No easy answers to this Super debacle

We miss you

It seems increasingly likely that an Australian team will be cut and NZ are behind the move. Hopefully Australian rugby has long memories, you never know, one day in the distant future we may be able to return the favour (hopefully in NZ rugby's hour of need). As they say, revenge is best served cold.

Be interesting what that saturation point is when you hear Luatua saying the difference in contract size was night and day. It sounds as though they could absorb all our Super sides and more.

So the question might be, why go begging to them? It is unlikely that they would be willing to play any games in the middle of a SA summer, so all your rugby would be up there and at your cost. But there are lots of teams excluded from the real money that might consider playing during their summer against the best of SA. The new version of the HC was a big win for the English and French clubs, so it certainly wasn't for others. And there are plenty missing out altogether. Why not do it on your terms?

Spot on. If SA can't play NZ and Aus sides in the pool games then we should look North . No time zone issues. These days the players fly Business Class. Overnight flight. Question is- will the North take us? The part many miss is I such a move could also compromise the 4N.

That's my concern Andy. If Australian rugby disappears out of the limelight, it may never make it back.

Sheek, part of the problem seems to be that you say "short, maybe medium term financial pain" without ever examining just how much or what that might actually mean on the ground. During the GFC, there were lots of companies that struggled. I watched several consulting companies that I had previously worked with go through it, with various strategies. Several decided to do the equivalent of what you are talking about, restructuring the company to cut costs and appeal to a different sector of the market. But cutting of costs involved getting rid of the bulk of the senior staff and, as the market came out of the slump, they found they couldn't win any work. They had forgotten that they were selling a discretionary product and others had stepped in to assume their market share, in some cases even with their previous employees. All of those companies are now either out of business, or are merely a division of another company following a take-over.

Sheek, my figures are from the ARU annual reports, and the reported figures for Netball and Rugby's new deals. I did take creative licence to assume that half would be allocated to Super Rugby on the new deal. Not a stretch considering that our total Super Rugby and Test deal went from $20M to $25M with the addition of the Rebels. So I know what the ARU is getting. I know what the market is paying for other sports for FTA with similar followings, on the intention of prime time broadcast. What you cannot explain is how with nothing in the bank, the ARU can make it through a single broadcast cycle on it. It's not short term pain if they become insolvent. It's death. That's the plain truth of it. The ARU aren't being short sighted only worried about short term gain. They are only worried about not dying in the immediate future. You are so fixated on your view that you just can't see the forest from the trees on this. What do you need to be able to sustain short term financial pain? Money in the bank. What will be provided over the life of the broadcast deal in it's current format? Enough revenue to put money in the bank. You literally want the ARU to do something, but are critical of them doing what they need to, in order to put themselves in the position to do this.

Okay TWAS, I don't know where you get your figures from, or that they're the only figures we can work off. I do know there would be short, maybe medium term financial pain involved (my suggested structures), but I truly believe if ARU gets its structures right, it will eventually be sustainable long-term. Terrific they're getting all this broadcast money now, but hello, the game is still a mess in Australia. So all that revenue isn't really helping, is it, if the ARU is just throwing good money after bad, while operating with inefficient, maybe, even plain bad structures.

Let's get this straight, Super Rugby isn't the EPL or the NBA or La Liga or the Champions League. Within those competitions you have massive global brands/clubs/organisations such as Man United, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, LA Lakers, Golden State Warriors, Chicago Bulls etc... Rugby's global brands come from internationals eg. 6 nations rugby, All Blacks, British & Irish Lions. Super Rugby isn't ever going to be a top global competition in terms of generating massive crowds and fanbases because the clubs playing it don't have that identity. I can't ever see the Crusaders or Hurricanes or Waratahs or whatever they're called, becoming global brands in their own right and the competition as a whole is far too geographically spread out to ever get the traction to become bigger than it currently is. If anything, I see European Rugby getting bigger.

No. He's just an idealist.

........a trickle down economics advocate no doubt......

For me, Super Rugbies footprint is simply unsustainable and far too geographically spread for viewer and player alike. The catalyst for this dilemma is the expansion that saw the Argentina and Japans inclusion. Both these should be the ones pruned from what was an exclusive competition for the southern hemispheres Rugby powers and while Argentina vaguely fit this criteria, they are too geographically remote to be practicably viable.

That's all well and good Sheek but I can assure you that any quality managers consider solvency non negotiable. You need to look at the numbers if you want to say something is a viable alternative. Let's say we went for an 8 team Australian Competition. Netball has managed a deal of $3.4M per year for 2 prime time games and 2 delayed. Let's say 4 prime time games is double that at $6.8M per year. Great, we are on FTA. The problem is instead of $50+M per year for Super Rugby and Tests, we now get $6.8M a year for NRC and $25M per year for tests. That's now down to $31.8M TV revenue. Currently we distribute $33.5M to the franchises for player salaries and support costs. Let's ignore the fact that 8 teams may require more and assume we maintain costs. The competition is already down $1.7M against the TV Revenue. Based on previous years, that would see the ARU, which were on the brink of insolvency, lose $1M of more for every intermediate year, then around $10M for the RWC year. If they had signed up to that instead of the current broadcast agreement, by the time it expires in 2022, the ARU would have potentially lost $14M. But that wouldn't have happened. Because they would have been insolvent by next year. The current TV deal was essential, because it provided an extra $25M in income every year. That's $125M extra income over the life of the deal. That means that the RWC year $10M loss actually comes out to about a $6M profit after the additional $8.5M they are now distributing to the franchises. Organisations on the verge of insolvency cannot overlook money in the short term for long term benefit, as they won't be around long enough to see that benefit.

Harry/TWAS, I belong to the body of opinion that if you build sound structures first, then the success will follow as a matter of course. Not the other way around, trying to chase the money without bedding down sound structures. Now bag me all you like, but the most successful people & organisations have laid down the solid foundations first. Imagine if the founding fathers like Bradfield & others who built the Sydney Harbour Bridge had gone for only 4-6 lanes instead of 12 - there's 8 vehicle, 2 train, one cycle & one footpath lane. That's what they do today, only enough to get them by, the future is somebody else's problem. Same with super rugby, just get through the next 5 year TV broadcasting cycle. Little thought to long-term sustainability. Deep down TWAS, you KNOW I'm right!

Exactly. Sheek always ignores the money is necessary to play the players.

We already have that, in a matter of fact there is a big issue that the Jaguares games (against SA teams)are played at the same time that the domestic competition is played. Still we put 10,000 fans in the stadium and we will probably double this number on Saturday against the Reds since it will be played latter in the evening.

But then a guy like Eben Etzebeth will make a lot less money, and surely will not be able to justify giving up the extra 500,000 Euros.

The Conference format is unfair. If you take a snapshot of the top (8) teams based only on points accumulated to date then the teams would be Chiefs (19), Crusaders (16), Hurricanes (15), Lions (14), Jaguares (14), Sharks (13), Stormers (13) and Brumbies (10). If the finals were held next weekend then these teams should be in the finals. NZ - 3 teams, South Africa - 3 teams, Argentina - 1 team and Australia - 1 team. Your suggested scenario using the Conference system would see good teams excluded and teams with less points playing in the finals. This is the mess we have now and the supporters and sponsors aren't happy with it.

I agree somewhat BB but would love to see the Super XII resurrected just to see if it brought a new sense of focus to SAF and Aus teams. Loving the way the Lions are playing but speaking for the Aussies - there seems to be a sense of belief missing from our players and genuine pride in the jerseys they wear. I understand due to player depth constraints that it won't always be rosy here but the spirit and genuine passion from the average players seem to be almost a memory. The kiwis on the other hand have taken their ultimate passion and respect for the jersey to a new level accompanied by innovative management, player management and professinly adopted the latest sports science & technology to make them even greater. The Wobblies either train with their fitness coach or practice how to pass as if they both have to be mutually exclusive. There seems to be no answer or skill to be able to deal with the now standard ultra-rush defence with ball in hand