AIG ends All Blacks Sponsorship

https://www.planetrugby.com/all-blacks-to-part-ways-with-major-sponsor/

I'd imagine everyone in rugby will be looking at what happens next. The NZRU will get another sponsor but there have been growing indications that it's a more difficult market all round. For instance, Secure Trading, the England sevens sponsor, went into administration, while there are concerns bookmakers are too heaving involved in funding the game. We know that Guinness paid a lot less than RBS to sponsor the Six Nations.

TV money also in line to drop going forward (or not increase in line with inflation). Not come at a good time as we continue to see wage inflation.

What do you know about bookmakers being involved? That sounds worrying.

guestalt_physicality wrote:What do you know about bookmakers being involved? That sounds worrying.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2020/01/08/premiership-rugby-facing-questions-tie-up-bookmaker-backlash/

Fox has lost interested too,

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/feb/06/rugby-australia-fox-sport-broadcast-deal

Fox Sports has been RA’s principal broadcast partner since the game went professional in the mid-1990s, creating Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship (previously the Tri Nations tournament). But when Fox Sports offered RA only $20m a year ($37m a year less than the current deal) as part of a new agreement, as much a reflection of the pay TV network’s own financial problems as much as Super Rugby’s plummeting ratings, RA CEO Raelene Castle decided to take the broadcast rights to the open market.

This move angered Fox Sports executives who have reportedly decided to walk away from their 25-year partnership with RA. If this is the case, it leaves RA with only one other known bidder for the broadcast rights – telecommunications company Optus, which has reportedly offered RA $30m a year, which is still chickenfeed.

Sky sports UK have also offered less for super rugby. I suppose with weak Australian teams and so many star players bring rested every week, people are not as interested in watching super rugby anymore.

Sky Sports rugby coverage is dire, no wonder nobody is tuning in. Hopefully BT pick it up and make it fun, their coverage is generally ok (could be better) but miles ahead of Sky who are stuck presenting it likes it's 20 years ago.

Same with Foxtel as per above. It's just hard to see value for money. People are leaving in droves with other cheaper services now available.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Sky Sports rugby coverage is dire, no wonder nobody is tuning in. Hopefully BT pick it up and make it fun, their coverage is generally ok (could be better) but miles ahead of Sky who are stuck presenting it likes it's 20 years ago.

I watch a lot of rugby on BT, and agree it's generally not bad. I rarely see Sky's coverage - what makes it so bad?

Rinsure wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Sky Sports rugby coverage is dire, no wonder nobody is tuning in. Hopefully BT pick it up and make it fun, their coverage is generally ok (could be better) but miles ahead of Sky who are stuck presenting it likes it's 20 years ago.

I watch a lot of rugby on BT, and agree it's generally not bad. I rarely see Sky's coverage - what makes it so bad?

He got shares in BT.....

profitius wrote:Sky sports UK have also offered less for super rugby. I suppose with weak Australian teams and so many star players bring rested every week, people are not as interested in watching super rugby anymore.

They (Super Rugby) will have to find a way of catching on to the Rising Sun market place of Japan. That's kinda where their greatest potential now is as links have already been formed and SH players are going there. So they'll have to try to coax Japanese investors with a future promise of a combined club competition involving Super Rugby teams + a few highly funded Japanese ones.

New Zealand and Australia are stuck between a rock and a hard place but they think they are stronger than they are. Until they realize where they actually sit in world rugby nations they won't tackle the problems and slip further down.

I would rank the 4 top nations in this order
#1 France
#2 England
#3 Japan
#4 South Africa
They all have money, the top two have the fans and the players while Japan is growing the fans while South Africa is losing its share of the money.

Currently NZ & Oz are living like the people who loss their job but are still living the lifestyle on the severance package. They want to dump SA because it doesn't suit them but don't want to put in the effort to Japan which will be a big project and they don't have the time.

The 6 Nations is the biggest thing in Rugby. While the world cup is bigger for one year in four the 6 Nations is bigger overall in regards to financial strenght. As was shown with the Nations League the 6 Nations had no interest because they earn so much.

The average attendance per match in the 6 Nations in 2018 was 66k. The RC was 35k. The 6 Nations also cost more to go to while the cost to the union on Travel would be alot less.

Super Rugby is also less than the European leagues. Lions CEO said the value of being in the champions cup would be something SR can't compete with.

This is the crossroads for NZ & Oz the only thing we know is they must cut costs somewhere relative to the 6 nation teams.

South Africa have already cut costs

Youth participation levels in NZ rugby are not a good sign. Where rugby was once widely played, it now seems it is mainly played only be the best athletes. The best rugby schools don't appear to want to waste time and resources on kids who aren't going to help them win titles. Teams are full of powerful-for-their-age players, which means parents are even more concerned about concussion or serious injury. If you don't have the same widespread participation, then you won't develop a base of engaged supporters. Meanwhile, basketball sounds like it is going from strength to strength.

Rugby Fan wrote:Youth participation levels in NZ rugby are not a good sign. Where rugby was once widely played, it now seems it is mainly played only be the best athletes. The best rugby schools don't appear to want to waste time and resources on kids who aren't going to help them win titles. Teams are full of powerful-for-their-age players, which means parents are even more concerned about concussion or serious injury. If you don't have the same widespread participation, then you won't develop a base of engaged supporters. Meanwhile, basketball sounds like it is going from strength to strength.

I think most adults like sports because they either played it or watched it as a child.

Brendan wrote:New Zealand and Australia are stuck between a rock and a hard place but they think they are stronger than they are.  Until they realize where they actually sit in world rugby nations they won't tackle the problems and slip further down.

I would rank the 4 top nations in this order
#1 France
#2 England
#3 Japan
#4 South Africa
They all have money, the top two have the fans and the players while Japan is growing the fans while South Africa is losing its share of the money.

Currently NZ & Oz are living like the people who loss their job but are still living the lifestyle on the severance package.  They want to dump SA because it doesn't suit them but don't want to put in the effort to Japan which will be a big project and they don't have the time.

The 6 Nations is the biggest thing in Rugby.  While the world cup is bigger for one year in four the 6 Nations is bigger overall in regards to financial strenght.  As was shown with the Nations League the 6 Nations had no interest because they earn so much.

The average attendance per match in the 6 Nations in 2018 was 66k.  The RC was 35k.  The 6 Nations also cost more to go to while the cost to the union on Travel would be alot less.

Super Rugby is also less than the European leagues.  Lions CEO said the value of being in the champions cup would be something SR can't compete with.

This is the crossroads for NZ & Oz the only thing we know is they must cut costs somewhere relative to the 6 nation teams.

South Africa have already cut costs

I wouldn’t even put SA in the same discussion when it comes to finances.

France, England, Japan, Pro14 are way ahead of SA in terms of revenue generated.

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:New Zealand and Australia are stuck between a rock and a hard place but they think they are stronger than they are.  Until they realize where they actually sit in world rugby nations they won't tackle the problems and slip further down.

I would rank the 4 top nations in this order
#1 France
#2 England
#3 Japan
#4 South Africa
They all have money, the top two have the fans and the players while Japan is growing the fans while South Africa is losing its share of the money.

Currently NZ & Oz are living like the people who loss their job but are still living the lifestyle on the severance package.  They want to dump SA because it doesn't suit them but don't want to put in the effort to Japan which will be a big project and they don't have the time.

The 6 Nations is the biggest thing in Rugby.  While the world cup is bigger for one year in four the 6 Nations is bigger overall in regards to financial strenght.  As was shown with the Nations League the 6 Nations had no interest because they earn so much.

The average attendance per match in the 6 Nations in 2018 was 66k.  The RC was 35k.  The 6 Nations also cost more to go to while the cost to the union on Travel would be alot less.

Super Rugby is also less than the European leagues.  Lions CEO said the value of being in the champions cup would be something SR can't compete with.

This is the crossroads for NZ & Oz the only thing we know is they must cut costs somewhere relative to the 6 nation teams.

South Africa have already cut costs

I wouldn’t even put SA in the same discussion when it comes to finances.

France, England, Japan, Pro14 are way ahead of SA in terms of revenue generated.

SA is ahead of the Pro 14 Nations in terms of finance, maybe not the Union but like Japan the funders and TV. It's funding most of Super Rugby and is still able to fund a sizeable chunk to the Pro14.  Their problem is they have to many players to keep happy were as the Pro 14 Unions have just enough.

I did say they are dropping though

Is this because NZ are no longer the number 1 team in the world?

Julian savea is looking to play NRL. Seems NZ are getting squeezed both sides.

Is this likely to be a growing trend or just the once off

In European rugby, England and France will always be the controlling forces, and in World Rugby, European rugby will always hold the cards. New Zealand is a big rugby nation, but a small economy, professionalism changes things. Money follows money. Australia has already succumbed to that, South Africa is withstanding it simply through its own strength and size. New Zealand seems unable to grasp it's no longer the world power-broker. It's failure to realise it's now part of the group of smaller nations that need to combine to counter the major nations will hinder it until it does. In Europe the Celtic nations have clubbed together and brought Italy into that fold. On the big issues they tend to stick together. New Zealand constantly put themselves on the other side of the argument to the smaller European teams without realising that they have the same problems as New Zealand. Ireland and Wales put barriers up to their players playing abroad because they can't compete with the money, Scotland and Italy can only put up two professional sides. If New Zealand worked with these nations they could find a way to make the sport more equitable to the smaller countries themselves. One think to the period where they were trying to organise a match with England in the style of a world boxing championship a couple of years ago, not doing it in a way that suited England meant that the English just outright refused and did not lose out as a consequence.

Brendan wrote:Julian savea is looking to play NRL. Seems NZ are getting squeezed both sides.

Is this likely to be a growing trend or just the once off

Ardie Savea

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:Julian savea is looking to play NRL. Seems NZ are getting squeezed both sides.

Is this likely to be a growing trend or just the once off

Ardie Savea

I can't see the league drain becoming regular. The All Blacks are still a big pull. The fact that Barratt is still there, that Carter only left at the end of his career and that McCaw never did is testament to that.

123456789. wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:Julian savea is looking to play NRL. Seems NZ are getting squeezed both sides.

Is this likely to be a growing trend or just the once off

Ardie Savea

I can't see the league drain becoming regular. The All Blacks are still a big pull. The fact that Barratt is still there, that Carter only left at the end of his career and that McCaw never did is testament to that.

Ardie Savea said the reason why he is considering playing rugby league is to be able to represent Samoa, his heritage is very important to him.

123456789. wrote:In European rugby, England and France will always be the controlling forces, and in World Rugby, European rugby will always hold the cards. New Zealand is a big rugby nation, but a small economy, professionalism changes things. Money follows money. Australia has already succumbed to that, South Africa is withstanding it simply through its own strength and size. New Zealand seems unable to grasp it's no longer the world power-broker. It's failure to realise it's now part of the group of smaller nations that need to combine to counter the major nations will hinder it until it does. In Europe the Celtic nations have clubbed together and brought Italy into that fold. On the big issues they tend to stick together. New Zealand constantly put themselves on the other side of the argument to the smaller European teams without realising that they have the same problems as New Zealand. Ireland and Wales put barriers up to their players playing abroad because they can't compete with the money, Scotland and Italy can only put up two professional sides. If New Zealand worked with these nations they could find a way to make the sport more equitable to the smaller countries themselves. One think to the period where they were trying to organise a match with England in the style of a world boxing championship a couple of years ago, not doing it in a way that suited England meant that the English just outright refused and did not lose out as a consequence.

Hit the nail on the head. New Zealand think they are equal to England or France and act like it. The 6 Nations know they would make more money from a 2 leg 6 Nations over the year than the current set up.

Until New Zealand start to build bridges with the Celts (who they think are below them) they will not have a voice that carries weight in 10 years.

From a European point of view I would be looking to get 2 more nations in Europe up to the Teir 1 status in terms of funding/voting. With 8 team plus Euro Area vote it would be hard for them to be voted down.

Currently it stands as, Europe has 22 votes; Oceania 10 votes; South America 5 votes; Africa 5 votes; North America 4 votes and Asia 4 votes. That is 22 out of 50.

Just in that the colour Black has now cut off all links to New Zealand rugby too!

They really are on a downer when their favourite hue runs for cover.  I guess they'll have to negotiate now with yellow or pink.  Those colours haven't really enjoyed much investment opportunities in rugby over the years.... well at International level anyway (it being a man's game and all)

I think back in the 90s Ford offered a ridiculous amount in funding to one of the big European teams if the would change to playing in blue. The team declined. Maybe the ABs could hit up Ford for sponsorship and offer to play in blue.

Roy Keane tried to get Ipswich Town Football Club to change their kit to red while he was manager because he’d never coached or played for a team in blue before.

The process of radically changing the set-up of rugby in New Zealand will begin tomorrow when provincial unions are presented with a new blueprint for how the game should be organised, managed and structured.

Having seen the game evolve rapidly in the last decade, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) believes the time is right to make sweeping changes to give it a better chance of dealing with prevailing issues such as stagnant participation rates, increasing drop-out rates among teens and plunging spectator interest in Mitre 10 Cup and Super Rugby.

The Herald understands that NZR is going to post a multi-million dollar loss for 2019 and is forecasting another for next year, hence its decision to engage consultancy group McKinsey earlier this year to investigate ways in which the sport can be restructured.

The preliminary recommendations of that review will be revealed to provincial unions tomorrow and those familiar with the report believe it could deliver the most significant change in New Zealand rugby since the game went professional in 1996.

It is believed that NZR's broader vision sees provincial unions in a new role where they will mostly drive participation and administer the club game at a local level, leaving Super Rugby sides with greater responsibility to manage talent identification and development of elite players.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12312298

Separate article in the Herald suggests the NZRU is looking at private equity involvement with the All Blacks brand.

Apparently Sky have won the rights to the Six Nations now, another redrawing of rugby's economic boundaries. Sky is pulling out of the South and investing in the North. The Northern Unions will have more money, the centralised Unions will spend more getting players to their pro teams. The clubs in England and France will demand more money to compete. They will start sniffing around the best players in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Those players will either move or ask for more from the SANZAR nations. The SANZAR nations will have less money and the cycle will continue.
The SANZAR nations have a choice. They can huddle up and propose wholesale changes to the rugby calendar to the people that the rugby calendar currently suits and receive the predictable answer. Or they can look to their own model and figure whether they can change it to make it a better product. If I were them I would look back to what made it the best in the first place. Basically that the standard was much higher than what was on offer on the North. So I would be moving to a much smaller tournament than what they have now, with a much higher standard on offer and fewer players to stretch wages to.

123456789. wrote:Apparently Sky have won the rights to the Six Nations now, another redrawing of rugby's economic boundaries. Sky is pulling out of the South and investing in the North. The Northern Unions will have more money, the centralised Unions will spend more getting players to their pro teams. The clubs in England and France will demand more money to compete. They will start sniffing around the best players in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Those players will either move or ask for more from the SANZAR nations. The SANZAR nations will have less money and the cycle will continue.
The SANZAR nations have a choice. They can huddle up and propose wholesale changes to the rugby calendar to the people that the rugby calendar currently suits and receive the predictable answer. Or they can look to their own model and figure whether they can change it to make it a better product. If I were them I would look back to what made it the best in the first place. Basically that the standard was much higher than what was on offer on the North. So I would be moving to a much smaller tournament than what they have now, with a much higher standard on offer and fewer players to stretch wages to.

Personally I don’t see how the South can ever compete financially, even if they reduce the number of teams in Super Rugby.

I still feel they are fighting a losing battle and haven’t realised it. SA must focus on their domestic rugby, the only way to remain a powerhouse is to improve local competitions and build the Currie Cup to a fourteen Province tournament.

Drafting of talent and players contracted directly by SARU.

Pay the players what you can afford. Then rather than Super Rugby prepare your top players for international rugby with an “All Stars” championship where you have four teams drafting the best of the best to play a double round robin.

If you can’t compete with European salaries you need depth, so develop as many players as possible domestically

Old Man wrote:

123456789. wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:Julian savea is looking to play NRL. Seems NZ are getting squeezed both sides.

Is this likely to be a growing trend or just the once off

Ardie Savea

I can't see the league drain becoming regular. The All Blacks are still a big pull. The fact that Barratt is still there, that Carter only left at the end of his career and that McCaw never did is testament to that.

Ardie Savea said the reason why he is considering playing rugby league is to be able to represent Samoa, his heritage is very important to him.

If he was so keen to represent Samoa why didn't he play union for them - sounds a bit of a Denny Solomona in reverse !

Rugby Fan wrote:

The process of radically changing the set-up of rugby in New Zealand will begin tomorrow when provincial unions are presented with a new blueprint for how the game should be organised, managed and structured.

Having seen the game evolve rapidly in the last decade, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) believes the time is right to make sweeping changes to give it a better chance of dealing with prevailing issues such as stagnant participation rates, increasing drop-out rates among teens and plunging spectator interest in Mitre 10 Cup and Super Rugby.

The Herald understands that NZR is going to post a multi-million dollar loss for 2019 and is forecasting another for next year, hence its decision to engage consultancy group McKinsey earlier this year to investigate ways in which the sport can be restructured.

The preliminary recommendations of that review will be revealed to provincial unions tomorrow and those familiar with the report believe it could deliver the most significant change in New Zealand rugby since the game went professional in 1996.

It is believed that NZR's broader vision sees provincial unions in a new role where they will mostly drive participation and administer the club game at a local level, leaving Super Rugby sides with greater responsibility to manage talent identification and development of elite players.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12312298

Separate article in the Herald suggests the NZRU is looking at private equity involvement with the All Blacks brand.

i am familiar with the private equity industry. would be unusual for them to pick a team, with limited natural growth, as opposed to trying to buy access to the competition if they saw potential for revenue growth there.

in other words they like to bet on secular trends (sports right increasing in value and rugby increasing its popularity - neither of which i think is a given actually) rather than picking racehorses.....