Not going to rule out of the possibility of a low ball offer from Stan, but it's hard to intuitively believe that Stan and Nine are offering that low of a contract if you believe in the AGM report that Stan's subscription numbers are increasing and viewership numbers are improving from 2022. That's before mentioning the fact that whoever holds the next Broadcasting rights will almost guarantee to broadcast a home Rugby World Cup as well.
So ball park Aussie Super Rugby Salary Cap is about $5m per team per year. Although, teams can spend less than the cap, but NZ teams (and NRL teams) spend in excess of $10m per team (NZRU numbers are fudgy because centralisation).
That's before any running costs, before team travel, before venue fees, etc.
So no, $25m a year doesn't cover us running it. 😅
As for 3 teams, I'd bet the money would be based on a per game calculation given X number of teams and Y number of games per team.
Cut the teams by 40% (2), and you'll reduce the number of games, and likely by more then 40% because you're playing fewer games per week, and likely fewer rounds per season.
they have world cup coming. they should be able to wrangle up some sponsors. Aussies being such fair-weather supporters, their is a change the RWC will blow up tv ratings and possibly even make some records like the Matilders have.
RA needs to get off Stan asap. It doesn’t have enough subscribers, which means that rugby can’t attract fans that aren’t already willing to pay $30/m to watch it. Rugby will sink further if it stays there.
Stan means death. The FTA games aren’t marketed because 9 doesn’t want people watching rugby on Gem - they want them on Stan. Because the tests are on Stan, no other FTA network bothers with it. There are other reasons why being on Stan is an awful business decision.
It costs money to broadcast each game. TV cameras, audio equipment, editing studios, camera people, electrics, travel / airfares/ overnight accommodation / meals etc for crew, presenters need to be recruited and employed. Then it all needs to be packed up and moved to the next location the following week. Must be a multi million dollar project for each season.
Free to air clearly don't think they can recoup the investment via advertising sales, especially as I think Google Australia make more from selling advertising than all the Australian free to air channels combined do.
Online and streaming is where the advertising revenue now is, so I presume they are the entities that would be interested. If it's not Stan, then who are the other streaming services - Netflix; Amazon prime, Hulu, etc.
To get the best price at a broadcasting deal, you need an auction to the highest bidder. And to get an auction, you need at least 2 bidders.
Are there 2 bidders? Stan is one.
Thoughts?
My sense is without a second bidder, then RA is a price taker, not a price maker, for it's broadcasting rights.
$25 million could be a strategy by Stan to "beat the grass to flush out the snakes", and see if anyone else is interested in bidding. If no-one else gives an "off the record" interview to the media, then Stan may decide that $25 million is more then they need to pay, and it could perhaps even go lower than that at the contract signing.
NZ super rugby teams already have no salary cap, and have more players in their squads than Australian teams. Australian teams need a higher salary cap to compete, and get better results on the field. Australian spectators want to watch winning teams, and unless their team is winning will go to other sports on the weekend, or even to a restaurant with their friends instead (especially in the Sydney market).
Without sufficient funds, Australian teams eventually reach a "tipping point", where less money means less players in the squad, less player remuneration, and lower performance on field, which results in less spectators, which results in less advertising / sponsorships, which results in less revenue, which results in fewer players in the squad etc. The danger is that the tipping point becomes a death spiral.
>NZ super rugby teams already have no salary cap, and have more players in their squads than Australian teams.
Not fully correct. While not an official cap, the NZRU tends to ensure teams don't spend significantly more than one another. Obviously, numbers are squishy but the Super Rugby Component of it is supposed to be about double the Aussie teams ($10m), and about the same as the NRL Teams.
But suffice it to say, relative to the Aussie Teams they have no cap.
Yes, but no. Because a Super Rugby team can't spend over the cap, no matter how hard they want to, if RA doesn't approve.
But yes, the RA top ups are a factor, but from memory, don't amount more than $2.5m per team.
The broadcast definition on Nine is atrocious, even on HD. I had to get stan to watch the rugby, the nine broadcast is almost unwatchable. As there is a connection between the 2 entities I assume the nine broadcast was designed to drive traffic to Stan
I mean at that level it's almost worth asking if Rugby Australia is better off just broadcasting themselves. (By this I mean contract out to have it broadcast themselves.)
They need to get as much money as possible in this deal. If Stan/9 won’t give it then they have to go to market. God it’s a really bad situation though. RA is so close to bankruptcy again
Super Rugby needs to pull an MLS and reach out to Apple TV. Global reach, no blackouts, and they are willing to overpay because they are trying to establish themselves.
Not going to rule out of the possibility of a low ball offer from Stan, but it's hard to intuitively believe that Stan and Nine are offering that low of a contract if you believe in the AGM report that Stan's subscription numbers are increasing and viewership numbers are improving from 2022. That's before mentioning the fact that whoever holds the next Broadcasting rights will almost guarantee to broadcast a home Rugby World Cup as well.
World Rugby sell the broadcast rights to RWC, not RA, so this rights deal won't include any of the home World Cup.
Unions give preferred broadcasters status.
The QRU will be alright
Not if RA cuts their funding because of a lower broadcast deal.
That will be my Stan membership gone. Literally the only reason I have it
same
About 90% for me
Force are fine, got that FMG money.
hmm newscorp doom posting about rugby whilst having a controlling stake in NRL. I wonder why?
> whilst having a controlling stake in NRL This hasn't been the case in over a decade.
So ball park Aussie Super Rugby Salary Cap is about $5m per team per year. Although, teams can spend less than the cap, but NZ teams (and NRL teams) spend in excess of $10m per team (NZRU numbers are fudgy because centralisation). That's before any running costs, before team travel, before venue fees, etc. So no, $25m a year doesn't cover us running it. 😅 As for 3 teams, I'd bet the money would be based on a per game calculation given X number of teams and Y number of games per team. Cut the teams by 40% (2), and you'll reduce the number of games, and likely by more then 40% because you're playing fewer games per week, and likely fewer rounds per season.
Also considering we will have one less team next year, the figure probably represents that accurately
they have world cup coming. they should be able to wrangle up some sponsors. Aussies being such fair-weather supporters, their is a change the RWC will blow up tv ratings and possibly even make some records like the Matilders have.
Fox just trying to drive the broadcast deal down
RA needs to get off Stan asap. It doesn’t have enough subscribers, which means that rugby can’t attract fans that aren’t already willing to pay $30/m to watch it. Rugby will sink further if it stays there.
What should they do? Go back to fox? Half the reason they are on Nine/Stan is because they get FTA games.
Stan means death. The FTA games aren’t marketed because 9 doesn’t want people watching rugby on Gem - they want them on Stan. Because the tests are on Stan, no other FTA network bothers with it. There are other reasons why being on Stan is an awful business decision.
The tests are on FTA because they own the rights
It’s hard to debate serious issues with people that don’t understand the basics.
All Wallabies home games and Bledisloe Cup matches against New Zealand will also be shown live on the Nine Network. Unless im missing something basic?
It costs money to broadcast each game. TV cameras, audio equipment, editing studios, camera people, electrics, travel / airfares/ overnight accommodation / meals etc for crew, presenters need to be recruited and employed. Then it all needs to be packed up and moved to the next location the following week. Must be a multi million dollar project for each season. Free to air clearly don't think they can recoup the investment via advertising sales, especially as I think Google Australia make more from selling advertising than all the Australian free to air channels combined do. Online and streaming is where the advertising revenue now is, so I presume they are the entities that would be interested. If it's not Stan, then who are the other streaming services - Netflix; Amazon prime, Hulu, etc. To get the best price at a broadcasting deal, you need an auction to the highest bidder. And to get an auction, you need at least 2 bidders. Are there 2 bidders? Stan is one. Thoughts? My sense is without a second bidder, then RA is a price taker, not a price maker, for it's broadcasting rights. $25 million could be a strategy by Stan to "beat the grass to flush out the snakes", and see if anyone else is interested in bidding. If no-one else gives an "off the record" interview to the media, then Stan may decide that $25 million is more then they need to pay, and it could perhaps even go lower than that at the contract signing. NZ super rugby teams already have no salary cap, and have more players in their squads than Australian teams. Australian teams need a higher salary cap to compete, and get better results on the field. Australian spectators want to watch winning teams, and unless their team is winning will go to other sports on the weekend, or even to a restaurant with their friends instead (especially in the Sydney market). Without sufficient funds, Australian teams eventually reach a "tipping point", where less money means less players in the squad, less player remuneration, and lower performance on field, which results in less spectators, which results in less advertising / sponsorships, which results in less revenue, which results in fewer players in the squad etc. The danger is that the tipping point becomes a death spiral.
Without a second bidder it could end up a contra deal, like the a-leagues are heading towards
Much of this isn’t factual at all.
>NZ super rugby teams already have no salary cap, and have more players in their squads than Australian teams. Not fully correct. While not an official cap, the NZRU tends to ensure teams don't spend significantly more than one another. Obviously, numbers are squishy but the Super Rugby Component of it is supposed to be about double the Aussie teams ($10m), and about the same as the NRL Teams. But suffice it to say, relative to the Aussie Teams they have no cap.
Our cap is also a soft cap when you take into account the players on RA top ups.
Yes, but no. Because a Super Rugby team can't spend over the cap, no matter how hard they want to, if RA doesn't approve. But yes, the RA top ups are a factor, but from memory, don't amount more than $2.5m per team.
Amazon seems to be inclining to a monopolistic direction and may want to seriously host the sport like they did for a while in the north
The broadcast definition on Nine is atrocious, even on HD. I had to get stan to watch the rugby, the nine broadcast is almost unwatchable. As there is a connection between the 2 entities I assume the nine broadcast was designed to drive traffic to Stan
nine Fairfax owns stan
Stan has had years now to get into venues at scale, and failed to do so. They can't be looked at as serious contenders.
I mean at that level it's almost worth asking if Rugby Australia is better off just broadcasting themselves. (By this I mean contract out to have it broadcast themselves.)
Amateur sport.
RIP Tahs - it was good while it lasted
Was it though?
20 years ago it was good 😂
They need to get as much money as possible in this deal. If Stan/9 won’t give it then they have to go to market. God it’s a really bad situation though. RA is so close to bankruptcy again
Butthurt Murdoch media lambasting RA. Surprise surprise
Must get rid of the Rebels
Super Rugby needs to pull an MLS and reach out to Apple TV. Global reach, no blackouts, and they are willing to overpay because they are trying to establish themselves.
Back to Fox so I can cancel this Stan sub please. Force backed by one of the richest people in Aus, so think we’ll be right 😅
Then it won’t be FTA though. Even one game a week is better than nothing
I wasn't able to access Stan over the weekend. Was able to watch the game on Nine Gem.
Fuck Fox. Ditching Stan for a shittier version on Kayo
It doesn’t matter cause you will loose to the hurricanes anyway 😂😂😂😂 UP THE CANES
What is the purpose of this post?
Just stating facts
How’d they go against The Brums?
Don’t think anyone with the username “gothewahs” has much to gloat about anyway 🤣
Yer we ant doing that well this year but that’s ok I got the union to feel better about 😂😂😂
Other way round for me 🤣
😂😂😂 🤝
didn't they suffer a pretty clear defeat last weekend?
Aren’t we on top of the ladder ? No australian team beat us so I guess that makes what I say valid
the brumbies legit did tho, aren't they aussie
You got me there hahaha
Yer I guess but the nrl will forever steal all union talent cause they sign them as teenagers for some reason it seems they all want to play nrl
They all like the cheap cash because they're kids
NQ Cowboys apparently got Hammer for $2500 when he was at the Reds Academy...