannot get rid of SR because we'll lose too much money. The thing is, we don't really know what value might be placed on strengthened domestic comps in NZ and Australia. We never really saw what these comps might be worth because Super Rugby coincided with the advent of the pro-era. A strengthened NZ domestic comp, with all the All Blacks participating, would certainly be worth much more than the current Mitre 10 Cup. And whilst it may not be worth more than Super Rugby is to broadcasters, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be worth a third of the what SR is to broadcasters for NZ Rugby to be significantly ahead, because of the savings with the travel costs associated with SR. Ditto for a strengthened Australian and SA domestic comp. They only need to be worth a third of SR for each country to be well ahead. And I think this is certainly possible if not likely.


I much agree. As I said there could still be some form of Super Rugby competition Champions League like form of the top teams who qualify. It would make clashes between SH top players between countries less frequent and more exciting. It could also be a 2nd money maker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6556
New Zealand's television audience is too small to support it's own domestic comp. We are competing with the UK, France and Japan ffs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
J Man wrote:
I

I haven't watched a Super Rugby game this year - and I am the kind of guy who literally posts on rugby forums. I am sick of the arbitrary yellow cards and rules that I don't understand. The NRL is a far better product. If a staunch union guy is saying that, the game is fu%ked.


This is a global problem to be fair. As I've said before, it's ridiculous that elite Rugby comes down to who plays the ref est because the rules don't allow a consistent take on them and the refs don't appear to at all be encouraged to follow consistency, despite what is often claims about referee reviews and panels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
J Man wrote:
I refuse to believe that it is losing money. The competition has been deliberately set up to favour broadcasters short term (which is what has hurt it long term).


Is this a serious comment? There is no debate that it has always lost money (ie. the participating nations spend more money on SR than they earn from it).

That within itself is not a bad thing. Say NZ gets $50 million a year to play SR and spend $55 million on total costs, that still means there was an extra $50 million going into NZ Rugby that otherwise wouldn't have been there.

However, I believe that we are under-selling ourselves in the SH, and that's mainly because SR is such a difficult product to sell to broadcasters. What Australian or NZ based broadcaster wants to own the rights to a comp where a third of games are played at 3am and only two games a week are scheduled in prime time viewing slots? It's a no-brainer. If we did break back into strengthened domestic comps, they could be much more responsive to the needs and wants of domestic broadcasters and viewers. Whilst none of these comps might initially be worth what SR is, they don't need to be. They only need to be worth roughly a third of what SR is, for the host nation to be financially ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
People are saying that we cannot get rid of SR because we'll lose too much money. The thing is, we don't really know what value might be placed on strengthened domestic comps in NZ and Australia. We never really saw what these comps might be worth because Super Rugby coincided with the advent of the pro-era. A strengthened NZ domestic comp, with all the All Blacks participating, would certainly be worth much more than the current Mitre 10 Cup. And whilst it may not be worth more than Super Rugby is to broadcasters, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be worth a third of the what SR is to broadcasters for NZ Rugby to be significantly ahead, because of the savings with the travel costs associated with SR. Ditto for a strengthened Australian and SA domestic comp. They only need to be worth a third of SR for each country to be well ahead. And I think this is certainly possible if not likely.


I much agree. As I said there could still be some form of Super Rugby competition Champions League like form of the top teams who qualify. It would make clashes between SH top players between countries less frequent and more exciting. It could also be a 2nd money maker.


Agreed. And potentially a very lucrative money maker that doesn't need to take up much time. A three week finals series, featuring the top teams from each comp would be a rating bonanza IMO and a great way to finish the SH domestic seasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6556
Ali's Choice wrote:
That within itself is not a bad thing. Say NZ gets $50 million a year to play SR and spend $55 million on total costs, that still means there was an extra $50 million going into NZ Rugby that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
.


You seem to assuming that the $55 million in costs would exist anyway with or without Super Rugby. If the costs are caused by Super Rugby, you would be better of $5 million better off by scrapping the comp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21956
Location: Centre of the Universe
J Man wrote:
New Zealand's television audience is too small to support it's own domestic comp. We are competing with the UK, France and Japan ffs.


Overseas subscriptions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6556
Nieghorn wrote:
J Man wrote:
New Zealand's television audience is too small to support it's own domestic comp. We are competing with the UK, France and Japan ffs.


Overseas subscriptions?


To watch games at 7:30am? The Brits gon't care - they can watch their own comp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6221
This time of year sure would be dull without SR. Oh wait! There's always the Warriors!

I agree they've f**ked up what was once a great competition. The contrived conference system does my head in but the games are still entertaining on the whole.

Ironically the local NZ derbies are now considered the best games. In the old format I usually considered these the least entertaining games as they were generally tight, low scoring affairs with teams cancelling each other out. Now I agree they are fantastic. Perhaps that has something to do with 4 out of 5 NZ teams performing to a very high standard these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:41 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
J Man wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
J Man wrote:
New Zealand's television audience is too small to support it's own domestic comp. We are competing with the UK, France and Japan ffs.


Overseas subscriptions?


To watch games at 7:30am? The Brits gon't care - they can watch their own comp.


But not at 7am. Remember us Brits pay a fair bit to see Super Rugby. It helps a lot of ex-pats from your ways are holed up here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:46 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21773
J Man wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
That within itself is not a bad thing. Say NZ gets $50 million a year to play SR and spend $55 million on total costs, that still means there was an extra $50 million going into NZ Rugby that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
.


You seem to assuming that the $55 million in costs would exist anyway with or without Super Rugby. If the costs are caused by Super Rugby, you would be better of $5 million better off by scrapping the comp.


Which is what Ali's Choice is saying.

As for the domestic size of NZ, it would still cut multi-million pound deals for Super Rugby. NZ isn't poor and advertisers might well be attracted to a competition that is always at a good time for it's audience all the time. Broadcasters know what they are doing, they certainly aren't expecting their audiences to be watching South African teams play each other at night. You would still get overseas deals as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
J Man wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
That within itself is not a bad thing. Say NZ gets $50 million a year to play SR and spend $55 million on total costs, that still means there was an extra $50 million going into NZ Rugby that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
.


You seem to assuming that the $55 million in costs would exist anyway with or without Super Rugby. If the costs are caused by Super Rugby, you would be better of $5 million better off by scrapping the comp.


Yes and no. Most of the costs are for player wages. So whilst NZR might be $5 million better off under the scenario you describe, there would be $50 million less going into the bank accounts of NZ Rugby players. Which of course would be a negative outcome.

I'm saying SR operates at a loss, but I'm not saying that in itself is a terrible thing. I actually think that as a hemisphere, we'd be better off as three strong domestic leagues. Argentina could join SA and Japan could join the Aussies if possible?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14969
Australia isn't gonna be able to have a fully professional domestic comp. Our four best squads of players are shit. And a domestic comp would be selling a worse product to the same audience. The NRC is fun but it wont generate enough interest to pay players $200k+ wages.

NZ already have a domestic comp. It's premium rugby but they would need to fill the stadiums and rate highly on tv to get the money they need. It could work for Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington but not the smaller unions.

SA are the only ones that can go alone but why haven't they? They're poached more than anyone else. This suggests the money isnt there. If the Saffers dont have the money to keep their players, how will NZ do it with less money but more top class players?

SR is a marriage where each brings something.
- each country provide international element, variety
- NZ provides the premium product and prestige
- Aust brings tv audience and bigger market
- SA brings big crowds (at times but good for tv), European timezone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34513
Location: Queensland
CrazyIslander wrote:
Australia isn't gonna be able to have a fully professional domestic comp. Our four best squads of players are shit. And a domestic comp would be selling a worse product to the same audience. The NRC is fun but it wont generate enough interest to pay players $200k+ wages.

NZ already have a domestic comp. It's premium rugby but they would need to fill the stadiums and rate highly on tv to get the money they need. It could work for Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington but not the smaller unions.

SA are the only ones that can go alone but why haven't they? They're poached more than anyone else. This suggests the money isnt there. If the Saffers dont have the money to keep their players, how will NZ do it with less money but more top class players?

SR is a marriage where each brings something.
- each country provide international element, variety
- NZ provides the premium product and prestige
- Aust brings tv audience and bigger market
- SA brings big crowds (at times but good for tv), European timezone.


I disagree that Australian cannot have a domestic comp that at least rates as highly as the A League. SR already rates more highly in Australia than the A League, and that's with the Aussie teams struggling. If RA could generate as much money for SR as the A League gets then that would constitute a big increase in revenue.

And NZ's domestic comp is 3rd tier. No All Blacks participate. A comp played earlier in the year, featuring the best 50 players in the country (unlike the Mitre 10 Cup) would obviously be much more valuable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31520
Location: Chickenrunning...
J Man wrote:
I refuse to believe that it is losing money. The competition has been deliberately set up to favour broadcasters short term (which is what has hurt it long term).

and unrelated...

I have a theory that sports fans are inherently traditionalists. Sport appeals to that primal, tribal part of the brain. Sport fans don't like their competitions being mucked around with to suit the broadcasting men in suits. This is something the AFL has nailed.

I haven't watched a Super Rugby game this year - and I am the kind of guy who literally posts on rugby forums. I am sick of the arbitrary yellow cards and rules that I don't understand. The NRL is a far better product. If a staunch union guy is saying that, the game is fu%ked.

Product? Jesus wept


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14969
An Oz domestic comp would mean either the super teams disband into smaller clubs or we create new super teams. Either way we would dilute talent and have a shitty product. The SR teams are established brands, you take that away then you're starting from scratch. You reckon Foxtel will give RA $200m over 5yrs to experiment?
Without the NZ teams you'd lose the quality of product and a lot of kiwi fans in Oz.

On Mitre10 Cup, the SR teams dont even fill the stadiums.
You're thinking of a rugby utopia where every family in town go to the rugby, buy all the merchandise and subscribe to pay tv. It's not gonna happen.


Last edited by CrazyIslander on Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6556
I honestly think that we a just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here. Australian rugby is stuffed, South Africa as a country is heading the way of Zimbabwe and New Zealand doesn't have the population to compete for TV audiences.

It's becoming the way of football where we will be a feeder nation for the great European Clubs. Once every four years we will get our players back for a world cup and we will be Brazil/Argentina.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6556
Sandstorm wrote:
Product? Jesus wept


I agree, but we are talking the lingo of the broadcasting men here. It's the dollar that counts.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, Bing [Bot], Blackrock Bullet, booji boy, BumpAndStayBig, camroc1, crouchy, dargotronV.1, DonBillydeParis, DragsterDriver, earl the beaver, eldanielfire, Frodder, Google Adsense [Bot], Gordon Bennett, Jay Cee Gee, Jeff the Bear, Joost, MunsterMan!!!!!, openclashXX, Oxbow, Poshprop, rfurlong, RWC2015, Scrumhead, Silvio Berlusconi, Slim 293, Thomas, Tim., Toro, TQoET, True Blue, Wendigo7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group