'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@KiwiMurph It's not misleading when talking about the value to Fox - which is what we are discussing.
What do Fox care about FTA figures?
I meant just in terms of overall numbers viewing - of course FFA would get broadcast $ from Free To Air too.
Regarding the A-League Grand Final ratings see below (the maths seem out by 1k though).
A Foxtel spokesman informed the Herald 151,000 people watched the match on Foxtel. Of those, 84,000 watched via the Linear box services while 66,000 watched on either Foxtel Now, Foxtel Go or their over-the-top sports streaming service, Kayo. -
@KiwiMurph That's a way higher percentage streaming than i had heard previously, which is interesting.
It will be interesting to see how the semi-final and final of SRAu compare with those figures.
And, yes, i believe following Covid the TV deal for A-league was renegotiated from 50 odd to 25 odd million PA.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble I can't really be bothered to reiterate why. I've said it before in this thread.
But you've just massively, MASSIVELY contradicted yourself!
You can't be bothered reiterating why RA should persevere with the Rebels in Melbourne, but you admit the NRL is "pushing shit uphill" with massively superior resources and an already successful Storm side??
-
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The thing is, I've advocated for the Rebels. But holy fuck, that was the mother of all contradictions.
AUSSIE RUGBY IS FINE YOU ARROGANT KIWI!!
VIVA LA FORCE!
-
@shark I didn't mean to delete it.
I said that i don't think that not being able to be the top team in a city means that the sport is not worth pursuing at all in that area. Just have to accept it's going to be small.
But, regardless, it still does not contradict the reasons that i gave as to why RA would never agree to cut another team. I mean, how could a sport with 5 teams averaging 50k a game x 2 a week cut one of the teams contributing to it? madness. RA would not survive another cut. Hell you could argue that RA going bankrupt might be better for rugby in the long long run. But RA itself would never facilitate it.
-
@mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.
I think I get where you are coming from.
I've hated the rebels since their first ever existence. The whole thing felt very corporate, from their signings to their management. They were saved in that hey had some really good players in their early years. Correspond that with the Force, who always seemed to get decent crowds, were fantastically placed for teams going to/from SA and seemed to be more about establishing rugby in the region. I was gutted when they were cut & the Rebel's continued.
Corporate led teams are always going to prosper in the short term, but eventually go to shit in the medium - long. Where as I thought the Force were doing the opposite.
What would I know, I suppose.
-
@MajorRage said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Corporate led teams are always going to prosper in the short term, but eventually go to shit in the medium - long. Where as I thought the Force were doing the opposite.
Do the Force not fit the former category by having a billionaire benefactor (now if not initially)?
-
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark I didn't mean to delete it.
I said that i don't think that not being able to be the top team in a city means that the sport is not worth pursuing at all in that area. Just have to accept it's going to be small.
But, regardless, it still does not contradict the reasons that i gave as to why RA would never agree to cut another team. I mean, how could a sport with 5 teams averaging 50k a game x 2 a week cut one of the teams contributing to it? madness. RA would not survive another cut. Hell you could argue that RA going bankrupt might be better for rugby in the long long run. But RA itself would never facilitate it.
I put it back for you.
-
@MajorRage said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Snowy they didn’t when I followed them.
Yeah. Present day Force is a bit different and agree with the sentiment about the Rebels.
If SA teams aren't involved in a "Super" comp it changes quite a lot geographically. The Force were always a stopover for their home matches. -
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.
i am an arrogant kiwi
you keep saying stuff, but none of it is based on reality, it's wish list stuff
The problem with both the Rebels and the Force is they are not backed up by anything. The only place they can get players is to raid the NSW/Qld development pathways and pinch their players. Are those states producing enough talent to prop up 5 super sides? really?
Your argument is basically that the comp should just muddle along until such time that local pathways develop themselves in Melbourne and Perth. The chances of that happening are pretty bloody slim, even in 20 years.
-
So this proposed Pasifika franchise being supported by Beegee Williams, despite being promoted to the contrary, can only take away from the already thinning depth of the five NZ SR squads.
They're saying they'll focus on bringing back European-based Pasifika players for 2022. Now given they're Auckland-based, commercially this makes zero sense as who is going to spring up out of nowhere to give them the money to achieve something NZ Rugby with much greater revenue streams hasn't been able to achieve over years and years? The only guys I would imagine they could afford to pay when competing with the Pound or Franc, would be guys at the end of their careers.
The other source of players - and the only one mentioned for 2021 - is fringe SR players of Pacifika heritage in the NPC. This only serves to undermine the five wafer-thin and increasingly youthful NZ squads.
They speak of developing Pasifika players in NZ. Sorry, but if they're worth developing they've already been identified and are in the system. Again, there's no undiscovered player well yet to be plumbed.
Lastly, this especially undermines the Blues, dividing their support base, further pressuring their development system and possibly costing them commercial partners.
Yuck.
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
So this proposed Pasifika franchise being supported by Beegee Williams, despite being promoted to the contrary, can only take away from the already thinning depth of the five NZ SR squads.
They're saying they'll focus on bringing back European-based Pasifika players for 2022. Now given they're Auckland-based, commercially this makes zero sense as who is going to spring up out of nowhere to give them the money to achieve something NZ Rugby with much greater revenue streams hasn't been able to achieve over years and years? The only guys I would imagine they could afford to pay when competing with the Pound or Franc, would be guys at the end of their careers.
The other source of players - and the only one mentioned for 2021 - is fringe SR players of Pacifika heritage in the NPC. This only serves to undermine the five wafer-thin and increasingly youthful NZ squads.
They speak of developing Pasifika players in NZ. Sorry, but if they're worth developing they've already been identified and are in the system. Again, there's no undiscovered player well yet to be plumbed.
Lastly, this especially undermines the Blues, dividing their support base, further pressuring their development system and possibly costing them commercial partners.
Yuck.
Agree with this 100%
A terrible idea which has the potential to do a lot of damage but will add very little.It totally undermines our one advantage which is 5 strong super rugby teams.
-
Throw in a definition of Pasifika too. Technically they are Kiwis.
"“Pasifika” and “Pasifika peoples” are terms used by the Ministry of Education to “describe people living in New Zealand who have migrated from the Pacific Islands or who identify with the Pacific Islands because of ancestry or heritage.”
OR:
Pasifika is a term that is unique to Aotearoa and is a term coined by government agencies to describe migrants from the Pacific region and their descendants, who now call Aotearoa home.I used those because that is the government definition.
So no Fijians either. Pasifika are supposed to be Polynesian, not Melanesian. Do we really want a racially selected side? Who qualifies? Born there? A parent from there? Had a week there on holiday? How brown do you have to be? We have been through these arbitrary qualification issues with international rugby and had Grannygate and suchlike.
Luring players back from overseas? Why did they leave in the first place? It might have been the money, not lack of opportunity? Or they might not have been good enough to make one of our existing teams.
Should we have a dentists of Chinese origin side? A pilots descended from Vikings side? Bass players from Wellington? Ex pats from Eastbourne who like Hummus?
Then add in dilution of talent as @shark says and you end up with:
Yuck.
