Planet Rugby Forum

Trouble with games on delay is the internet. Gives away the results!!!

Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

J Man wrote: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.

I think you're being overly pessimistic. You admit that the current system isn't sustainable, but then seem to be suggesting that we just give up and let market forces decide what happens. Sorry but that's crap - I'd rather SH changed things up. Rugby is still a popular game in all three countries and there is no reason whatsoever that professional domestic leagues cannot be sustainable in Australia, NZ and South Africa. I'm not talking about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, I'm talking about changing the whole freakin ship.

The Brazilian soccer analogy isn't really accurate. The difference in wages between European and Brazilian soccer, and European Rugby and SANZAR Rugby is much greater. We may not be able to compete with their wages, but we can do better than we are currently doing.

The trans tasman comp isn't happening. Australia put on your big boy pants and just embrace your own domestic competition. How are the Melbourne Stockaders doing by the way?

Ali's Choice wrote:
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.

I think you're right we could probably do as well as the A-League. The problem there is, they play 27 matches each, and they have squad sizes of around 23 players, with a salary cap of $3m.

So discount the rugby deal by the number of games and divide by the number of players in a squad, and you're paying your players a relatively tiny wage.

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Rugby will survive in Australia, thanks mainly to the sort of twats who run the show.


It will survive in Sydney and Brisbane mainly, and will be kept alive primarily by the private schools twats. And some of the universities.


Club rugby will continue as a semi-professional effort, why wouldn't it? It is bloody good to watch, and play. If we want to field a competitive Wobbs team, we will have to select players from overseas competitions.

Andalu wrote:Why not have all 5 sides play each other home and away, then the top 2 (for example) go into an international playoff?

Also not convinced the attrition rate would be reduced in a provincial setup.

I would hate that. I actually don't like watching NZ teams play each other, I prefer to see them playing other countries teams.

As other posters have noted Super rugby is where we pay our players to play in NZ, we'd be stuffed without it.

wamberal99 wrote:

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Rugby will survive in Australia, thanks mainly to the sort of twats who run the show.


It will survive in Sydney and Brisbane mainly, and will be kept alive primarily by the private schools twats. And some of the universities.


Club rugby will continue as a semi-professional effort, why wouldn't it? It is bloody good to watch, and play. If we want to field a competitive Wobbs team, we will have to select players from overseas competitions.

Club rugby runs at a major loss so that's why it may not survive

After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.

Sards wrote:After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.

Well, the Bulls are looking muchly improved this year, but you haven't really 'culled' 2 sides though, they're just playing in a different competition. Your quality players are still going to be spread across 6 teams.

grievous wrote: Club rugby runs at a major loss so that's why it may not survive

Maybe not as a professional sport, but surely the sport will survive? What is the worst case? Back to amateurism?

Turbogoat wrote:

Sards wrote:After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.

Well, the Bulls are looking muchly improved this year, but you haven't really 'culled' 2 sides though, they're just playing in a different competition. Your quality players are still going to be spread across 6 teams.

Id argue the Aus sides are looking much better this year too.

The Rebels are much better. The Reds are much better. The Tahs are much better. The Brumbies are much worse.

THe Aus teams arent going to win it, but teams that were cellar dwellers are now mid table teams.

Farva wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

Sards wrote:After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.

Well, the Bulls are looking muchly improved this year, but you haven't really 'culled' 2 sides though, they're just playing in a different competition. Your quality players are still going to be spread across 6 teams.

Id argue the Aus sides are looking much better this year too.

The Rebels are much better. The Reds are much better. The Tahs are much better. The Brumbies are much worse.

THe Aus teams arent going to win it, but teams that were cellar dwellers are now mid table teams.

Great to see the Rebels and Reds start off with a hiss and a roar, they've had a rough couple of matches since but the improvement has been stark. I haven't seen a huge amount of the Tahs matches, but are they really looking better?
In any case, I'd much rather have a strong Aussie conference, it's going to be better for the game, the comp, and provide much better competition for the NZ teams at all levels.

kiwigreg369 wrote:Fair enough - good question to ask (because it has to make sense) - but in support of point 2 (prepare for test rugby) from the perspective of NZ since it was made to super 15 (in 2011):
- NZ has won both RWCs
- each NZ team has at least made a semi
- NZ teams have won 5 of the 7 finals (both losing finalists where NZ teams)
- in the last two years 3 of the top 4 have been NZ teams
- in that period the win ratio is 90% (83 wins, 3 draws, and 8 loses from 94 games) - for 3313 / against 1476) - 35.2 vs. 15.7
- in the prior 7 years it was - win ratio was 86% (78 wins and 13 loses from 91 games) - for 3146 / against 1384) - 34.6 vs. 15.2

KG

PS - note, in the 7 years even earlier '97 to '03 for NZ it was
- win ratio of 76%
- win 57, draw 2, and lose 17 games
- for 3022 / 1314 against - 39.8 vs. 17.2

But maybe all that is bad for rugby generally.

Zakar wrote:

kiwigreg369 wrote:Fair enough - good question to ask (because it has to make sense) - but in support of point 2 (prepare for test rugby) from the perspective of NZ since it was made to super 15 (in 2011):
- NZ has won both RWCs
- each NZ team has at least made a semi
- NZ teams have won 5 of the 7 finals (both losing finalists where NZ teams)
- in the last two years 3 of the top 4 have been NZ teams
- in that period the win ratio is 90% (83 wins, 3 draws, and 8 loses from 94 games) - for 3313 / against 1476) - 35.2 vs. 15.7
- in the prior 7 years it was - win ratio was 86% (78 wins and 13 loses from 91 games) - for 3146 / against 1384) - 34.6 vs. 15.2

KG

PS - note, in the 7 years even earlier '97 to '03 for NZ it was
- win ratio of 76%
- win 57, draw 2, and lose 17 games
- for 3022 / 1314 against - 39.8 vs. 17.2

But maybe all that is bad for rugby generally.

Of course it bad for SR. That's why we have a conference system.

maxbox wrote:The trans tasman comp isn't happening. Australia put on your big boy pants and just embrace your own domestic competition. How are the Melbourne Stockaders doing by the way?

Do Trans tasman competitions work for Australia? Their Netball team got better when they stopped it there, Oz's strongest sports are ones with one a trans tasman comp. I wonder if because if Oz get's beaten by NZ it hammers their psychology? NZ must win be innate talent or better resourcing. Where as if Oz beat's NZ it's a case of "Well they are a bigger country, bigger population, per capita and all that".

A domestic competition in that context could boost Australian Rugby if that holds any accuracy.

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

That's quite saddening really. My view of the Aussies when growing up in the nineties (in UK) was that every kid was playing several sports at the same time and that rugby was one of the most popular sports... aside from Cricket (just.. why cricket lol).

Tell me if i'm wrong, but from my perspective, South African Ruggers is also down the tubes. Every other team is / has moved on from the "up the jersey rugby" synonymous with the South African style. Also, they have a shed load of talent in the European leagues which they don't even consider for the National team.

I think NZ would struggle with a domestic only pro league. Maybe not enough teams? How do you solve a problem like SR?

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.

For me Super Rugby has never been an ideal competition. For me the idea that you combine provinces and expect to have fans of those provinces support that combined team is flawed. For example, I'm from the BOP. When I was growing up Waikato were our closest rugby neighbour, our "big brother" and the team we wanted to beat the most (yeah beating Auckland and Canterbury would have been great but pretty much never happened plus we didn't have the rivalry created by being neighbours). So I had no love for Waikato when it came to rugby. And yet when Super Rugby started I'm now supposed to support a "combined" team? (combined is in "" because lets face it, BOP players barely feature).
Also, even to this day, outside of NZ no one thinks of BOP when you talk about the Chiefs. It's always Waikato this, Hamilton that. So my team, BOP, is pretty much excluded for all intents and purposes. That grinds my farking gears.

Anyway that is where I am coming from. And it means I have no team that I fervently support. So I have always just thought of Super Rugby as NZ vs Oz or SA (and now Japan and Argentina).

I'm not saying I haven't immensely enjoyed a lot of Super Rugby over the years, I have. But nothing in Super Rugby could match the sheer joy of something like when BOP won the Ranfurly Shield.

I watch Super Rugby because it is rugby and it's all that is on at this time of year. I want something different but I don't know what a realistic replacement would look like. Hopefully one day we get a competition this part of the world deserves, right now we aren't getting that.

agreed. Its got proper shit, I didn't watch a single game this weekend.

Tried to watch the second half of Shorks v Stomps when I got in, but couldn't find it on Sky red button, and then had a much better time watching ABdV hit 90 off 40ish balls in the IPL instead.

edit: But also to be fair there have been a few very entertaining games in the first couple of weeks and some good tries in the few games I did manage to catch.

openclashXX wrote:As was pointed out a few months back, there are really no genuine cross-border rivalries or grudge matches that draw crowds in club/provincial rugby - the only games that have a chance of packing out stadiums are derbies and domestic clashes with some history and proper spite behind them

SANZAR clearly overestimated SR's appeal, thinking it to be some sort of NFL-like product where local fans will pack put 50,000 seat stadiums week-after-week no matter what the opposition or scoreline

You guys are blessed with ease of travel as spectators. I could count on one hand, the number of Super Rugby fans I know who've travelled to Australia or South Africa to watch a game. And they were Crusader fans come final time.

mr bungle wrote:

openclashXX wrote:As was pointed out a few months back, there are really no genuine cross-border rivalries or grudge matches that draw crowds in club/provincial rugby - the only games that have a chance of packing out stadiums are derbies and domestic clashes with some history and proper spite behind them

SANZAR clearly overestimated SR's appeal, thinking it to be some sort of NFL-like product where local fans will pack put 50,000 seat stadiums week-after-week no matter what the opposition or scoreline

You guys are blessed with ease of travel as spectators. I could count on one hand, the number of Super Rugby fans I know who've travelled to Australia or South Africa to watch a game. And they were Crusader fans come final time.

yep, the transport logistics & sheer distance kills it really for 99.9% of fans, would expect any actual fans there to be expats and the like

I am wondering if the whole super rugby thing could be condensed into a mini world cup - alternating location every year between SA, NZ and Aus - where the other countries clubs would fly out (as would some fans say) and then you have a mini tournament with games every day, over a few weeks. I think people could save up and do a trip if it was for a tournament rather than one match, everyone would have the same level of fatigue etc. would probably need to be far fewer teams though than present SR.

NB I'm saying there would be at least 1 game on every day, not that every team would be playing every day as that is daft.

Zakar wrote:

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.

One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.

eldanielfire wrote:

Zakar wrote:

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.

One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.

I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.

Zakar wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Zakar wrote:

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.

One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.

I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.

Harsh.

Davedj77 wrote:For me Super Rugby has never been an ideal competition. For me the idea that you combine provinces and expect to have fans of those provinces support that combined team is flawed. For example, I'm from the BOP. When I was growing up Waikato were our closest rugby neighbour, our "big brother" and the team we wanted to beat the most (yeah beating Auckland and Canterbury would have been great but pretty much never happened plus we didn't have the rivalry created by being neighbours). So I had no love for Waikato when it came to rugby. And yet when Super Rugby started I'm now supposed to support a "combined" team? (combined is in "" because lets face it, BOP players barely feature).
Also, even to this day, outside of NZ no one thinks of BOP when you talk about the Chiefs. It's always Waikato this, Hamilton that. So my team, BOP, is pretty much excluded for all intents and purposes. That grinds my farking gears.

Anyway that is where I am coming from. And it means I have no team that I fervently support. So I have always just thought of Super Rugby as NZ vs Oz or SA (and now Japan and Argentina).

I'm not saying I haven't immensely enjoyed a lot of Super Rugby over the years, I have. But nothing in Super Rugby could match the sheer joy of something like when BOP won the Ranfurly Shield.

I watch Super Rugby because it is rugby and it's all that is on at this time of year. I want something different but I don't know what a realistic replacement would look like. Hopefully one day we get a competition this part of the world deserves, right now we aren't getting that.

So you want a fully professional BOP team right? I wonder why noone ever thought of that!

guy smiley wrote:

Zakar wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Zakar wrote:

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.

One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.

I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.

It's part of the appeal, sadly... but a bigger problem is the host broadcaster for all three sports.

Fox.

Murdoch.

The ARU have to divorce themselves from that parasite and challenge their market, not try to be accommodated within it. The amount of effort Fox put into promoting and supporting the other two codes is way out of proportion.

I'd like to see SANZAAR look at selling rights to streaming services. Go lightweight and fast.

Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?

guy smiley wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote: Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?

The rights deal isn't due for renewal until 2020 dude. There's plenty of time.

But no one is ever gonna put up $300m/5 yrs for rugby in Oz.

Fox has been brilliant for rugby.

guy smiley wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote: Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?

The rights deal isn't due for renewal until 2020 dude. There's plenty of time.

My concern is that the current format is putting a severe handbrake on the development of the SH game because of the geographic spread and the problems caused by timezones. The current SR comp features at most 2 games a week in every country played during prime time. That's at most six prime time games played across the whole of SANZAR. If the three SANZAR nations opted for their own ten team domestic comps, that would mean 15 prime time games played across all three settings. That's a 150% increase. That has to make 3 x strengthened domestic competitions much more valuable than the current flawed setup.

I was a big fan of a Trans Tasman comp, mainly because I support NZ teams, live in Australia and hate 3am games in SA. But I have come to the belief that a TT comp won't work. Australians won't watch their teams get anally gaped by their cross-Tasman foes. They want to watch comps where Australian teams win. And I think NZ would also benefit from having complete control over it's 2nd tier comp.

UncleFB wrote:

Andalu wrote:Why not have all 5 sides play each other home and away, then the top 2 (for example) go into an international playoff?

Also not convinced the attrition rate would be reduced in a provincial setup.

I would hate that. I actually don't like watching NZ teams play each other, I prefer to see them playing other countries teams.

As other posters have noted Super rugby is where we pay our players to play in NZ, we'd be stuffed without it.

Yep this. From one competition we've got TV revenues from 5 markets. You're simply never going to get that income any other way. Think an NZ only comp will pay for any sort of league of competitive salaries and grass root development below the ABs? Forget it.

Flockwitt wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Andalu wrote:Why not have all 5 sides play each other home and away, then the top 2 (for example) go into an international playoff?

Also not convinced the attrition rate would be reduced in a provincial setup.

I would hate that. I actually don't like watching NZ teams play each other, I prefer to see them playing other countries teams.

As other posters have noted Super rugby is where we pay our players to play in NZ, we'd be stuffed without it.

Yep this. From one competition we've got TV revenues from 5 markets. You're simply never going to get that income any other way. Think an NZ only comp will pay for any sort of league of competitive salaries and grass root development below the ABs? Forget it.

We get shit money from 5 markets though. We are severely under-selling our product. In Australia, the A League gets fewer TV viewers than Super Rugby but has a much more lucrative TV deal. Why? Because it generates more content. Lots of games, played at viewer friendly times every weekend. Super Rugby gets two prime time games a weekend in Australia, the rest are in the late afternoon (NZ games) or at 3am.

guy smiley wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote: Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?

The rights deal isn't due for renewal until 2020 dude. There's plenty of time.

But no one is ever gonna put up $300m/5 yrs for rugby in Oz.

I'm not suggesting that... while I think the way the code is promoted by the rights holder here isn't ideal, compromised by it's conflicting interests across the sporting landscape, rugby down here needs to work together to generate the revenue. No way any of the three countries going alone works.... I'm sure you and I are pretty much agreed on that, aren't we?

I've got a rough idea of selling packages through lightweight internet based streaming services like ESPN who are moving into serious sports coverage... tv, internet and handheld device access to various packages bringing the game straight to the consumer in the format and combinations they want.
Formula 1 was sold last year after decades of ownership by Bernie Ecclestone. I'm not a fan of everything the new owners (American based) are doing with the sport but they are selling packages to their own product and controlling that access really well. It's a model that works. Rugby should be looking at doing the same.

That's pie in the sky stuff. Regardless how it is broadcasted, SANZAR would not want to do it themselves. Someone needs to bid for the rights then broadcast it how they see fit. It still comes down to no one is prepared to stump up the money Foxtel are willing to pay.

I can see them proposing the following soon...

each team plays the other teams 5 times.

2 home, 2 away and 1 neutral country venue.

The home and away games alternate each week, that way no one gets a jet-lag advantage.

Zakar wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Zakar wrote:

Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.

Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.

Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.

One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.

I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.

I agree. In Rugby Union in Australia basically the media coverage must fizzle out with no positivity. An elite domestic league always ends a season on high with hype about who will win? Super Rugby always freezes out at least one major Rugby Nation and it's not as exciting or has the interest in a final between other nations. It's no coincidence the two domestic Leagues in Europe are doing the best financially. Australian Netball went from strength to strength splitting the league, more money, more interest, more attendance more ratings. They didn't have anywhere near the levels of difference of Rugby.

Ali's Choice wrote:
We get shit money from 5 markets though. We are severely under-selling our product. In Australia, the A League gets fewer TV viewers than Super Rugby but has a much more lucrative TV deal. Why? Because it generates more content. Lots of games, played at viewer friendly times every weekend. Super Rugby gets two prime time games a weekend in Australia, the rest are in the late afternoon (NZ games) or at 3am.

Good point. I think some posters are worried about the big safety net of Super Rugby. But Advertisers are not paying for 3am Games and 3/5 teams fans being unengaged domestically. What they want is all fans engaged all weekend and lots of media attention at the end of the season.

Is there an argument for making SR more like the Heineken Cup? Four groups, four teams in each, on top of expanded domestic competitions? Can see it working for NZ and SA, might be more difficult for the Aussies.

Just an idea. Admittedly, it might be a shite one.

Biffer29 wrote:Is there an argument for making SR more like the Heineken Cup?

I think so.

might be more difficult for the Aussies.

What's the thinking there?

kiap wrote:

Biffer29 wrote:Is there an argument for making SR more like the Heineken Cup?

I think so.

might be more difficult for the Aussies.

What's the thinking there?

Basically I thought that because their domestic competition isn’t as well established as the Currie Cup or Mitre10.

Biffer29 wrote:Basically I thought that because their domestic competition isn’t as well established as the Currie Cup or Mitre10.

Ah, okay. I don't think that would pose a problem.

Obviously the Euro version has a mix of clubs/provinces. It can just as easily work with provincial franchises. There's only two teams different as of this year in the NRC as compared to those franchises.