Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:26 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
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?

I get that we need to prepare our players for test Rugby, and SR does this effectively. But surely the injury toll counter-balances any benefit that our players get from participating in this comp? The injury toll in the NZ conference in particular is immense, and I'm sure it is the same for Australia and SA. Throw in all the travel, and time away from wives, families and partners, and Super Rugby is arguably a massive burden for SH players.

Scrapping SR would allow the three SANZAR nations to concentrate on domestic competitions and International Rugby. The intra-conference games are the big drawcards as it stands anyway. Spectators have voted with their feet, they don't want to pay to see visiting teams from overseas in SR. The abysmal crowd in Johannesburg this year for the Crusaders vs Lions game, which was a replay of last year's final, shows just how little interest there is in the cross-conference games. Also wholly domestic comps would be much more responsive to the needs of players and spectators. There would be no 3am kick offs, no shit games against teams like the Sunwolves and I believe more domestic interest across all three countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10656
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?

I get that we need to prepare our players for test Rugby, and SR does this effectively. But surely the injury toll counter-balances any benefit that our players get from participating in this comp? The injury toll in the NZ conference in particular is immense, and I'm sure it is the same for Australia and SA. Throw in all the travel, and time away from wives, families and partners, and Super Rugby is arguably a massive burden for SH players.

Scrapping SR would allow the three SANZAR nations to concentrate on domestic competitions and International Rugby. The intra-conference games are the big drawcards as it stands anyway. Spectators have voted with their feet, they don't want to pay to see visiting teams from overseas in SR. The abysmal crowd in Johannesburg this year for the Crusaders vs Lions game, which was a replay of last year's final, shows just how little interest there is in the cross-conference games. Also wholly domestic comps would be much more responsive to the needs of players and spectators. There would be no 3am kick offs, no shit games against teams like the Sunwolves and I believe more domestic interest across all three countries.


I concur. They've duffed it up properly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
sorCrer wrote:
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?

I get that we need to prepare our players for test Rugby, and SR does this effectively. But surely the injury toll counter-balances any benefit that our players get from participating in this comp? The injury toll in the NZ conference in particular is immense, and I'm sure it is the same for Australia and SA. Throw in all the travel, and time away from wives, families and partners, and Super Rugby is arguably a massive burden for SH players.

Scrapping SR would allow the three SANZAR nations to concentrate on domestic competitions and International Rugby. The intra-conference games are the big drawcards as it stands anyway. Spectators have voted with their feet, they don't want to pay to see visiting teams from overseas in SR. The abysmal crowd in Johannesburg this year for the Crusaders vs Lions game, which was a replay of last year's final, shows just how little interest there is in the cross-conference games. Also wholly domestic comps would be much more responsive to the needs of players and spectators. There would be no 3am kick offs, no shit games against teams like the Sunwolves and I believe more domestic interest across all three countries.


I concur. They've duffed it up properly.


Concentrate on test Rugby, where all the money is, and our own, smaller domestic comps. It could be argued that SR is an expensive waste of time and resources. Is this really the best and most effective way to prepare our players for test match Rugby?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1811
I loved Super rugby when it was 12 teams, all playing each other once, top 4 in the playoffs. It was a short, intense season of phenomenally good rugby on average. I didn't care that NZ dominated - they were the best managed, coached sides and deserved to be at the top. This contrived bullshit where every country gets a chance in the playoffs is what has killed SR. I used to watch semi finals even if it was two NZ teams, because I knew it would be great rugby. Now I couldn't be bothered, knowing at least one team probably doesn't deserve the place.

It was the envy of the NH.

Now they smirk and sneer at us. Rightly so.

Not sure if it was profitable, but it was a far better format IMO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3224
Arguably one reason is a more concentrated talent pool across 5 teams compared to the 14 in provincial rugby better prepares players for test match rugby. Also they can't really scrap the super franchises at this point, too much history and infrastructure there surely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
For the record I'm a fan of SR and would be sad to see it go, but I just think we need to look critically at the entire setup down here. I think we need to try and figure out where we want to be in 5 or 10 years time and start planning accordingly.

I see fulltime international players being the norm in NZ by the 2023 RWC. And if that's the case, then is SR still sustainable? Can SR survive if the test players aren't involved? I don't think it can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17839
Location: Centre of the Universe
What would you have the players do during this time of season?

(I'm one of those who wouldn't care if it disappeared, for the record.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
Andalu wrote:
Arguably one reason is a more concentrated talent pool across 5 teams compared to the 14 in provincial rugby better prepares players for test match rugby. Also they can't really scrap the super franchises at this point, too much history and infrastructure there surely.


If we scrapped SR we could set up a domestic comp to suit our needs. I wonder if having such strong SR teams is actually a problem - our injury tolls would suggest it might be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3891
the super 12 was good and will be again.

i disagree that supporters are not interested in visiting sides.

imo the domestic rivalries are best in a domestic competition and hold no special attraction in super rugby. in fact they can become rather boring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
Nieghorn wrote:
What would you have the players do during this time of season?

(I'm one of those who wouldn't care if it disappeared, for the record.)


I think we arguably have too much Rugby now. The benefits of Super Rugby, IMO, are superseded by the negative impact of such a long season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 16698
You're an old man AC. The kids love SR. It's best to keep it for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17839
Location: Centre of the Universe
Ali's Choice wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Arguably one reason is a more concentrated talent pool across 5 teams compared to the 14 in provincial rugby better prepares players for test match rugby. Also they can't really scrap the super franchises at this point, too much history and infrastructure there surely.


If we scrapped SR we could set up a domestic comp to suit our needs. I wonder if having such strong SR teams is actually a problem - our injury tolls would suggest it might be.



If you want fewer clashes against the big guns, why not just the Mitre 10? Could it be expanded? A domestic Super comp would just be what exists now, to some degree, with the SR NZ conference.


Quote:
I think we arguably have too much Rugby now.


Completely agree.


Last edited by Nieghorn on Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3891
Ali's Choice wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Arguably one reason is a more concentrated talent pool across 5 teams compared to the 14 in provincial rugby better prepares players for test match rugby. Also they can't really scrap the super franchises at this point, too much history and infrastructure there surely.


If we scrapped SR we could set up a domestic comp to suit our needs. I wonder if having such strong SR teams is actually a problem - our injury tolls would suggest it might be.


why would the attrition rate be higher at super rugby? i call bullshit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
Monk Zombie wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Arguably one reason is a more concentrated talent pool across 5 teams compared to the 14 in provincial rugby better prepares players for test match rugby. Also they can't really scrap the super franchises at this point, too much history and infrastructure there surely.


If we scrapped SR we could set up a domestic comp to suit our needs. I wonder if having such strong SR teams is actually a problem - our injury tolls would suggest it might be.


why would the attrition rate be higher at super rugby? i call bullshit


I don't understand your question.

The current injury rate is unprecedented, certainly in the NZ conference. That's not really debateable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 694
Monk Zombie wrote:
the super 12 was good and will be again.

i disagree that supporters are not interested in visiting sides.

imo the domestic rivalries are best in a domestic competition and hold no special attraction in super rugby. in fact they can become rather boring.

The domestic games killed it for me. Can't be arsed watching the Stormers and Sharks for the third time this season dishing up unwatchable shite. Only games I watch is if a SA side is playing a Kiwi or Aussie side.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3891
Ali's Choice wrote:
Monk Zombie wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Arguably one reason is a more concentrated talent pool across 5 teams compared to the 14 in provincial rugby better prepares players for test match rugby. Also they can't really scrap the super franchises at this point, too much history and infrastructure there surely.


If we scrapped SR we could set up a domestic comp to suit our needs. I wonder if having such strong SR teams is actually a problem - our injury tolls would suggest it might be.


why would the attrition rate be higher at super rugby? i call bullshit


I don't understand your question.

The current injury rate is unprecedented, certainly in the NZ conference. That's not really debateable.


would those players not get injured in the domestic competition you are proposing as an alternative?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3891
Boomslang wrote:
Monk Zombie wrote:
the super 12 was good and will be again.

i disagree that supporters are not interested in visiting sides.

imo the domestic rivalries are best in a domestic competition and hold no special attraction in super rugby. in fact they can become rather boring.

The domestic games killed it for me. Can't be arsed watching the Stormers and Sharks for the third time this season dishing up unwatchable shite. Only games I watch is if a SA side is playing a Kiwi or Aussie side.


me too


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4579
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


Last edited by kiwigreg369 on Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15035
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 16698
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3224
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3891
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



no


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
I think the move to fulltime test players will make SR redundant. These test players will play 10-14 big games a year, and I think that is optimum. I think we need to move away from this mindset that elite Rugby can be played week in, week out. I don't think that is sustainable longterm in the pro-era. Boxers don't box every weekend. Athletes don't compete every weekend but we expect our elite players to?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 1672
Super 12 and 14 was the best rugby competition in the world. Super rugby could be the best again. Just get the format right. I would personally drop the Sunwolves. Make it super 14 again with the remaining teams with each team playing every other team once. However if the sunwolves remain then have super 15 with each team playing every other team once.

At least the South African teams are competitive again.


Last edited by mdaclarke on Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17839
Location: Centre of the Universe
CrazyIslander wrote:
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


That's a fair point. Even if the franchises are losing money, the players get paid and there are sponsorship / TV dollars tied to the comp, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:42 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31691
Location: in transit
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..


There's never been so much money in the game.

Where the three SH unions erred early on was in selling their control of their own game to Murdoch's NewsCorp. As you must know AC, here in Australia FoxSport spends more money, time and effort in promoting NRL, another of its fostered babies.

While I agree in part with your post, I disagree that what we call 'Super Rugby' now is dead. The concept is sound and there is a future for a high quality semi domestic comp involving the SH unions. All of them. The answer is in how that product is sold and made available and FoxSport isn't it. Likewise, the tyranny of distance and timezones needs addressing...

but this is the home of the best rugby in the world.

Bar none.

It's the best product available in the rugby market and once the right way is found to stream that high quality product into the loungerooms of the NH warthogs wallowing in the deep pile complacency that is their native habitat, you'll see the financial solution to your problem present itself.
The rest is just a sort of giant Jenga game. Easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3224
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.

To add I'd say that NZ fans are much more likely to tune in to RSA games if they are knockout games, for example. And it would reduce the burden on the players if they only travelled for playoffs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24510
Location: Queensland
Nieghorn wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


That's a fair point. Even if the franchises are losing money, the players get paid and there are sponsorship / TV dollars tied to the comp, right?


Yeah I get that, but the strengthened domestic comps that replace SR across SANZAR would be worth something too, and would have the potential to be much more responsive to sponsors, TV companies and viewers. SR will never thrive in any market given the timezone issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17839
Location: Centre of the Universe
Ali's Choice wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


That's a fair point. Even if the franchises are losing money, the players get paid and there are sponsorship / TV dollars tied to the comp, right?


Yeah I get that, but the strengthened domestic comps that replace SR across SANZAR would be worth something too, and would have the potential to be much more responsive to sponsors, TV companies and viewers. SR will never thrive in any market given the timezone issues.



Trans-Tasman? Current teams, plus a PI side? Play each other once and then semis, finals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25622
Location: Chickenrunning...
AC is right. Soup is dying, too many teams from all over the globe but conferences just make it look like a domestic comp anyway....plus huge travel every 4 weeks. It’s insane :thumbdown:

Intense, local comp per SH nation and concentration on Tests is the answer.

Maybe a bi-annual visit to the Heineken Cup playoffs in NH might also increase interest again in SH Club rugby?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 16698
Ali's Choice wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


That's a fair point. Even if the franchises are losing money, the players get paid and there are sponsorship / TV dollars tied to the comp, right?


Yeah I get that, but the strengthened domestic comps that replace SR across SANZAR would be worth something too, and would have the potential to be much more responsive to sponsors, TV companies and viewers. SR will never thrive in any market given the timezone issues.

Finally we get to the point. None of the SANZAR countries can emulate SR type revenue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 1672
Nieghorn wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


That's a fair point. Even if the franchises are losing money, the players get paid and there are sponsorship / TV dollars tied to the comp, right?


Yeah I get that, but the strengthened domestic comps that replace SR across SANZAR would be worth something too, and would have the potential to be much more responsive to sponsors, TV companies and viewers. SR will never thrive in any market given the timezone issues.



Trans-Tasman? Current teams, plus a PI side? Play each other once and then semis, finals.



It is my understanding that if forced to chose between a Trans-Tasman competition or a South Africa-New Zealand competition, the New Zealanders would chose a South Africa-New Zealand Competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 16698
mdaclarke wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
You do know that without SR there would be substantial pay cuts across the board right? Try stopping the poaching then.


That's a fair point. Even if the franchises are losing money, the players get paid and there are sponsorship / TV dollars tied to the comp, right?


Yeah I get that, but the strengthened domestic comps that replace SR across SANZAR would be worth something too, and would have the potential to be much more responsive to sponsors, TV companies and viewers. SR will never thrive in any market given the timezone issues.



Trans-Tasman? Current teams, plus a PI side? Play each other once and then semis, finals.



It is my understanding that if forced to chose between a Trans-Tasman competition or a South Africa-New Zealand competition, the New Zealanders would chose a South Africa-New Zealand Competition.

Yeah NZRU are the ones stopping Trans Tasman from happening. I can understand though. Aus rugby will grow too powerful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16971
Yes. That’s the truth


Kiwis don’t respect us. They just want to play with the Saffers. To sip from the Boer cup

We’re just along for the ride...

Like the Brad Pitt character in Thelma and Louise


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22189
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?

I get that we need to prepare our players for test Rugby, and SR does this effectively. But surely the injury toll counter-balances any benefit that our players get from participating in this comp? The injury toll in the NZ conference in particular is immense, and I'm sure it is the same for Australia and SA. Throw in all the travel, and time away from wives, families and partners, and Super Rugby is arguably a massive burden for SH players.

Scrapping SR would allow the three SANZAR nations to concentrate on domestic competitions and International Rugby. The intra-conference games are the big drawcards as it stands anyway. Spectators have voted with their feet, they don't want to pay to see visiting teams from overseas in SR. The abysmal crowd in Johannesburg this year for the Crusaders vs Lions game, which was a replay of last year's final, shows just how little interest there is in the cross-conference games. Also wholly domestic comps would be much more responsive to the needs of players and spectators. There would be no 3am kick offs, no shit games against teams like the Sunwolves and I believe more domestic interest across all three countries.


A few months ago I was slagged off for pointing out Super Rugby is a bit of a failure financially. This is partly because fan interest isn't ignited every season in the media of all the countries, because there i s no domestic team will win every time. It effective ensures 4/5 countries won't generate positive headlines by winning an elite league. MEan while in the UK there is a guaranteed English winner of the league and some years the bonus of a European Cup win. I believe it would be better organised similar to the Northern Hemisphere, have a mix of elite domestic leagues and a club/region/franchaise competition the top teams will qualify for. It means some match-ups become rarer and more special.

I believe good case study is Netball. The OZ and NZ teams separated their league a few years ago and both gained financially. The interest also grew because the fact was Oz-NZ matches viewing figures dropped by half compared with domestic match-ups and made the league a less attractive product for TV contracts and sponsors. There is also the over familarity of seeing the same players play over and over again and then do it internationally. Sometimes less is more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22189
Monk Zombie wrote:
the super 12 was good and will be again.

i disagree that supporters are not interested in visiting sides.

imo the domestic rivalries are best in a domestic competition and hold no special attraction in super rugby. in fact they can become rather boring.


I'm pretty sure the TV ratings for most teams are lower fr visiting sides (one or two exceptions). It is also a pattern recently analysed strongly in Netball in a decision that led to OZ and NZ splitting the leagues, getting more ratings per game and bigger TV and sponsorship deals. Ratings went up accordingly. Coupled with the fact Oz has had a club final that had huge attendance last year and South Africa schools recently had huge attendance numbers shows there is a huge desire to watch domestic sport.

The fact is in the Southern Hemisphere Rugby is basically one long international season. No wonder why ratings and finances are not what they should be and we are even seeing it apply to international games with crowd numbers. There are only so many occasions fans want to see the same players face-off against each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31691
Location: in transit
eldanielfire wrote:
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?

I get that we need to prepare our players for test Rugby, and SR does this effectively. But surely the injury toll counter-balances any benefit that our players get from participating in this comp? The injury toll in the NZ conference in particular is immense, and I'm sure it is the same for Australia and SA. Throw in all the travel, and time away from wives, families and partners, and Super Rugby is arguably a massive burden for SH players.

Scrapping SR would allow the three SANZAR nations to concentrate on domestic competitions and International Rugby. The intra-conference games are the big drawcards as it stands anyway. Spectators have voted with their feet, they don't want to pay to see visiting teams from overseas in SR. The abysmal crowd in Johannesburg this year for the Crusaders vs Lions game, which was a replay of last year's final, shows just how little interest there is in the cross-conference games. Also wholly domestic comps would be much more responsive to the needs of players and spectators. There would be no 3am kick offs, no shit games against teams like the Sunwolves and I believe more domestic interest across all three countries.


A few months ago I was slagged off for pointing out Super Rugby is a bit of a failure financially. This is partly because fan interest isn't ignited every season in the media of all the countries, because there i s no domestic team will win every time. It effective ensures 4/5 countries won't generate positive headlines by winning an elite league. MEan while in the UK there is a guaranteed English winner of the league and some years the bonus of a European Cup win. I believe it would be better organised similar to the Northern Hemisphere, have a mix of elite domestic leagues and a club/region/franchaise competition the top teams will qualify for. It means some match-ups become rarer and more special.

I believe good case study is Netball. The OZ and NZ teams separated their league a few years ago and both gained financially. The interest also grew because the fact was Oz-NZ matches viewing figures dropped by half compared with domestic match-ups and made the league a less attractive product for TV contracts and sponsors. There is also the over familarity of seeing the same players play over and over again and then do it internationally. Sometimes less is more.


You were 'slagged off' for talking shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22189
CrazyIslander wrote:
Finally we get to the point. None of the SANZAR countries can emulate SR type revenue.


I disagree. As with my Netball example above, sponsors like the higher and more consistent ratings domestic comps produce and dislike 3am matches. It sounds appealing that fans would be more interested in a competition of several nations, but the truth is they don't, domestic match-ups are more engaging.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22189
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
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?

I get that we need to prepare our players for test Rugby, and SR does this effectively. But surely the injury toll counter-balances any benefit that our players get from participating in this comp? The injury toll in the NZ conference in particular is immense, and I'm sure it is the same for Australia and SA. Throw in all the travel, and time away from wives, families and partners, and Super Rugby is arguably a massive burden for SH players.

Scrapping SR would allow the three SANZAR nations to concentrate on domestic competitions and International Rugby. The intra-conference games are the big drawcards as it stands anyway. Spectators have voted with their feet, they don't want to pay to see visiting teams from overseas in SR. The abysmal crowd in Johannesburg this year for the Crusaders vs Lions game, which was a replay of last year's final, shows just how little interest there is in the cross-conference games. Also wholly domestic comps would be much more responsive to the needs of players and spectators. There would be no 3am kick offs, no shit games against teams like the Sunwolves and I believe more domestic interest across all three countries.


A few months ago I was slagged off for pointing out Super Rugby is a bit of a failure financially. This is partly because fan interest isn't ignited every season in the media of all the countries, because there i s no domestic team will win every time. It effective ensures 4/5 countries won't generate positive headlines by winning an elite league. MEan while in the UK there is a guaranteed English winner of the league and some years the bonus of a European Cup win. I believe it would be better organised similar to the Northern Hemisphere, have a mix of elite domestic leagues and a club/region/franchaise competition the top teams will qualify for. It means some match-ups become rarer and more special.

I believe good case study is Netball. The OZ and NZ teams separated their league a few years ago and both gained financially. The interest also grew because the fact was Oz-NZ matches viewing figures dropped by half compared with domestic match-ups and made the league a less attractive product for TV contracts and sponsors. There is also the over familarity of seeing the same players play over and over again and then do it internationally. Sometimes less is more.


You were 'slagged off' for talking shit.


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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 16698
eldanielfire wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Finally we get to the point. None of the SANZAR countries can emulate SR type revenue.


I disagree. As with my Netball example above, sponsors like the higher and more consistent ratings domestic comps produce and dislike 3am matches. It sounds appealing that fans would be more interested in a competition of several nations, but the truth is they don't, domestic match-ups are more engaging.

You fo know the highest paid netball players in Oz get less than the lowest paid fulltime SR player right?
Also, there's no audience for a domestic Aust comp.


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

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 18ChinsOfChinatown, Banana Man, bimboman, Blackrock Bullet, Bobless, danny_fitz, de_Selby, DraadkarD, EverReady, Flametop, Floppykid, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, hermie, JamesJames, Laurent, Lazy Couch potato, Lemoentjie, Liquid_Len, mr flaps, Mullet 2, Nobleman, Oxbow, penguin, Raggs, rialtoblue, Risteard, RWC2015, SamShark, Sards, sockwithaticket, sonic_attack, xhooker 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