Super Rugby Aupiki 2023
-
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
I think it makes sense, you don't want any Aupiki games at big stadiums, as for all the feel good after the WC last year, they not going to fill out any decent size park, better to build into it.
While I understand where this line of thinking comes from I disagree with it.
Originally the Women's RWC was set to be played at Waitakere for this same logic.
I agree that stadia aren't going to be filled (they aren't for the men's comp (and we all know how awful the Caketin looks with even 10k in it)
I subscribe to the 'Think Big but be innovative' theory myself. One of the reasons WRWC was such a success was that a lot of family friendly organisation was put in place which attracted a 'new' audience.
I think there is huge scope to market this comp differently to the men's game and playing at local grounds sends a devaluing message. -
@Crucial While I understand your point, I also think it's a good way to build the women's game into the community.
Also big stadiums cost an awful lot more to hire too, and while I loved the crowds at WRWC last year, rugby can't afford to have too many games where you only charge a pittance to get into, unless they take them to 'local' grounds. Don't forget you could go to WRWC for $10-$50 (and heaps of free ones), and I would imagine no super franshises would have the spare coin to operate like that. They are companies with shareholders etc. The unfortunate reality is Super Aupiki needs to grow, and I suspect in a couple of years when perhaps there Aussie teams are involved we see double headers with men's team, and are best chance for the game to go to stadiums. Already as we know the women's game is really in it's infancy with very few well known names involved (as yet) and even the best know ones are not playing in Super Aupiki as they have gone back to 7s!
Be nice if we did see good crowds paying $20-$60 a game for Super Aupiki, but I suspect the games not at that point--yet! -
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
@Crucial While I understand your point, I also think it's a good way to build the women's game into the community.
Also big stadiums cost an awful lot more to hire too, and while I loved the crowds at WRWC last year, rugby can't afford to have too many games where you only charge a pittance to get into, unless they take them to 'local' grounds. Don't forget you could go to WRWC for $10-$50 (and heaps of free ones), and I would imagine no super franshises would have the spare coin to operate like that. They are companies with shareholders etc. The unfortunate reality is Super Aupiki needs to grow, and I suspect in a couple of years when perhaps there Aussie teams are involved we see double headers with men's team, and are best chance for the game to go to stadiums. Already as we know the women's game is really in it's infancy with very few well known names involved (as yet) and even the best know ones are not playing in Super Aupiki as they have gone back to 7s!
Be nice if we did see good crowds paying $20-$60 a game for Super Aupiki, but I suspect the games not at that point--yet!The double headers are already scheduled this year.
It’s a tricky transition though. At what point do you stop declaring the women’s game as “lesser” (the curtain raiser) and develop it as a separate product?
I have heard quite a few women that want to go to a women’s rugby game that have become very bored with the men’s game and not interested.
The problem is that you are asking those supporters to pay for a product they don’t want.
Hopefully this year’s stadia games can create a good atmosphere.
It’s pretty arrogant of the franchises to allow to lose money on the men’s game but not the women’s.
I do agree that NZR should throw some support and resources into this to help get it going. -
@Crucial why have the franchises lost money on the men's game? How are any of them surviving? Wouldn't hey be broke if they were operating as a losing operation?
For instance the Hurricanes lost money for 2 years over covid, but were profitable up until then, how did they make money if they were losing money from men's game, it was their only income?
Mate I would love women's game to be popular enough, and crowds be prepared to pay enough to be able to play in big stadiums, but we not there yet. We can't suddenly say everything is a rosey after 1 world cup hosted by us, that I haven't seen anywhere was a cash bonanza.
I love the idea of the game growing organically , and it will if the product is good enough. -
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
@Crucial why have the franchises lost money on the men's game? How are any of them surviving? Wouldn't hey be broke if they were operating as a losing operation?
For instance the Hurricanes lost money for 2 years over covid, but were profitable up until then, how did they make money if they were losing money from men's game, it was their only income?
Mate I would love women's game to be popular enough, and crowds be prepared to pay enough to be able to play in big stadiums, but we not there yet. We can't suddenly say everything is a rosey after 1 world cup hosted by us, that I haven't seen anywhere was a cash bonanza.
I love the idea of the game growing organically , and it will if the product is good enough.Match Revenue is a very small part of the income. WRFU Annual Report showed cash Match Revenue for 2021 as $208k from total cash revenue of $4.7M. I can't believe that match day turns a profit in itself. NZR income plus sponsorship is the source that helps balance the books.
Sky are paying NZR for Aupiki. NZR distribute that among the franchises. Would be very interesting to see if a direct gross income/expenditure could be calculated. NZR pay the players and coaches. It would be quite possible that the women's game in effect subsidises the mens (if you want to look at it that way). -
@Dan54 BTW none of this profit/loss stuff is really where I am coming from.
My comment is just as much directed at NZR as it is any franchise.
I just think that the launch game of the top women's comp in the country deserves better than Levin Domain. Whether that is achieved though better scheduling (eg swap around with the match at FBS) or supporting the franchise then it would be a better look.
-
@Crucial said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
@Dan54 BTW none of this profit/loss stuff is really where I am coming from.
My comment is just as much directed at NZR as it is any franchise.
I just think that the launch game of the top women's comp in the country deserves better than Levin Domain. Whether that is achieved though better scheduling (eg swap around with the match at FBS) or supporting the franchise then it would be a better look.
Yep fair enough, just I believe saying it disrespecting taking the game to grassroots areas is wrong. The game doesn't belong to the big cities!
Just out of interest why is WRFU showing match revenue for the Hurricanes? Wouldn't they show the Lions match figures? -
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
@Crucial said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
@Dan54 BTW none of this profit/loss stuff is really where I am coming from.
My comment is just as much directed at NZR as it is any franchise.
I just think that the launch game of the top women's comp in the country deserves better than Levin Domain. Whether that is achieved though better scheduling (eg swap around with the match at FBS) or supporting the franchise then it would be a better look.
Yep fair enough, just I believe saying it disrespecting taking the game to grassroots areas is wrong. The game doesn't belong to the big cities!
Didn't say that it does. The status and 'grandeur' of the location is in the big centres though. Ask players about where they get excited to play at and it will usually be the big grounds. Ask the public where important games are played and they will say the same.
I have no problem with a game in Levin. Just not the opener for the comp.Just out of interest why is WRFU showing match revenue for the Hurricanes? Wouldn't they show the Lions match figures?
I thought I was looking at Canes AR but you are correct. The WRFU AR does not include the Canes now. EDIT: Of course it will contain portion relevant to shares in Canes
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Amy Rule is one of several NZ players, who'll move to Oz to play Super-W after Super Rugby Aupiki.
Edit: Not as many as I expected.
Martha Mataele will join her husband in Perth to play for the Western Force women's team.
I don't think Sam Curtis (Reds) is in one of the Aupiki squads.Australian Super W teams confirmed for 2023 season
The Australian clubs have confirmed their squads for the 2023 Super W season.
-
@Stargazer I think we will see a number of players take advantage of the NRLW expansion as well.
They are looking a up to 20 weeks commitment so non BFs that would rather earn money than press their cases in FPC would be candidates. Quite a number of dual coders around.Will be interesting where this ends up. Will NZR be happy to continue to put money in pockets of League players not that fussed about being BFs by allowing them in Aupiki squads? How much would a call like that weaken the quality of the comp as they are building it? Would also weaken FPC further.
The comps are unlikely to overlap so technically you could play both.Edit: we have already seen Langi Veainu pull out of the Chiefs Manawa. I don't know why but she is a known dual code player having played for Warriors in NRLW previously and for the national side.
-
A lesson already learned this year is that starting Aupiki and SR at the same time means that you can lose eyes/coverage on one comp to the expense of the other.
Aupiki has really drifted to the background as the press all concentrates on the start of SR.
Something to think about for the future? Maybe NZR comms team need to not leave it up to chance? -
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby Aupiki 2023:
Aupiki has the Sat afternoon Sky slot to themselves, but the media could also play its part. Stuff could do a similar preview for each SRA team.
I had been expecting those previews, even if they were penned as fluff pieces by NZR.
It's been nearly 2 weeks since a competition press release.As I said, lessons learned. Understand that they don't want to divert attention from SR but don't think they have found the right balance
-
Just watched Aotearoa Rugby Pod and it’s a bit of a shame that when they discussed Aupiki (which was good length coverage) they guys had so many facts wrong about players. Both Hall and Parsons didn’t even know that Renee Wickliffe not only has a new name but has retired. They seemed to have done their research from the original squad announcements last year with no updates.
Keep up the promotion guys but please do a touch more research. -
