RU in Australia on “life support”

[RoosTah]

Its unattractive because your teams aren't any good. If the started winning regularly it would start appealing to more people. And as for time zones, most people don't watch more than one or two games a week of any sport. You only need Friday and Saturday nights and the occasional Sunday afternoon. Its the quality people want. Australian teams aren't supplying it.

No mate, you don’t. What you need is to be able to compete with the codes that are running PT matches 4 days a week, every week. 2 games for a couple months a year just doesn’t do it.

It’s called market share and it’s not a complicated idea. Again, I suspect this is just too foreign a concept for someone from a less competitive sports market, but it’s just a fact.

 

[Te Kaha]

No mate, you don’t. What you need is to be able to compete with the codes that are running PT matches 4 days a week, every week. 2 games for a couple months a year just doesn’t do it.

It’s called market share and it’s not a complicated idea. Again, I suspect this is just too foreign a concept for someone from a less competitive sports market, but it’s just a fact.

Condescension does you no favors.

You cant talk about "market share" and then say you will have any "market share" with a third rate comp. You won't. Nobody will pay to televise it, and nobody will watch it. Why would they. The quality with be terrible with teams nobody cares about. It will be played in front of 1-2 thousand and fade out within a couple of years.

And your "market share" argument has even less credibility when you look at the figures of the two dominant codes. in a country of 25 odd million the highest rating weekly game is 1-1.5 million and tops out at only 4 million for four games a YEAR. If you repeat that over the two codes, which is being generous that's 70% plus of the population or 17.5 odd MILLION who don't watch either.

You are far two worried about how you will be seen to the other codes instead of carving out your own space. Its not Super Rugby that is killing the code in Australia, its people who aren't prepared to do the hard work and turn around their teams, and instead would rather take their ball and play in their own game.

 

[Timbo]

Local rugby union was more popular here when it was just the Sydney and Brisbane club competitions. Super Rugby had a bright period after the 03 world cup, but the fact is that more people still care about Randwick and Eastwood than they ever will about the Tahs.

 

[RoosTah]

And your "market share" argument has even less credibility when you look at the figures of the two dominant codes. in a country of 25 odd million the highest rating weekly game is 1-1.5 million and tops out at only 4 million for four games a YEAR. If you repeat that over the two codes, which is being generous that's 70% plus of the population or 17.5 odd MILLION who don't watch either.

You do realise that the SuperBowl gets an average of around 100 million people in the US, or a little under a 3rd of their population watching, right? What does that tell you? It tells you that in a country like Australia where the population of 25 million is effectively split down the middle between the AFL and NRL, roughly a third of each block watch their respective GFs and major events like Origin.

In short, that's roughly the numbers you'd expect because when you're looking at a country's entire population, you don't actually just look at the raw numbers if you know what you're doing. Why? because a population of 25 million include a lot of little children under 14 (18%), elderly people (15%) and just people that don't give a stuff about football in general (statistically vastly more likely to be female).

Essentially, your core football-mad demographic is generally male and between the ages of 15-65, or roughly 34% of the population, putting it about 8.5 million people. And we don't even know how many in that number would be anti-sport hipsters...

Getting a million per week for the prime time slots is actually pretty impressive here in that context - especially when you consider very few Wallabies tests get close to cracking that now.

Basically your logic here is the same fallacy presented by the AFL people pushing into China saying "if we could get just 1% of China's population..." without ever realising that they're not remotely getting access to the full population to start with. It's the sort of logic put forward by people that have never studied statistics and therefore don't know how to dig into the numbers beyond the headline figures.

You are far two worried about how you will be seen to the other codes instead of carving out your own space. Its not Super Rugby that is killing the code in Australia, its people who aren't prepared to do the hard work and turn around their teams, and instead would rather take their ball and play in their own game.

To be frank, the fact that I had to go through that little exercise of explaining how you should read statistics ought to have told me enough, but suffice to say you just don't get Australia's sporting landscape.

I hate to break it to you, but Rugby has always been niche and almost esoteric to most people here. The golden eras of the 80s to early 00s had built a lot of bandwagon support, but your comment that you think people would "rather take their ball and play in their own game" is so mind-numbingly ignorant that you should give yourself an uppercut (especially given your complaints about "condescension").

That's akin to telling kiwis that they'd rather play a game with a limited international scene rather than invest in making their soccer team better so they can be involved in the big show of global soccer. It's a stupid argument because the roots, culture and the history in NZ are with rugby and not soccer.

The roots, history and culture in Australia are with AFL and Rugby League... Rugby has mostly been a sport of more limited private school appeal, and it has always had to fight tooth and nail for relevance. It's not about people "wanting to take their ball and play their own game" - it's about what has roots, history and resonance and for most Aussies that's just not rugby; it's rugby league and Aussie Rules.

Rugby was able to carve out a larger slide in the late 90s and early 00s on the back of the golden generation of the Wallabies and the self-destruction of Rugby League, but the current market place is much more competitive and stable and getting by with a mess of a competition like Super Rugby just doesn't cut it anymore.

You can scream at the top of your lungs that it's not Super Rugby's fault, but the fact that the last TV deal saw a DECLINE in Aussie TV money in real terms despite it directly following a win by the team representing Australia's largest Rugby heartland (NSW) ought to tell you everything you need to know about how well Super Rugby is fairing against the competition here.

 

[Timbo]

Rugby's niche goes back to the Great Depression in Australia.

At the time, there was broader appeal. Few people realise, but the old Harold Park trotting track was not originally a racecourse - it was the home of the Metropolitan Rugby Union (now part of the NSWRU).

They sold the venue to the NSW Trotting Club in 1911 on the condition they could lease it back indefinitely for rugby matches. The MRU did not believe they would need concrete assets due to the broad appeal of the sport and revenue generated by matches.

Then the war came, and the depression hit in the 20's. Clubs folded, people couldn't afford tickets anymore and the NSWRU took an absolute bath and almost went under. When the dust settled the only thing keeping the sport alive was the private school system and its old boy network. This is where it's lived ever since.

It hasn't had broad appeal since the 1910's and it never will again. Rugby in Australia knows what it is. It just doesn't know how to capitalise best on its own identity.

 

[RoosTah]

Rugby's niche goes back to the Great Depression in Australia.

At the time, there was broader appeal. Few people realise, but the old Harold Park trotting track was not originally a racecourse - it was the home of the Metropolitan Rugby Union (now part of the NSWRU).

They sold the venue to the NSW Trotting Club in 1911 on the condition they could lease it back indefinitely for rugby matches. The MRU did not believe they would need concrete assets due to the broad appeal of the sport and revenue generated by matches.

Then the war came, and the depression hit in the 20's. Clubs folded, people couldn't afford tickets anymore and the NSWRU took an absolute bath and almost went under. When the dust settled the only thing keeping the sport alive was the private school system and its old boy network. This is where it's lived ever since.

It hasn't had broad appeal since the 1910's and it never will again. Rugby in Australia knows what it is. It just doesn't know how to capitalise best on its own identity.

Interesting to think back that far - back in the early 1900s rowing was one of the largest competitive sports in Sydney!

You're absolutely right that Rugby has a serious identity crisis in Australia and it's also just heavily riven with internal conflicts and backstabbing politics that make it thoroughly inefficient. In my view it's a game that is in desperate need of a hostile takeover by someone with cash and a strategic mindset that gets Australia.

Super Rugby just doesn't make much sense in our context - all our football competitions are fiercely local and built on local rivalries.

Personally, I'd love to see a national comp that did could leverage the identities that make sense to maintain and redevelop ones in the heartlands that leverage off the old clubs.

A 10 team national competition comprising of:
1. Sydney
2. Western Sydney
3. Illawarra
4. Newcastle
5. Brisbane
6. Gold Coast
7. Western Force
8. Melbourne Rebels
9. Adelaide
10. ACT Brumbies

For the Sydney and Brisbane teams though, I think a lot more effort would need to be put into their branding. The NRC's "Sydney Rays" just doesn't resonate with me personally and don't really feel terribly tied to any history.

Something that leveraged the strongest identities of the Sydney and brisbane club comps would make a lot of sense. My personal bias would be for Sydney to have a strong nod to Randwick as it's always felt the strongest brand in club land (even if its finances aren't so strong).

 

[Te Kaha]

You do realise that the SuperBowl gets an average of around 100 million people in the US, or a little under a 3rd of their population watching, right? What does that tell you? It tells you that in a country like Australia where the population of 25 million is effectively split down the middle between the AFL and NRL, roughly a third of each block watch their respective GFs and major events like Origin.

And there is YOUR problem. You think that Rugby needs to try and "poach" an existing fanbase. A defeatest attitude and lacking in anything remotely resembling imagination. Just like your administrators.

In short, that's roughly the numbers you'd expect because when you're looking at a country's entire population, you don't actually just look at the raw numbers if you know what you're doing. Why? because a population of 25 million include a lot of little children under 14 (18%), elderly people (15%) and just people that don't give a stuff about football in general (statistically vastly more likely to be female).

Your target demographic SHOULD be those children, SHOULD be those woman. But you just lack the imagination to do so. If they aren't watching AFL and NRL then get them watching and playing another game. Netball in NZ is dying because of the concerted effort that NZR is putting into Womans Rugby. Getting those people watching the game and their kids, boys AND girls playing it. The womans NRL and AFL are in their infancy, hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

Essentially, your core football-mad demographic is generally male and between the ages of 15-65, or roughly 34% of the population, putting it about 8.5 million people. And we don't even know how many in that number would be anti-sport hipsters...

And there is that lack of imagination again, stuck on a single demographic.

Getting a million per week for the prime time slots is actually pretty impressive here in that context - especially when you consider very few Wallabies tests get close to cracking that now.

And yet you want a third rate national comp that wont even draw a million cumulative. real smart thinking there.

Basically your logic here is the same fallacy presented by the AFL people pushing into China saying "if we could get just 1% of China's population..." without ever realising that they're not remotely getting access to the full population to start with. It's the sort of logic put forward by people that have never studied statistics and therefore don't know how to dig into the numbers beyond the headline figures.

The only thing preventing "access to the full population" is the will to do it. if your thinking is prevalent in RA its no wonder its dying,

To be frank, the fact that I had to go through that little exercise of explaining how you should read statistics ought to have told me enough, but suffice to say you just don't get Australia's sporting landscape.

Or your understanding is simply just limited.

I hate to break it to you, but Rugby has always been niche and almost esoteric to most people here. The golden eras of the 80s to early 00s had built a lot of bandwagon support, but your comment that you think people would "rather take their ball and play in their own game" is so mind-numbingly ignorant that you should give yourself an uppercut (especially given your complaints about "condescension").

That is EXACTLY your thinking. pull out of a high standard comp, and play in a much lower one by yourself. Isolation didn't work for SA it wont work in Australia.

That's akin to telling kiwis that they'd rather play a game with a limited international scene rather than invest in making their soccer team better so they can be involved in the big show of global soccer. It's a stupid argument because the roots, culture and the history in NZ are with rugby and not soccer.

You do realise that participation numbers in NZ for soccer are about double that of Rugby. oh you didn't? that explains a lot.

The roots, history and culture in Australia are with AFL and Rugby League... Rugby has mostly been a sport of more limited private school appeal, and it has always had to fight tooth and nail for relevance. It's not about people "wanting to take their ball and play their own game" - it's about what has roots, history and resonance and for most Aussies that's just not rugby; it's rugby league and Aussie Rules.

Ahhh "roots" and "history"... otherwise known as i don't know how to fight it so i will stamp my feet and do nothing.

Rugby was able to carve out a larger slide in the late 90s and early 00s on the back of the golden generation of the Wallabies and the self-destruction of Rugby League, but the current market place is much more competitive and stable and getting by with a mess of a competition like Super Rugby just doesn't cut it anymore.

Because your teams aren't good enough.. They can't compete and nobody bothers to watch a loser.

You can scream at the top of your lungs that it's not Super Rugby's fault, but the fact that the last TV deal saw a DECLINE in Aussie TV money in real terms despite it directly following a win by the team representing Australia's largest Rugby heartland (NSW) ought to tell you everything you need to know about how well Super Rugby is fairing against the competition here.

A single win. and not one by your national team. When was the last time you won a series against the ABs? won the Bledisloe? won a world cup? as apposed to when was the last time your Super Rugby teams lost 40 in a row to NZ teams?

 

[Te Kaha]

. In my view it's a game that is in desperate need of a hostile takeover by someone with cash and a strategic mindset that gets Australia.
nod to Randwick as it's always felt the strongest brand in club land (even if its finances aren't so strong).

Your entire premise is a wish and a prayer... Instead of dealing with what you have and what you can do, your plan is to hope for the best and wait for a fairy god mother\father to intervene... Good luck with that.

 

[Timbo]

Interesting to think back that far - back in the early 1900s rowing was one of the largest competitive sports in Sydney!

You're absolutely right that Rugby has a serious identity crisis in Australia and it's also just heavily riven with internal conflicts and backstabbing politics that make it thoroughly inefficient. In my view it's a game that is in desperate need of a hostile takeover by someone with cash and a strategic mindset that gets Australia.

Super Rugby just doesn't make much sense in our context - all our football competitions are fiercely local and built on local rivalries.

Personally, I'd love to see a national comp that did could leverage the identities that make sense to maintain and redevelop ones in the heartlands that leverage off the old clubs.

A 10 team national competition comprising of:
1. Sydney
2. Western Sydney
3. Illawarra
4. Newcastle
5. Brisbane
6. Gold Coast
7. Western Force
8. Melbourne Rebels
9. Adelaide
10. ACT Brumbies

For the Sydney and Brisbane teams though, I think a lot more effort would need to be put into their branding. The NRC's "Sydney Rays" just doesn't resonate with me personally and don't really feel terribly tied to any history.

Something that leveraged the strongest identities of the Sydney and brisbane club comps would make a lot of sense. My personal bias would be for Sydney to have a strong nod to Randwick as it's always felt the strongest brand in club land (even if its finances aren't so strong).

That's the problem, I guess. I completely agree with you in theory. The problem as I see it is that you won't get the rusted on Randwick/Easts/Warringah/Sunnybank/GPS fans following the Sydney/Western Sydney/Brisbane teams.

I honestly don't know what the fix is. There are 20 clubs in Sydney and Brisbane - you can't take them all to a national competition, but that's where the loyalty and grass roots are. It's a problem for which there is no good solution, I think they knew it in the 90s when they decided to allow Super Rugby to become the mainstream competition instead of letting the Shute Shield go the same way that the NSWRL and VFL did with their competitions in the 80s, as it was trying to.

I also agree re: Randwick. Has nothing to do with me being a Randwick junior . The only Australian club side to ever be challenged to a match by the All Blacks, what a story that is.Shame they were so poorly managed in the early 00's, they've virtually no assets left.

 

[RoosTah]

And there is YOUR problem. You think that Rugby needs to try and "poach" an existing fanbase. A defeatest attitude and lacking in anything remotely resembling imagination. Just like your administrators.

Your target demographic SHOULD be those children, SHOULD be those woman. But you just lack the imagination to do so. If they aren't watching AFL and NRL then get them watching and playing another game. Netball in NZ is dying because of the concerted effort that NZR is putting into Womans Rugby. Getting those people watching the game and their kids, boys AND girls playing it. The womans NRL and AFL are in their infancy, hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

And there is that lack of imagination again, stuck on a single demographic.

And yet you want a third rate national comp that wont even draw a million cumulative. real smart thinking there.

The only thing preventing "access to the full population" is the will to do it. if your thinking is prevalent in RA its no wonder its dying,

No mate, the only thing preventing access to the full population is reality. If you'd ever spent time analysing marketing data and working in business development, none of this would surprise you. Focussing your energy on trying to get everyone is renowned as a thoroughly self-defeating and ill-advised strategy for any business that doesn't already hold a hegemonic position.

As for where our target demographics "SHOULD" be, well of course we should target women and children, but the reality is the core demographic I outlined is the core demographic for football codes across the globe. It's just a fact. I wasn't saying that's the only place our energies should go, I was saying that's where the market exists and generally always has.

On women and children there's a couple of points to consider though; women are actively being pursued as a source of potential fans by all codes now and Rugby Australia actually haven't been too bad on that front, but the AFL currently remain the leaders at female engagement. All the same, male fans are still the bread and butter of all football codes.

Children are another story - they're a nice talking point, but when you're talking about children you're really talking about their parents... those are the influencers you're after and they still fall into your core demographic AND the ones getting their kids to play contact footy are still overwhelmingly male.

That is EXACTLY your thinking. pull out of a high standard comp, and play in a much lower one by yourself. Isolation didn't work for SA it wont work in Australia.

You do realise that participation numbers in NZ for soccer are about double that of Rugby. oh you didn't? that explains a lot.

Actually yes, I was aware that soccer participation numbers are much greater than rugby participation numbers in NZ. Why? Because they're bigger EVERYWHERE.

They're bigger than American Football numbers in the US too just FYI. But do you know why? For the same reason that more people jog than play contact sports; because it's safe.

In countries like Australia, NZ, North America etc soccer participation numbers have always been great, but the game is not elite in any of those places or seen as something aspirational by the majority of the country due to their culture and history.

For 50 years soccer people in Australia have bemoaned the fact that they have had fantastic participation, but that no one would watch the game. This isn't new and you ought to know that there's a significant difference between what people will do to be social as a hobby and what they would rather invest their support and money in.

Because your teams aren't good enough.. They can't compete and nobody bothers to watch a loser.

A single win. and not one by your national team. When was the last time you won a series against the ABs? won the Bledisloe? won a world cup? as apposed to when was the last time your Super Rugby teams lost 40 in a row to NZ teams?

Two points here:
- The Waratahs are arguably the largest rugby brand in Australia after the Wallabies and their ratings are pretty well the only thing keeping anyone watching Super Rugby. A win was a massive result for a side that has promised a lot over 20 years and always come up short and it was treated as such here. On top of that with the Reds 2011 win and Tahs 2014 win we had 2 Aussie wins over the course of a 5 year TV deal that was about to be replaced. Not a bad strike rate for one conference in a 3 conference system, and yet we still got less money. Surely you can understand what that looks like.

- If nobody wants to watch a loser then how do you explain the continued success of State of Origin? NSW have had over a decade of dominance over them until this year and yet the crowds and ratings for Origin have continued to be immense, always hovering around the 3.5-4 million a match mark. Maybe, just maybe, winning alone isn't the issue? I know this an immensely complicated notion for you, but perhaps the stronger public engagement with Rugby League and it's vastly richer structure has something to do with it?

That is EXACTLY your thinking. pull out of a high standard comp, and play in a much lower one by yourself. Isolation didn't work for SA it wont work in Australia.

Ahhh "roots" and "history"... otherwise known as i don't know how to fight it so i will stamp my feet and do nothing.

For someone so mind numbingly ignorant of so many things, you sure have a lot of confidence in your denials of facts.

I'm not proposing isolation; that would imply I don't want the wallabies to play tests. No, I'm proposing pulling out of a competition that all the facts indicate simply is undermining the development of Australian Rugby and is so badly organised that broadcasters won't invest in it even when we're winning

 

[RoosTah]

That's the problem, I guess. I completely agree with you in theory. The problem as I see it is that you won't get the rusted on Randwick/Easts/Warringah/Sunnybank/GPS fans following the Sydney/Western Sydney/Brisbane teams.

I honestly don't know what the fix is. There are 20 clubs in Sydney and Brisbane - you can't take them all to a national competition, but that's where the loyalty and grass roots are. It's a problem for which there is no good solution, I think they knew it in the 90s when they decided to allow Super Rugby to become the mainstream competition instead of letting the Shute Shield go the same way that the NSWRL and VFL did with their competitions in the 80s, as it was trying to.

I also agree re: Randwick. Has nothing to do with me being a Randwick junior . The only Australian club side to ever be challenged to a match by the All Blacks, what a story that is.Shame they were so poorly managed in the early 00's, they've virtually no assets left.

It's a tough one..

I suspect that the only way for it to genuinely be workable is to just have Sydney be Sydney RFU and put them in Sky Blue and white as a bit of a nod to the Tahs. The West has a different identity, so they ought to look at a way to engage there on its own merits.

 

[Te Kaha]

No mate, the only thing preventing access to the full population is reality. If you'd ever spent time analysing marketing data and working in business development, none of this would surprise you. Focussing your energy on trying to get everyone is renowned as a thoroughly self-defeating and ill-advised strategy for any business that doesn't already hold a hegemonic position.

Again with the condensation and limited thinking. Your "analysing marketing data and working in business development" thinking is so outdated i really hope for whomever you work for that isn't your role! Just because you lack of imagination cant see those people being reached, doesn't mean they can't. Otherwise every new product on the market would fail.

As for where our target demographics "SHOULD" be, well of course we should target women and children, but the reality is the core demographic I outlined is the core demographic for football codes across the globe. It's just a fact. I wasn't saying that's the only place our energies should go, I was saying that's where the market exists and generally always has.

The first rule of business is if you can't reach the market, find another market. If you can get the woman and children wanting to watch the games, the menfolk will follow soon enough.

On women and children there's a couple of points to consider though; women are actively being pursued as a source of potential fans by all codes now and Rugby Australia actually haven't been too bad on that front, but the AFL currently remain the leaders at female engagement. All the same, male fans are still the bread and butter of all football codes.

Then do something about it. but basing your solution on dreams of a mythical money man solving the problem wont work.

Children are another story - they're a nice talking point, but when you're talking about children you're really talking about their parents... those are the influencers you're after and they still fall into your core demographic AND the ones getting their kids to play contact footy are still overwhelmingly male.

Rubbish... Other school kids have just as much of an influence on other kids when they are school age. Get them playing the game. Of course according to you that's too hard so just give up.

In countries like Australia, NZ, North America etc soccer participation numbers have always been great, but the game is not elite in any of those places or seen as something aspirational by the majority of the country due to their culture and history.

And yet you want to make Rugby in Australia EXACTLY the same. No "elite" level. Just a third rate, low skill comp where the best players are cherry picked by other comps. You want Rugby to be just like Soccer. Well done you.

Two points here:
- The Waratahs are arguably the largest rugby brand in Australia after the Wallabies and their ratings are pretty well the only thing keeping anyone watching Super Rugby. A win was a massive result for a side that has promised a lot over 20 years and always come up short and it was treated as such here. On top of that with the Reds 2011 win and Tahs 2014 win we had 2 Aussie wins over the course of a 5 year TV deal that was about to be replaced. Not a bad strike rate for one conference in a 3 conference system, and yet we still got less money. Surely you can understand what that looks like.

In 22 years there has been a total of FOUR Australian wins. That's it just four. guess how many years your teams have been in the bottom 3? .. here's a hint.. its more than four.

- If nobody wants to watch a loser then how do you explain the continued success of State of Origin? NSW have had over a decade of dominance over them until this year and yet the crowds and ratings for Origin have continued to be immense, always hovering around the 3.5-4 million a match mark. Maybe, just maybe, winning alone isn't the issue? I know this an immensely complicated notion for you, but perhaps the stronger public engagement with Rugby League and it's vastly richer structure has something to do with it?

It's because there is hate. Something uniquely Australian in sport between two of your teams. Its also why origin wont ever get any bigger offshore.

I'm not proposing isolation; that would imply I don't want the wallabies to play tests. No, I'm proposing pulling out of a competition that all the facts indicate simply is undermining the development of Australian Rugby and is so badly organised that broadcasters won't invest in it even when we're winning

You havent been winning.. you have been losing for most of the time. So nobody is watching it.

And yes you are proposing isolation. No tier one team will want to play Australia when you cant develop players due to only playing in a third rate comp. You need to play the best to get better. Your idea will only do the opposite.

Like i have said previously. Look for solutions in the real world. a National comp wont pay its own way, wont be televised, wont be attended. wont be successful.

 

[Timbo]

It's a tough one..

I suspect that the only way for it to genuinely be workable is to just have Sydney be Sydney RFU and put them in Sky Blue and white as a bit of a nod to the Tahs. The West has a different identity, so they ought to look at a way to engage there on its own merits.

Herein lies another of rugby's real problems. A national club competition is always talked about with the notion of having a 'Sydney' team and a 'Western Sydney' team. The reality is, to be successful, what you'd want is an 'Eastern Sydney' team and a 'North Shore' team. This is where 85% of the fans are, with a pocket in the shire and a minuscule amount west of the CBD.

It doesn't really do much to grow the game, but it's where the fans are.

 

[RoosTah]

Te Kaha, no office but you clearly can't read stats, you don't understand demographics and you have zero capability to grasp the trend lines present in the TV ratings for Super Rugby in Australia.

You don't have to agree with me that having a national competition would be the best move. But all the data points to the fact that Super Rugby just doesn't work in the current football environment in Australia.

I think you're fundamentally wrong in almost all your positions here and think that your logic derives from an environment that is not under the same competitive pressures nor structural starting point as the market you're attempting to provide advice to.

Super Rugby needs to go for the sake of Australian rugby. You lot can keep playing the saffas, but it's just a bad model from an Australian standpoint

 

[RoosTah]

Herein lies another of rugby's real problems. A national club competition is always talked about with the notion of having a 'Sydney' team and a 'Western Sydney' team. The reality is, to be successful, what you'd want is an 'Eastern Sydney' team and a 'North Shore' team. This is where 85% of the fans are, with a pocket in the shire and a minuscule amount west of the CBD.

It doesn't really do much to grow the game, but it's where the fans are.

Yeah, I have thought that too actually... perhaps that's the smarter play for an establishment comp and then you bring in Western Sydney as it develops

 

[Te Kaha]

Te Kaha, no office but you clearly can't read stats, you don't understand demographics and you have zero capability to grasp the trend lines present in the TV ratings for Super Rugby in Australia.

You don't have to agree with me that having a national competition would be the best move. But all the data points to the fact that Super Rugby just doesn't work in the current football environment in Australia.

I think you're fundamentally wrong in almost all your positions here and think that your logic derives from an environment that is not under the same competitive pressures nor structural starting point as the market you're attempting to provide advice to.

Super Rugby needs to go for the sake of Australian rugby. You lot can keep playing the saffas, but it's just a bad model from an Australian standpoint

Except your solution is worse. A comp nobody will watch, nobody will pay to broadcast and in the end nobody will want to play in. Its an amateur idea for an amateur comp. The whole basis of your pipe dream is for a fairy god mother\father to fund it. It just wont happen.

 

[Timbo]

Yeah, I have thought that too actually... perhaps that's the smarter play for an establishment comp and then you bring in Western Sydney as it develops

As much as I hate the idea of abandoning the rest of the country, I think a competition that is just Sydney and Brisbane teams - with perhaps a lone Canberra and Melbourne - is probably the way to go.

This is a ground-up concept, and it's best bet are the heartlands.

 

[Timbo]

Except your solution is worse. A comp nobody will watch, nobody will pay to broadcast and in the end nobody will want to play in. Its an amateur idea for an amateur comp. The whole basis of your pipe dream is for a fairy god mother\father to fund it. It just wont happen.

And this is also just not true - if you give people teams they care about, they actually watch. The fact is, nobody here really wants to watch the non-Australian teams. Even when I used to regularly go to watch the Tah's, the drop off was really quite noticeable between matches against Australian vs non-Australian teams (the exception being the Crusaders, as they had a bit of a rivalry there for a while). Conversely, if you saw the Shute Shield grand final last year, they were hanging from the rafters at North Sydney Oval.

Australian rugby needs an Australian solution. Super Rugby isn't working, the fans don't like it, the players don't like it and it honestly has nothing to do with results because they have a historical negligible effect on the attendances and TV audiences. They might cause the odd bump, but it's fleeting.

It's not going to be on the scale of the NRL or AFL to begin with, or probably ever. But there are enough rugby fans to support a small competition on the east coast in the heartlands. And I honestly think that's the best thing for rugby in this country.

 

[RoosTah]

As much as I hate the idea of abandoning the rest of the country, I think a competition that is just Sydney and Brisbane teams - with perhaps a lone Canberra and Melbourne - is probably the way to go.

This is a ground-up concept, and it's best bet are the heartlands.

There's a reasonable logic to that, but I'd suggest that adding the force in would be smart at this stage given the amount of backing Forrest has given them. If he's willing to foot the bill and keep them alive, then I'd suggest that that alone makes it viable.

 

[RoosTah]

And this is also just not true - if you give people teams they care about, they actually watch. The fact is, nobody here really wants to watch the non-Australian teams. Even when I used to regularly go to watch the Tah's, the drop off was really quite noticeable between matches against Australian vs non-Australian teams (the exception being the Crusaders, as they had a bit of a rivalry there for a while). Conversely, if you saw the Shute Shield grand final last year, they were hanging from the rafters at North Sydney Oval.

Australian rugby needs an Australian solution. Super Rugby isn't working, the fans don't like it, the players don't like it and it honestly has nothing to do with results because they have a historical negligible effect on the attendances and TV audiences. They might cause the odd bump, but it's fleeting.

It's not going to be on the scale of the NRL or AFL to begin with, or probably ever. But there are enough rugby fans to support a small competition on the east coast in the heartlands. And I honestly think that's the best thing for rugby in this country.

Precisely. Initially there would be a bit of an adjustment period with the new set-up, but having a locally focused set of rivalries would get the public engaged in a way that they just aren't now.

The other thing it would do would be to revive the Qld v NSW rivalry, as we could revive both of those sides as genuine state representative teams like they used to be and run a Union State of Origin every year as a precursor to the EOYT.

We had a version of this with the initial Reds v Tahs rivalry, but the sting has gone out of the tail of their Super Rugby rivalry because Qlders in particular don't feel the passion with a non-representative team and the games are only small pieces in the wider SR context and thus just mean less.