Super Rugby - The Future
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Odd numbers isn't great
As long as the cross over games within the region were scheduled well there wouldn't be too many byes
Depending on the timing, we could arguably have 12 teams, or of course, Oz could have 6+2, in which case it would be 12 + 12.
I really feel like the opportunity to really integrate with Japan was missed when they set up the League one realignment of the competitions there. They had 12 teams in Div 1 and we could have got them to put 6 of them into Super and had Super (6), Div 1 (12), Div 2 (5) - in other words, essentially keeping the same three-tiered system they have introduced, but with the absolute cream on top in Super rugby.
-
@Duluth more coherent than just about every other proposal I've seen!
Questions for me are seasonal in Japan (and possibly US), and also whether the quality of rugby is high enough to prepare players for international rugby.
I think Super over the years was a key driver in the SAANZAR success.
Edit: and the corllary - the recent drop in quality leads to those sides not being as dominant
-
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
No.
But possibly 8 sides if the revenue gets generated ...
-
That's sort of how I got 8
And I liked a 15 team comp, seemed like a nice number. -
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
That's a really good point.
If we looked at Japan with 12 in their first division and based it off that, then:
Japan 12 (6 and 6)
NZ 8 (4 and 4)
OZ incl 2 PI sides 6 (3 and 3)Club Premier: 13 teams
Club Championship: 13 teams13 week round robin then 2-3 weeks of finals.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
if we're bringing Japan into the mix then there has to be more revenue streams to tap
-
Whenever the idea of including Japan in a competition comes up, I think it's useful to try to separate how much money Japanese companies put into club salaries, operations, and facilities from what TV and other revenues the competition brings in. Not the easiest thing to find, but I've seen a figure for Japan League One 2022 revenue of US$25M [1], and an estimate of US$27M for 2023 in the NZ Herald (vague, and I can't find the article).
This doesn't seem like much money, and any more games will need to be weighed against other opportunities like more international games. I have a lot of doubt about Japanese club rugby being of much use to us.
@gt12 Can you find some better sources?
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
Possibly. A 10 team comp would also mean an amateur NPC
There’s around $14 million spent in the current eco system that frees up.. some sponsors would drop out others would join. I would think the new comp would be more attractive
But yes 8 would be safer
-
I am firmly of the opinion, and have said it numerous times, that the future of the NPC (ie provincial rugby) is as a fully amateur representative competition. This still costs money though. Flights and Accommodation at the very least.
-
Put it on FTA TV and that, even reduced, broadcast deal should pay for most of it.
-
They've suggested regional pools to keep travel down. That'll probably happen. Long bus rides and people sleeping in their own beds more often
-
Found this interesting as to how the Sky TV deal is structured:
Subsequently, NZR has agreed to pay $8m this year and next to Rugby Australia as a retrospective revenue sharing agreement now that they are joint-owners of Super Rugby Pacific and the latter was only able to strike a A$29m-a-year rights deal with Channel 9.
A longer-term revenue sharing formula between the two will be agreed for the next broadcast deal, which means that almost certainly given the low profile of rugby in Australia, New Zealand will end up subsidising its Ta$man partner.
Historically NZR has been able to limit the amount of Super Rugby and Rugby Championship money it shares with its Sanzaar partners, by working with Sky to inflate the book value of the NPC.
It is believed that the current deal has attributed a nominal value of $45m-a-year to the NPC, but NZR has endangered its ability to continue with this practice by wrongly telling its provincial unions in late March that Sky had indicated it wouldn’t bid for the competition’s rights in the next broadcast cycle.
“Future broadcast revenue values for the NPC will be significantly lower than previous broadcast agreements, on the basis that Sky TV is not expected to wish to bid for rights to broadcast every NPC / FPC [Farah Palmer Cup] game moving forward,” the communication said.
The information was wrong, Sky has not made any indication it will pull out, but it has told investors it wants to reduce production costs from 52 per cent of its total costs to 47 per cent, suggesting that the NPC may in future be filmed with fewer cameras and potentially with remote commentary, making it hard to credibly present an inflated value to Australia as a ploy to share less Super Rugby revenue.
Inside NZR’s record TV deal and problems it will face securing a better one
NZ Rugby's next broadcast contract is critical to the game’s financial future.
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
They've suggested regional pools to keep travel down. That'll probably happen. Long bus rides and people sleeping in their own beds more often
fuck yes! bring back some of the fun element!
-
SR squads currently have 38 players. Having only a single player contract to play in one competition will actually mean a salary cap can be enforced.
There are rules around travel in the NPC. IIRC teams travel by bus if it's 4 h or less. Only the Blues and Chiefs would fall into that category in SR.
-
I can't find many better sources, but I think it is fair to say that even if the competition is in the black, the companies are putting up plenty above that.
In response to a question from Nikkei Business:
W杯の盛り上がりをラグビーチームの収益性改善にどうつなげていくと考えているか
How do you think the excitement of the World Cup will lead to improved profitability for rugby teams?Some of the answers from companies are pretty funny as it shows that these are primarily sponsorship activities. Three of the top four just ignored it, and I like this from Kobe:
そもそもチーム運営は収益事業ではないので、収益改善には結びつかない。In the first place, managing a team is not a revenue-generating business, so it does not lead to improved profitability.
-
@gt12 do you think there are japanese companies that might not be in a position to have their own team like current japanese ones...but would be down for backing an existing team from NZ as a major sponsor playing against teams owned by the competitors?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@gt12 do you think there are japanese companies that might not be in a position to have their own team like current japanese ones...but would be down for backing an existing team from NZ as a major sponsor playing against teams owned by the competitors?
If we were playing in their competition I imagine that the sponsorship opportunities would be pretty good.
We already have some firms that sponsor the ABs who might jump to Super teams in that case as well.
-
@Tim said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Whenever the idea of including Japan in a competition comes up, I think it's useful to try to separate how much money Japanese companies put into club salaries, operations, and facilities from what TV and other revenues the competition brings in.
Japan has the largest single country viewing record for a rugby game of around 60M or so.
If the product is good, it should (:D) generate good revenue.
