SA has better numbers than Aus and NZ because there is more inherent demand for rugby in the region. This is the same reason the top five unions in SA can outspend the smaller unions – because there is more inherent demand for rugby in their cities.

When I say performance is an important factor in revenue, I am applying this statement with respect to a constant team, or group of teams, with respect to time. Therefore the inherent demand is irrelevant because the team, or group of teams, are a constant. Performance is the main important factor, because this is the cause for changing revenue over time.

By increasing the number of teams, you do not increase the inherent demand much, because there isn’t much more demand in PE compared to the five other cities. However, you might reduce performance if you reduce the talent available to the original five teams. On the other hand, if Australia gets an extra team it may significantly increase performance (while keeping inherent demand about the same). The Lions and Cheetahs might win twice as many games as a result!

@ Thistle

I didn’t read the article because I don’t see why I should care what Cheeky Watson has to say. However, you have just supported my point by saying 8000 was the biggest crowd PE has had in 10 years. It just shows you how little demand there is in the city.

“Gareth Wright has come on board as our kicking coach” LoL

“We must also bear in mind that there are some wily people in Australia, and you never know if they are just throwing out a red herring”,

And the star players ….

What do you class as bankrupt?

Normal balance sheet calculations where your income is less than your expenses?

Then you might be in for quite a surprise…

#19 coherence:

What is naive is that you seem to think poor performance has a massive influence on actual revenue generated.

It is a factor, of course, but not as massive as you might think if we apply simple logic that SA has at best, one team in the top 4 since the competition’s inception, where NZ has 2 even 3.

Yet our numbers even per in relation far exceeds theirs.

The study was done by people who do brand health checks, people much more clever than me.

They check the popularity of the brand, why it works, why it does not work.

These guys get paid not to miss tricks, that is left for naive supporters.

“A study done by Australian rugby no-where lists the creation of the Force as any possible reason for the decline in numbers and revenue.”

What factors are listed in the study? Is a decline in the performance of their top Super teams included? If this factor is not taken into consideration, then they have missed a trick.

It’s obvious that poorer results by the Waratahs and the Brumbies are a big factor in reduced revenue. They used to regularly make the finals, and sometimes win the competition. Now they can’t even make the semifinals.

If the decline of the Brumbies and Waratahs is at all considered a factor for reduced audience and revenue, then this is the equivalent of the Force being a factor. Other Australian teams would be performing better if their talent hadn’t been diluted.

“SA Rugby as a whole contributes to the viewing numbers.”

I would argue that this statement is naive. The worse the Super 14 teams perform the less people are going to watch them. If you have statistics disproving this, I would be glad to see them. However, I consider it to be obvious that revenue is related to performance on the field.

If the Super 14 teams don’t perform, where’s the money going to come from?

A study done by Australian rugby no-where lists the creation of the Force as any possible reason for the decline in numbers and revenue.

So yes, it is coincidence.

SARU negotiates TV rights deals, money is distributed proportinally amongst participating franchises.

SA Rugby as a whole contributes to the viewing numbers. To which SA Rugby and its SANZAR partners negotiate.

The fact that we had 3 franchises in the bottom half of the Super rugby comp every year never compromised this. Nor should the inclusion of the Kings change this at all.

Heard the same thing from the Lions and WP for 5 years now…

Next year they will turn a corner…

And I will remind you, the Lions are as guilty of mismanaging funds as EP. Kevin de Klerk, the guy you now call president of the union ordered an independent audit 2 years ago.

The union could not even produce financial statements.

And if selecting only local black players will endear you to the Kings, then only local, demographically correct players chosen by all the other unions should endear you to them as-well.

“So all other franchises and unions should get financial support, grants and profit from SA Rugby (as they do) but not the Kings?”

In that case I would suggest that the Kings get support proportional to their stay in the competition. If they are able to make it past the first round of the Super 15, then they should get as much support as the other teams that make it past the first round.

Having said this, how much does SARU support top five unions compared to how much they support SARU?

Whose supporters are filling the stadiums during the Super 15 and Currie Cup to generate the revenue in the first place? Isn’t it more the case of the top five unions helping SARU, than the other way around?

On the other hand, PE doesn’t even have enough local support for their team to make it past the Currie Cup first division. Now, if they are in the same class as the Lions and the Cheetahs (which I doubt), then this should manifest itself if they are include in the South African conference.

As for the Kings, well ask yourself why is the Eastern Cape not the powerhouse they used to be. The answer is simple, corruption and mismanagement of their funds, and some of you want to give them more money.

Ok Cheeky, so you want to transform and empower the EP rugby stating that there is a load of talented players in the area. Prove it and only use local BLACK players next year and not one whitey, if they win I will gladly say I am sorry for doudting your intentions.

Is that a fact?

That the Force is the reason audiences in rugby in Aus is down?

Or is it just your opinion?

Rugby in Western Australia (Perth) is not nearly as strong in playing numbers and viewing audience for rugby as it is in the SEC.

And your final paragraph…

So all other franchises and unions should get financial support, grants and profit from SA Rugby (as they do) but not the Kings?

makes a lot of sense that.

Let this be a warning to those who want to create franchise out of thin air. When’s the last time the Kings won the Currie Cup (rhetorical question)? We already have several teams at the bottom of the log on an annual basis, and historically SA teams haven’t been lighting up Super tournaments.

I would suggest including the Kings in the South African conference, with the top 5 teams in the conference moving on to the rest of the competition. However, they should not get financial support from SARU, otherwise they could weaken the other SA teams.

About time the Lions and the Cheetahs became one again give the space to the Kings, hell they couldn’t do any worse for the 1st year the Lions and Cheetahs have been down there for years even with all the money available to them .

I think SARU has a responsibility to get rugby down to the Eastern Cape it is really the only potential growth area for the sport,

WTF is up with these people, if you want to do transformation, bloody well do it. But don’t say its all about bringing in more blacks and then have only frigging whites coming in…

So Silly…