Super Rugby AU thrashes the Trans-Tasman competition in rugby's ratings war

400,000 viewers = more money for RA = we retain talent and beat NZ eventually

hasn't worked for 20 years

totally agree

Few things here, I thought that the TV viewers thing was bundled together, like with SA part of it in Super 14 they had 1 million per home derby game so that meant there was potentially that number that could watch a NZ team v SA team game, so the value went up with SA part of it and now has gone down without them. So having a TT with NZ derby’s getting 300,000 and a AU derby getting 80,000 is better then a solo comp of 80,000 per game. TV companies look at the potential of those 300,000 watching when the AU team plays a NZ team. One thing i've always wondered is, what is the value of Super Rugby to say the US market? I know we sell to Europe, if we moved our games to early afternoon, we would hit US primetime TV, i wonder if that would give a greater pool of money. I can see a Champions league with Japan and the pacific going ahead in the next year or two. I guess if the TT doesn’t go ahead, we could also look at a Super16 with 5 NZ, 2 Pacific, 4 Japan (they seem more interested in playing us now then 4 years ago), 5 AU teams. Its funny, I reckon everything would be fine if we were celebrating 25 years of just Super12 or Super14 with the two extra teams being from SA in 2006 because of the TV viewers.

I didn't say it was exactly the same, but they haven't learnt from Super Rugby's mistakes. Yes of course it's all for money. So was Super 18, but at the expense of the competition. Unfair conferences, too much travel, massive difference between top and bottom. The bread and butter fans you rely on didn't buy it and it was a disaster financially. Now look at URC. No time zone problem, but many more intercontinental trips. No automatic qualifier from each pool, but still an advantage for teams in weak pools. And a clear gap between Leinster and the rest, and a massive gap to the worst. What a long season leading to the inevitable Leinster win! Even if things work as planned, the salary budget of each team will be totally uncompetitive with the English and especially French teams. (Remember, the money is diluted to more nations and teams.) And if, for the reasons above, the fans lose interest, the sporting sacrifice is in vain. I agree with you on SRTT by the way. The travel is fine, but otherwise the same mistakes. I've also been arguing for domestic comps followed by a Champions League on these pages. But the same argument applies to South Africa.

Agree with most of the article. Oz is to big geographically to only have 5 teams and the Oz sponsers wouldn't see NZ as a great pull. On the other hand NZ goes up in value because they have access to the Oz market. TT doesn't tie in the large markets of Japan and the US to make a political block against the "central powers". The TT also doesn't allow for the best to play the best and a second one for the lower half. European Rugby started off really small and grew as the leagues grew. The Pacific needs to accept things take time but can turn things around. Look at the choices the SRU & FIR made that caused players to go overseas for 3 years and then be brought home. RA could loan players out to European teams for a year or look to bring some squad players back for a year. A Pacific cup allows each league to do what they want. If NZ want 5 or 10 teams no one cares. Each league gets 4 teams into a Champions Cup with 4 groups of 4. MRL teams trying to beat Japan, Japan focusing on Oz and Oz on NZ while Nz are trying to stay in front. Top 2 from each group go into a quarters which is essential the TT but backed by more money. The second level would be the rest of the teams (or the next 4) to make 16/24 and normally be an Oz v NZ final so a cup for the weak team that builds the fan base as everyone likes a winner. Sponsers in Oz and NZ would pay big money for access to Japan and US. TV deals would also be better as more wins etc. Instead Oz and NZ will stay by themselves leaving Japan and MLR to compete with them. Have no voting block as the keep the RC at 4 teams. The Europeans in the meantime will look to aligin with the Private owners in Japan and US and try get the SARU on board isolating NZ and Oz more. With Japan and US in the NH that would result in a global calender being NH based fully which doesn't help ye at all. THERE WILL BE BIGGER CONSEQUENCES FOR THEM THAN JUST A TT IF DONE WRONG.

You have isolation and you have domestic control, two different things. If Oz have the TT as their only financially viable competition they are stuck with others telling them they can't have a 6th team. If they have a professional domestic competition that has an international club competition attached they are not isolated. Pro12 originally started because the three Celtic Nations had to adapt. Scotland a Wales cut a team each that has resulted in less involvement in those areas. Ireland almost cut Connacht but due to fan backlash didn't. They became a development team that didn't cost much so was affordable. They now are fully funded but have grown support, playing numbers and schools. If they had cut the team they couldn't have just pit the team back once they had the money. SA played no rugby outside of SA, England and France do. Oz has the potential to support a league that could match the 3 euro leagues and Japan. A TT does not as it limits Oz growth to assure equal number of teams for both nations. Oz stick 3 development teams in an SRAU means more games for younger players and they only play domestic games. Building up teams with 3k fans and building slowly is better than waiting for the money.

The people have spoken it appears. Australians don't want to watch a rugby club competition with sides outside of Australia. So, where do we go with that? I would say use the AFL model and use established big Sydney and Brisbane clubs. Bring in imports from NZ and the Pacific to play with those teams. NZ can go play itself. Everyone is happy.

Clink! Was that a penny dropping ?

The improvement is down to the Euro club competitions. The Pro12 is good at the breakdown but physically weak by euro standards. The Prem is good at set piece but poor at adapting in games. The Top14 is good at phyiscallity but poor at discipline. In the Euro competitions the top teams from the domestic leagues have had to either improve at or negate the other leagues strenght. It has resulted in the NH teams better able to play at international and adapt. SR on the other hand turned the 3 SH nations into a simillar style. If the three nations had their own styles like in the 90s they could improve each other. Rassie essential stopped trying to be like NZ and went whole hog back to SA style which meant they got parity (similar to with Argentina last year) rather than Oz who try copy NZ rather than be themselves

Commercially a 6-team Australian comp playing home and away with a finals series is the best option before a TT. However, many will argue playing the Kiwis is vital to improve our overall standard. Personally I can see arguments for and against both options. For me I like the option of the second round of the Super AU and AOT having an impact on the TT. So for the TT you'll technically play each other once. Then a 4-team finals series for that also not just a final for top 2. Make it top 4 and let's bring back the semi finals. I would also be a fan of a champions cup style tournament running in parallel with the domestic comps. So you have pools of 3 x 4 (with Fiji and Moana coming in). I don't envy the administrators, someone won't be happy at the end of this.

URC and SR are not the same and are not repeating the mistakes of SR. Top 8 teams in the league will play in the quarters. If the top 4 are Irish then the 4 quarters will be played in Ireland. SR had the issue of the top 3 teams being the Conference Champions not the 3 highest teams. A South African team playing 3 extra games against against SA team is better for those teams financially and improving standards then playing weaker teams who will be found out over the season and miss out. As Benetton showed (who would be a weaker team) the other conferences aren't exactly weak. The URC Conference will hand out a domestic trophy something that SR never did. Also the Euro qualification rules only apply for to years as the Irish have said they are vetoing it on renewal. Pro12 took Ireland, Scotland and Wales from poor weak countries unable to compete internationally to now being much stronger. Italy's rise at u20s is also part of that. SR on the other hand took the 3 strongest nations and didn't improve them. Final it's all about the money. Pro12 has been richer than SR for a while. With SA they are now second richest so started small and growing (England is in trouble and down from 20 to 14 realistically professional teams). No need to highlight SR decline. SR should have been built on top of the domestic game not replacing it so none of the 3 Nations reached their potentially financially at domestic level. SA by joining the URC have 4 teams in the top and a second teir that will allow them to develop the other teams that will also attach to Challange Cup. TT though is fully continuing SR decline and needs to do domestic and then a Pacific Champions Cup.

Love it LS Greg, completely agree and believe if anyone rationally looks at the data it shows a strong domestic competition that feeds our best two teams worth of players into a TT tournament to get exposure against the Kiwis is optimal in regards to actually creating a viable rugby product in Aus. On a seperate note I think we also forget how difficult it is to secure future talent in competition with the other codes here in Aus. If a young gun has options to play NRL/AFL/Cricket/Union let's say, who here thinks that they would choose SRTT or the old SR over any of those competitions (if they had choices) Less fans, less money, more losses, culture of failure, perennial whipping boys. Why tf would they want to play in that comp if they have choices? What does Aussie Union have on those codes that can help us secure that talent? Not much. Maybe we could sell them the dream of playing for the Wallas (except now we are 7th in the world) maybe tell them one day they could make the big bucks in the EU comp? Not that that great a sell is it. It seems many don't understand that a product has to be competitive to exist in the marketplace. Unless that product has a monopoly (Union in NZ)

Wasn't funny at the time Jacko! :silly:

You make a valid point Big Dave and certainly Newcastle should be on the radar. Just as Western Sydney should be. The greater Rugby's footprint nationally the better it would be IDEALLY but it is not an ideal world. For all the historical significance of teams like Parramatta and for all the enthusiasm of Rugby supporters such as yourself the game in the west in my opinion lacks sufficient support to sustain a "Professionally" based Rugby Team. Sure it could field a team on a semi professional basis for a few years but would that team prove to be both competitive and commercially viable in the long term. I suspect not. A national competition must be well balanced, it must be competitive too to attract interest but above all else the competition must be sustainable and commercially viable. As things stand for all the merit of having a greater footprint, I just don't think either Newcastle or Western Sydney can guarantee this. Rugby administrator's have made many false starts in recent years I fear that in placing aspirational objectives ahead of practical commercial practices it would just be making yet another false start.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I think it's lazy journalism to make a sensational comparison between the two games. If the TT final had been a trans-Tasman one we all would have watched it.

Australians don’t dislike NZ rugby; they just don’t like/support losing teams. Fix that and TT will work.

Interesting to see rating that say 207,000 (which is great anyway) have jumped to 400,000 isn't it? Someone told me that 207,000 was the number who watched game, and 400,000 was the number who watched a bit of game. I certainly hope 400,000 wasn't at beginning of game, but haven't heard where figure came from.. But regardless the figures were good , and now all we have to do is have Reds/Brumbies final every week, because otherwise were the figues that great? I know they were up on last year (again great) but as we never had FTA before it quite hard to judge isn't it?

A few disingenuous responses, some meaningless and some relevant issues. 1. I did not ignore the "data spike", merely evaluated it. I probably expected you to provide some response to the issues I had raised. You don't explain what data points to what hasn't worked for 15 years. What we should be looking at is the rugby and financial failure of the last five years and I am not sure that 2020 was a reversal. I hope and believe significant Wallaby improvement is possible this year but am concerned that the underlying rugby and financial weakness will hinder sustained international results. Another poor year internationally and we are in deep mud. 2. FTA was not part of the professional model. From 1995 to 2015 we managed OK without it and major matches were broadcast FTA. It is only in the rugby freefall of the last five years that it has become a big issue and I note that FTA ratings for international matches were also falling as well as match attendance. FTA ratings would be more impressive if scored against an NRL game on FTA in the same timeslot. I again highlight that we are putting a lot of emphasis on viewers who are not prepared to pay $20 a month for market standard commercial streaming service plus rugby and an increasing number of other sports. 3. My point here is that preparing Australian teams from this year's low point so that they are at a skills and fitness level to compete at the TT level would be very impressive, although I do not think it can be done in one year. Then maintaining that through the lower tempo SR AU will be next to impossible. I agree that the complete absence of coaching and development pathways has secerly undermined Australian rugby. I would love it if RA 'flicked a switch' and started to do something about it. 4. Avoiding NZ teams because you are worried they will thrash you is not a good mindset. I don't really believe you could have misunderstood that. We need to sign up to what NZ offered because it was in our interest. Persisting with the 2021 SRAU focus is definitely not in their interest. We part ways with NZ and the future is not positive. 5. I am not the one who has been promoting Japan as a solution in the SR AU. I agree with you that such an attitude is both patronising and a pie in the sky. The Sunwolves were not a Japanese endorsed entrant in SR. They did not have the support of the Japanese Union or the Company clubs. They now see international engagement as their next step and will be a huge rugby financial asset to any competition. Sadly it makes no sense for them to join SR AU. 6. What sort of response was that? 7. Yes, that is RA's only strategy. Unable to promote rugby themselves they have totally relied on selling test matches as a river of gold. One of the first problems they have is they can no longer fill a stadium. The real irony is that similar to the solution of avoiding playing NZ SR teams, test matches just keep getting shifted to ever smaller stadiums.