By Andrew Logan
April 18th 2008 @ 1:16am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Investors, start your engines!
In January this year, the Australian newspaper teed off at the ARU, having a crack at them for pretty much everything, but particularly for ditching the ARC and not immediately launching a far-reaching, substantial and financially viable vision for Australian rugby to fill the gap.
The grizzle from the crotchety old Australian was, amongst other things, “it remains to be seen what the ARU’s vision for the future might be”.
Yesterday, the first part of that vision was realised when the ARU revealed that they would allow private investment into Super 14 teams in Australia.
The invitation to the press conference had read:“A major announcement surrounding the future of Australian Rugby will be made following the AGM on Thursday.” Major indeed.
Although it will probably not be greeted with the same levels of emotion that we saw when rugby went professional in 1995, the potential for massive change in the game as we know it is the same.
In recent years, rugby has been hamstrung by the lack of available financial resources to drive the necessary growth required to compete with the three other codes of football in Australia. In the words of John O’Neill, it’s fair to say that Australia is one of the most competitive football markets in the world.
In a market like that, the situation for rugby is a little like the situation Australia faces operating in a world economy.
As a geographically massive country, but with a population of only 20.4 million people, our domestic economy is not of sufficient size to supply the necessary funds to develop the resources we have.
As a result, many of our mining and manufacturing industries are resourced with global money and investment, which allows us to punch above our weight in a global marketplace by allowing exploitation of our ample resources and increasing our exports.
For rugby, the landscape is much the same.
Our game has enormous potential, particularly on an international level, since it is one of the most widely played sports in the world. In Australia, though, it is coming off a low base. It lacks product, having only about seven home games for each Super 14 province, and six domestic Tests in total.
Sydney, the biggest rugby market in the country, has only two Test matches, and six Waratahs games this year.
Rugby has some pressing issues.
It badly needs to prepare the ground for another Super 14 team, to grow the base of full-time professional rugby players in Australia.
It needs to put in place a clear strategy for junior development, particularly to combat the threat of AFL, which is forcing its way into the eastern state league and union strongholds.
The ARU needs to continue to support club rugby before it withers on the vine and it also must address the gap between club and Super 14, particularly if the Super 14 eventually increases to a 20 week season, which is a possibility.
All this takes money.
Currently, the ARU pays a roughly equal amount to each of the Super 14 provinces each year, as well as paying an allowance to the clubs, footing the bill for holding and promoting domestic Tests and running development programs.
The outlays are enormous, the revenue is largely capped, and the options for increasing it under existing structures are few.
More Tests are not really an option, since the Wallabies already play twelve or more Tests each year. One-off cash-grabs, like the Hong Kong Test vs the All Blacks, can only be pulled off once in a blue moon.
So, the decision to allow private investors into the game is not only sensible, but was probably inevitable.
With private money flowing into the states, they will need less assistance from the ARU, and the ARU can focus on rugby expansion with the necessary cash behind them.
There are other intriguing possibilities for the future.
Although it is currently limited to Super 14 franchises, the private equity model would apply equally well to a third tier, which would mean that the pro-ARC-at-any-cost lobby may still get their wish with an A-League style model, where a new competition was built from scratch with the assistance of private investors.
Full time professionalism is changing the face of Sevens rugby recently, and the PE model could potentially be the catalyst to revive Australia’s flagging fortunes in the abbreviated form of the game.
Club rugby too, may find that it is able to benefit from judicious investment from generous benefactors some time down the track.
The Wallabies of course, must remain untouchable. And there will need to be some sort of limit set on salaries and recruitment so as to avoid the situation where one heavily bankrolled franchise cannibalises the others to create a super-team.
One thing is for sure, the changes we will see in rugby over the next one to three years as a result of this decision will reach further than any of us can imagine.
Rugby is about to start competing as a financial equal with the other codes in Australia for the first time in living memory.
Let the battle commence.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(47)
Yikes said | April 18th 2008 @ 1:55am | Report comment
I hope you’re right, Andrew. However…
Presumably, private investors are not in it for the love of the game and want to make some money. Well, there’s no money to be made in S14 unless the ARU achieves its goal in extending the S14 season. Frankly, the operation of the teams and the support of the game in the states is currently costing more than the teams can bring in across just 6 games plus sponsorship. What sensible investor would touch such a risky proposition?
I was a big supporter of ARC, but I think an extended S14 season to 26 rounds would solve many of the issues ARC was designed to fix, and it would be like manna from heaven for the development of the game.
But a lot of water has to pass under the bridge at SANZAR level before we can get too hopeful, I think.
The Link said | April 18th 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment
A smokescreen ladies and gentleman!!! He’s a smart cookie O’Neil, this is the same board meeting that the ARU announed a $8.4 million LOSS for calendar year 2007 and the private investor story gets the legs! From what I can gather the loss is due to the ARC, but also the downturn in gate and TV revenues. Not sure how private investment is going to get more people through the gate and more people watching on TV but anyway……
sheek said | April 18th 2008 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Yes, private equity was inevitable if rugby union is to progress in this country. As Yamamoto said to his squabbling Admirals: “Whether or not we attack Pearl harbour is no longer the issue. Let us now decide how best to carry out the attack”.
So O’Neill needs to say to the squabbling vested interest groups of Australian rugby: “Whether or not we have private equity is no longer the issue. Let us now decide how best to implement it”.
I’m still opposed to increasing the S14. I believe the S14 should be truncated, even with more teams, into a WC format, freeing up extra weeks & game space for a national comp. But I’m a lone voice.
Just because the all rats, bar one, followed the pied piper out of Hamlin village & dived to their deaths into the raging torrents of the river (or was it over a cliff?) doesn’t mean the majority was right.
I’m the lone surviving rat! I still say - truncate the S14, develop the ARC, & use private equity to implement it.
Yikes,
Rugby union doesn’t make enough money to attract uncaring business snouts only looking for ‘the deal’. In the early stages, private equity will be provided by businessmen with a love for the game. The carperbaggers are someway off - for when the game goes gangbusters (like RL in 1994-95). But if the ARU is smart, they’ll ensure the carpetbaggers never get their chance to destroy the game.
cosmos forever said | April 18th 2008 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Andrew - I agree that this provides an enormous opportunity for growth, but growth of what is the question. As supporters of Liverpool Football club would currently attest, the arrival of big money isn’t always a godsend.
Even more so when it comes to private equity firms who make their money by buying operations that have good market presence, stripping them of financial (that means people and assets) largess and running them on a shoe string before selling them.
If the good old volunteers that hold the clubs together were worried about the ARC - heaven help them when they come up against the Macquarie Private Equity Waratahs (apologies HSBC)!!!
This also calls into question what they would want in return and your call for the Wallabies to remain somehow protected through all of this would surely be placed under pressure as it is in the UK when big, powerful club backers demand value for money.
That’s all the negative view - an injection of funds and separation of ARU from Province Grandmother to Rugby strategist can only be good.
MIckeyM said | April 18th 2008 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Andrew, you could be right…
Smart investors would get in now, when money markets are tight, when the ARU is showing a massive loss, when rugby in general is down. And one would imagine they would get in for a good price.
With the long term possibilities of an extended Super 14, more teams, and more professional management, now would be the time to make the move - down the track, it could prove to be very lucrative. Then again, it may not - just ask those who thought they were on a good thing with blue chips in the stock market.
But, maybe potential investors won’t be in it for the money. Looking at the UK soccer market (or indeed the French rugby market), the investors may not be in it for capital gain, but for ego. To see their name associated with a winning Super 14 franchise may be all the motivation they need.
Don’t think that’s possible? Just have a look at local motor racing. There millions of dollars thrown at cars/teams who will never make the podium. And this investment isn’t about making a return. It’s about ego.
And we all know that there is plenty of ego going around in Rugby Union - on and off the field.
Roger said | April 18th 2008 @ 10:34am | Report comment
This is a great step ahead for rugby…reading O’Neill statements it seems he is planning for private investors to take over s14, make a longer season and use Super rugby to re-invigorate the game…it seems that once larger Super rugby is solid, and has good revenue and paytv coverage that the franchises can start some kind of national comp like…dare i speak of the dead…the much maligned ARC! (and ARU can spread risk).
My primary concern however is the time between 2003 and whenever this happens, young kids will not have any heroes…I mean that where there is no free to air coverage, kids will not be able to watch rugby (esp as rugby on Fox 3)…Dad’s might be at pub watching the game, but we will only find the average age of the fan base increasing year by year…this will in turn lead to a big void in development and young player numbers dropping and the flow on effect to club footy and so on….
So the question remains…what do we do in the meantime?
The Link said | April 18th 2008 @ 10:35am | Report comment
cosmos, i’m sure Man City fans feel the same way…..
cosmos forever said | April 18th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Roger - which again begs the question, is the ARU actually outsourcing it’s responsibilities for the development of the game and just becoming the Wallabies Management Team…
Roger said | April 18th 2008 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Cosmos forever - well I am not sure it goes that far, as getting private money into game is what will save it…and I am sure that by the next world cup we will have a strong Super rugby comp, strong international comp and there will be steps for an intergrated Australian provincial comp (be it with existing and new clubs, or with ARC type investor led teams)…
My chief concern is that whilst we take the best of rugby and build on it now, what happens to young fan base in mean time (grass roots)…I dont know any other solution than getting more rugby on free to air now, but it seems Fox wouldnt allow that to happen…
If Super rugby succeeds then O’Neill’s brief to keep rugby commercialy viable in Aust battle of codes would have succeeded…lets go forward 4 years, Rugby is back on top, Tahs games are sold out, Wallabies are in age old tussle with SA and NZ (but hopefully thrashing the poms) up to a RWC that will be in our time zone, Sydney clubs would have aligned with private investors and are strong…but waht about subbies?..what about country rugby? We will have a game like may others in the world that is good in terms of coverage and market share, but inaccessable to kids…development officers from all codes will be poaching 15-16 yr olds from school comps and getting them into academy systems and gyms….
I jst hope the ARU hasnt given up on a generation of kids, and isnt just re-inventing the game from 2010 onwards and writing off 7 years since RWC in Sydney. If AFL, Soccer and League get their claws into a larger share of junior participation, we might never get them back, and as future dad’s would never have played the game…it could be a multi generational hangover that is hard for junior and amateur rugby clubs to recover from! Perhaps O’Neill is hoping that with Private investment in Super rugby will come aligned clubs, then junior clubs will thrive like League has with Souths Juniors in Sydney’s Eastern suburds…fingers crossed!
Andrew Logan said | April 18th 2008 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Some very interesting points of view here - allow me to address a few:
Link - a little bit cynical don’t you think? As CEO, O’Neill has a responsibility to look forward and to market rugby as a game with potential, a game with a bright future. The loss you speak of was addressed specifically by both O’Neill and McGrath during the press conference, and also the press release - it was no secret. O’Neill also flagged it as a likely outcome way back in January, when ABC news (among others) reported “Mr O’Neill said the ARU expected to post a $7-8 million loss this year despite a $7 million grant from the International Rugby Board.”. There’d be no sense in continuing to highlight that issue.
All who mentioned the risks involved - both McGrath and O’Neill specifically urged the need for caution, and the need to learn from the mistakes of other sports when going down this path. They expect that rugby will enjoy some benefits by coming into the PE game late when compared to other sports, not the least of which will be making sure that the Wallabies are always contracted to the ARU before the franchises. The UK problem arose because the RFU made an incorrect call at the beginning of professionalism, as mentioned by Huw Richards in his book “A Game For Hooligans”. Richards says “The RFU did not contract leading players - an omission with a decade’s worth of consequences. It would have been expensive, and the RFU was carrying a £35 million bank loan from Twickenham’s transformation from creaky relic into a vast, if somewhat impersonal, modern stadium”. The ARU already has clear contracting rules in place to ensure that the franchises never overrule national selection. This was demonstrated recently when wunderkind James O’Connor was recalled by the Western Force after a strong showing in Hong Kong Sevens, only for the Force to be informed by the ARU that O’Connor would be unavailable until after Adelaide Sevens because he was representing a national team.
Roger - the ARU GM of Community Rugby, Ian Alker, recently announced a major junior development initiative to begin throughout the northern suburbs and northern beaches of Sydney. This is pretty clearly an attempt to shore up traditional rugby territory against the AFL incursion - look around at how many kids you see kicking a Sherrin around these days, it is a scary sight. Of course this needs to go further, and certainly needs to address western Sydney post haste - but it is at least an acknowledgement from the ARU that junior development is an issue. Once private equity comes into the Super 14 and the financial pressure on the ARU is reduced, you’d expect that there would be more money for junior development. Whether that happens is up to the ARU of course, so we’ll reserve judgement until they actually do it.
Cosmos Forever - I can see your latter point, but prefer your former. A transition of the ARU from “province grandmother” to “rugby strategist” is what we’d all like to see. Hopefully PE will allow the provinces to stand on their own two feet, and allow the ARU the necessary breathing space to build the game. The NRL is a good example to follow - David Gallop makes a habit of distancing himself from clubland in terms of strategy….it is always about the game as a whole. Unfortunately, with the state finances being in such a collectively dire state, the likes of O’Neill and McGrath haven’t had that luxury.
Overall, PE has potential to be a godsend. As long as the ARU is rigorous in its selection process and vetting of various investors, as well as managing the necessary contractual and salary issues, it should work well.
Roger said | April 18th 2008 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Thanks Andrew,
I read the details of pilot program too for northern suburbs and northern beaches…hopefully it will do well so it can ‘mainstreamed’ (for want of a better word) acrtoss Australia.
I suppose my concern is not about kids staying in rugby, but rather kids watching TV with their Dads, seeing an amazing game of union and asking their parents what its about and can they play…then they will be motivated to get in contact with the development programs that are on offer.
The ARU can run as many school based programs as it wants, unless kids have ‘heroes’ they see off tv, and want to emulate those stars, then the motivation and interest levels from kids wont be where it should be.
El Capitan said | April 18th 2008 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Roger,
Lets hope that with the introduction of HD channels for the local stations, we may see rugby back on free to air. Even if the free to air networks put the games on, outside of prime time it can be an option. Ch 10 is doing this with the NFL this year, so fans will be able to watch it without the use of pay.
Andrew,
Will Private Investors be included to prop up the country rugby, and the Australian Rugby Shield, or will this fall away? It will be intresting to see if NZ and SA follow suit with thier clubs.
Spiro Zavos said | April 18th 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
One of the teams that the ARU could usefully ‘offer’ to private investors is the Wallaby Sevens side. The IRB Sevens tournament is growing quite nicely. It is worldwide with something like 20 events, I think, around the world. There is a World Cup Sevens tournament every four years (between the RWC tournament). This Sevens World Cup will also feature a Womens Seven World Cup. There is the possibility, hopefully sooner than later, of SevensRugby being an Olympic event.
All this makes the Wallaby Sevens side an attractive proposition for a private investor to invest in.
As Andrew Logan points out, the international power of rugby should be exerted in bringing money into the game to create a virtuous circle of expanding the game in Australia to encourage more money to come into the game …
Andrew Logan said | April 18th 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
El Capitan,
Both John O’Neill and Peter McGrath were very clear that private equity investment will only be permitted at Super 14 level. However, one would expect that should the model be proven to be effective, it would be in rugby’s interests to investigate applying it to other levels of the hierarchy. After all, if clubs or regional networks like NSW Country were able to leverage their supporters passion into dollars, it could only increase the quality of facilities, coaching resources and junior development, which in turn translates into greater oportunities for players, greater competition for spots and ultimately a stronger overall sport in this country.
It is speculation at this stage though.
How do I think it will play out? My take on it is that once private equity becomes involved, the number of Super 14 type franchises will increase (regardless of the structure of Super 14, I think the ARU will work towards private investment in the Reds, Waratahs, a Western Sydney team, a Melbourne team, the Brumbies and the Force - and possibly a Gold Coast team). These franchises will look to align themselves with lower tier “feeder” clubs and perhaps also regional unions like NSW Country or Tasmania, who in turn may take on their own lower level investors to provide financial clout and business mentoring.
If I gaze into my crystal ball and look forward to 2015 - I see the Wallabies, followed by 6 or 7 provincial franchises, probably playing in a Pacific or Tasman region Super competition. Underneath that will be a national club-based premier rugby competition, which will be the top tier of a multi level, promotion-and-relegation system of club rugby across a series of regions, semi professional at the upper levels, and entirely amateur at the bottom.
Private equity is a large part of the answer to that perennial question - how can a club make the leap from tier two up to a tier one Premier rugby style comp without the resources? The answer is that anything is possible once you get an investor who wants to invest money in a successful club. The upside is that you end up with a situation like Toulouse who have a backer prepared to spend whatever it takes to get them to the top. The downside could be that you end up like Richmond, who were once part of the UK Premiership and who bacame an investment for copper trader Ashley Levitt in 1996. Levitt moved their home ground and finally pulled out mid-season 1999, leaving the club cashless and open to an execution order from the RFU, who killed them off and banished them to the lower levels of amateur leagues in Middlesex.
westy said | April 18th 2008 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Andrew…..Rugby junior development is back in the days of the great split of 1908. The NSWRU still wants to wage war against league. I have been trying desparately to make them aware that the AFL junior development is targeting not just League but rugby. In fact and I am sorry to raise the issue but the AFL,s athlete identification and development is very much class and ethnically based. Their targets mesh with junior rugby’s target market more than Leagues. In western Sydney it is the more affluent Anglo North west and I think Rugby is already gone in the East. The private schools have been very welcoming to AFL. after repeatedly rejecting overtures from League and NSW touch Association. In mixed junior rugby rep teams political correctness dictates polite interaction but on my observation the social distance between boys of differing socio economic classes is very much widening. The decline of NSW country representation has also contributed to this social distance. In the west of sydney there is a vast residual support base for rugby before AFL even amongst the leaguies especially for the Wallabies. On a more serious note the Waratahs have less traction. There is a perception that they are not really representing our area.That League and rugby do not offer a statewide hybrid game in all SCHOOLS upto U/13 is beyond me and has more to do with rugby and private schools than any manifest problem with Leaguies.I have seen some junior rugby administrators quite gleeful that the AFL will put League in their place in NSW as though somehow rugby will be exempt. Rugby has played the class game. So is the AFL . I do not think they want the islander boys but that nice middle class .
ROB said | April 18th 2008 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Two issues:
a) Spiro, This is a request to you or for that matter anyone who can get access to the stats. It only seems yesterday that rugby was the growth sport in Aust and the coffers were full. Can we get some figures to show when this growth occurred and when it started to go into decline? Is there a connection between growth and success on the field ? ( of course this sounds so logical but are there figures to back this up) Pouring money in may not be the only solution.
b) Some years ago it was decided that the Aust coach would give tactical /technique directions to all levels as to how the game was to be trained and played. A good idea in theory so as to get uniformity. My concern is that we still have the Eddie Jones legacy in place. There are many of that old network still giving background advice and having influence. Look at the identities and see the same names and clubs cropping up. Thats why I think the move to Deans is so welcome if he can avoid the influence of background coaches and officials.
The Answer said | April 18th 2008 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Andrew I disagree that the Link is being cynical, he can simply spot PR spin a bit better than yourself. Thank god for the generousity of the IRB with their handouts otherwise the game would certainly be battling.
So much for this plan, it is very light on detail and allows great optomists like yourself to come up with the details yourself because they haven’t got around to it themselves.
For mine, it is simply about rugby trying to use its connections in the corporate world to keep it afloat. The word benefactor has been used here, that is certainly more accurate than investor because given the current state of things that cash isn’t getting seen again.
sheek said | April 19th 2008 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Andrew,
Your concept for Australian rugby in circa 2015 is quite good, but I would take issue with you on a couple of points.
When John O’Neill came back to union from football, he brought with him the best ideas & concepts from football. These included the Asian Cup league concept (Super 14+), the A-League concept (ARC), domestic premier leagues (district premier rugby) & of course, private equity.
The meat of your vision is largely correct, & something I’ve envisioned myself for several years. Private equity is the key to realising those dreams. However, the sticking points:
1. Even if you expanded Super 14 to Super 20, you must truncate the competition. Especially if you also want a national domestic comp (ARC/APC). It is wholly impractical to expect our leading Wallabies to play 10-12 tests per year; 19-22 super matches per year; 8-10 ARC matches per year, & still find room for a handful of club matches.
Something has to give, & that something is truncating the super comp into a World Cup style format. That is, 4 pools x 5 teams, plus quarters, semis & a final. Everyone plays a minimum of 4 matches, with the finalists playing 7 matches. This frees up considerable extra weekends/games for an ARC, & also the opportunity to play several club games. A world cup style super format would still make great TV.
I would also cap test matches at 10 in non-WC years, & 13 (if Wallabies make final) in WC years.
2. If you’re going to have 6-7 provincial teams, then that’s your ARC comp! Hell, add one more & you have a round 8. My 8 provincial teams would be: NSW, Qld, ACT, WA, Vic & SA as the obvious first 6. The other two would be Eastern Australia (Northern NSW) & North Qld. Although I could also accept a South Qld team on the Gold Coast.
There’s also no reason why you can’t have two provinces operating out of Sydney - NSW & Western Sydney or some other appropriate title. Keeping in mind that the names of provincial (or state) teams ought to sound like provinces or states!
3. There is no promotion/relegation between the national clubs in the A-League & clubs from domestic premier leagues. Although there is promotion/relegation between first & second divisions, etc of domestic premier leagues. What is the obsession with some rugby fans with promotion/relegation?
It didn’t work in Sydney back in the 1980s. That doesn’t mean it won’t work again. However, even if the national comp was made up of national clubs, they should be stand alone, just like the A-League.
As for district premier rugby, I would select the 12 Sydney clubs, the 10 Brisbane clubs, etc & make them the respective 1st division in their state. Promotion & relegation might be 5-10 years off. A period of consolidation would be required first.
As for promotion & relegation on a national scale, it is totally impractical. Totally Impractical! The tyranny of distance will see to that. If we’re serious about developing rugby as a truly national sport, & leaving the significant ‘footprint’ that O’Neill talks about, then we must protect the developing regions in Victoria, South Australia, etc.
As for your fully professional down to fully amateur scale, this is quite correct. However, how do you police this? Sydney & Brisbane premier rugby clubs have already got themselves into a fiscally irresponsible war based on rumour & opportunism, “So & so club is paying their players this much, so we must do the same”, etc.
Yes, fully professional for the Wallabies & provinces. Semi-professional for the premier rugby clubs. Amateur for all other levels. But policing this will be a problem. It would be interesting to know how this is managed by the FFA in their premier leagues, & in other sports.
Finally, private equity is the answer to developing the game. Providing there are strict caveats in place on its implementation. However, my reservation is that the ARU didn’t handle the transition from amateurism to professionalism at all well. Have they learnt their lesson from history???
sheek said | April 19th 2008 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Rob,
One day when I learn to paste links to other sites, i’ll do it, but in the meantime I’ll just have to give you the clues.
Convict Creations & Wikipedia both have access to sorting stats. If you go to google & click-on ‘convict creations’, then go their sports section, they have some excellent tables on the 4 codes over the past decade or so.
Ditto wikipedia. If you type in “australian sports attendance records + wikipedia” into google, or something similar, they also have some good stats. Others may also have suggestions.
Yikes said | April 20th 2008 @ 1:25am | Report comment
sheek,
I admire your optimism, but I think you are WAY off base suggesting truncating the Super Rugby season in favour of domestic competition. The code needs money, and it needs it now. Super Rugby is where the money is, and for that they need more product, not less. It brings international exposure and broadcasting potential where a national comp has very little. Even more so if a Japanese team gets involved.
I was a firm, 110% supporter of ARC, and the concept of a national comp. But while I admire your dedication to the idea, now that ARU has boned ARC, a replacement is clearly not feasible, nor likely. Frankly I think it is the furthest thing on O’Neill’s mind at the moment.
My change of heart is that I think if Super rugby went to 26 weeks, it would eliminate the need for a third tier altogether. It would provide more funding (through more home games) that would be channeled into the improvement of club rugby. Each Aussie franchise would have to have an extended squad to go the extra distance, which would pick up the fringe players that the ARC catered for, but who don’t usually get an opportunity in such a short and pressure-cooker series as S14. This would change over 26 weeks.
It would also allow rugby to compete for roughly the same distance of time as league and AFL, generating some code loyalty from the people who generally get only 8-9 games a year to attend (and only one or two after May) to support their code. Further fracturing the season into a shorter Super season and an equally unsatisfactorily shortish domestic comp (which would for many years struggle to achieve the support that the Super rugby teams have now) would be a wrong step, in my opinion.
sheek said | April 20th 2008 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Yikes,
I am hardly optimistic about ever seeing the S14 or equivalent truncated. I am cutting against the grain of apparent popular opinion. However, I believe it is the best practical solution as given by my reasons.
I don’t entirely disagree with your suggestions. If a super comp contained 6 Aussie franchises - NSW, Qld, ACT, WA, Vic & SA - yes, then you wouldn’t need a 3rd tier domestic national comp.
Yes, Australian rugby needs money. But more is not always better. Beware killing the goose that laid the golden egg. I believe that SANZAR increasing the 3N quota from 6 matches up to 9 (playing each other twice up to thrice) has had a counterproductive effect.
However, I would argue that a S20 split into 4 pools x 5 teams (40 H&A matches, 5-8 weekends), or even 2 pools of 10 teams (90 H&A matches, 10-13 weekends) is structurally & economically sounder than one pool x 20 teams (190 H&A matches, 20-24 weekends). The economies of scale work out much better for fewer games. The final option would take up almost half a year - ridiculous!
I believe in a mixed bag of goodies. Especially if the teams you follow in the ARC are the same/similar as those in the S14/20 or whatever. Let’s go with the middle option, 2 S20 pools x 10 teams. You follow NSW for 9-12 matches in the S20, then another 10-12 in the ARC (6 teams & 10 H&A matches). That’s a minimum 19 matches in 2 seperate comps, plus quarters, semis & finals thrown in.
The scenario is not much different from exactly what is happening in NZL & RSA today, as tap away on our keyboards What works for AFL & NRL doesn’t necessarily work for rugby union. AFL doesn’t have to worry about any international comps interfering with their program. NRL has little international comp to worry about.
Historically, international comps make up a large part of RU. We should both acknowledge & embrace this fact, & develop a local season structure that takes all these factors into account.
By weaving a super comp, a national comp, internationals & club premier rugby into the season gives rugby an opportunity to come up with something the other codes might eventually envy. Anyway, my thoughts for what they’re worth.
cosmos forever said | April 20th 2008 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Speaking of NZ and RSA - anyone asked them if they want to extend the S14 season. I don’t know much, but it seems to me Australia needs this much more than anyone else…
sheek said | April 20th 2008 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
Cosmos forever,
Good point. From previous articles I’ve read re NZL’s & RSA’s attitude to expansion of super format, they would be dead set against it. They already resent the intrusion of S14 on their ANZ Cup & Currie Cup respectively.
So unless they’ve had a change of heart, they won’t supporting O’Neill’s suggestion of an expanded super format.
I’ve said this before, Australian rugby has ridden on the shirt-tails of NZL & RSA rugby ever since the S10 came about in 1993. They gave us a national comp that we otherwise were unable &/or unwilling to develop. I think they’re just about fed up with giving us a free ride (so to speak).
Yikes said | April 20th 2008 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
sheek,
Could not agree with you more about 3N and the extension from 6 to 9. But I don’t think overexposure is the issue here (ie always playing the same 2 teams), it’s underexposure (a comp that only goes until May). I suppose while I like your ideas in a general sense, I just don’t think a domestic comp will ever happen now in Australian rugby (for over a decade, anyway).
So… what’s wrong with a Super comp that takes up most of the year? I take your point that what works for League and AFL doesn’t necessarily work for rugby, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t. Frankly, I think 20 teams is too many. Currently Australia has the depth for 4.5 Super teams, no more. Extend the season, but keep the number of teams roughly stable, I think. Maybe an extra team in Japan, bolstered by the half a team of decent Aussies we can’t fit into Super rugby (there’d be a few playing over there now we could give them!!).
Re your and cosmos’ points on NZ and SA agreeing to an extended Super season. I think SA likes it less than NZ who like it less than Aus. But NZ will soon like it a whole lot more as their sub-unions are going broke and the Air NZ Cup could be going back to semi-amateur because of this. The question is, if SA say “no thanks” what chance that they break away and do what they have long threatened - join European competition in their own time zone. No jet lag and no long tours. Meanwhile Aus and NZ start a pacific rim super tournament with Japan and Islander involvement (maybe Argentina? But that’s a long shot.)
The only caveat to all this - do the Euros want the Saffers in their comps? The answer might very well be no. In which case SA might need NZ and Aus enough to agree to an extended season.
sheek said | April 21st 2008 @ 12:54am | Report comment
Yikes,
While your desire to have the one comp that can be put up against the AFL & NRL is commendable, the great impediment & impracticality of it all, is distance & travel.
Let’s say for argument’s sake, the S20 comprised 4 x Australian teams, 5 x NZL teams, 5 x RSA teams, 2 x Argentine teams, & one each from Fiji, Samoa, Tonga & Japan. Let’s also say every team plays each other once, with one bye. That’s 19 H&A matches over 20 weekends.
This then requires teams traveling laterally & virtually across 24 hour time zones in the southern hemisphere, not to mention longitudinally across the equator to the northern hemisphere & Japan.
The S20 would cover in traveling distance about one-third of the globe’s surface. How long do you think it would be before the players & support staff went stark raving mad?
The travel for the S14 & 3N is tough enough. Domestic teams traveling across the nullabor find that enough of a chore as it is. We want our very best players to remain in the game for as long as possible. The above scenario will drive them all to europe after only 2-3 years. Or into premature retirement.
Alternately, a domestic national comp of Sydney, Brisbane & Canberra clubs is neither inclusive of all Australia, & too cumbersome even if capped at 16 teams. And if you do cap it at say 12 teams, imagine the bunfight deciding who gets a gig in the ARC, & who doesn’t?!
So I can’t help but think my suggestion of truncating the S20, & also having an ARC of between 8-12 (provincial or national club) teams allows us to have the best of both worlds. For me, it’s a win-win compromise.
If money is going to be the only consideration, then that only spells disaster.
ROB said | April 21st 2008 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Sheek, Thanks…will investigate.
Amigo said | April 21st 2008 @ 9:02am | Report comment
im routinely amazed that aus sems to be driving the sanazar agenda when it is presumably its weakest partner. in my mind super rugby was hastily thrown together in response to professionalism and the structure has always been flawed with way too much travel involved and the luck of the draw way too important
in the case of SA, the Currie Cup is over a hundred years old and one of the great rugby tournaments. i just hope the saffa adminstrators show some spine and push back on the sugestions to extend super rugby even further.
im not sure what format it should take, but super rugby should be about the best from provinces each country ( and not the medicore & bad) facing of over a few high pressure matches , and should compliment the likes of the currie cup ( which is already, in effect, two rounds of local derbies ) . i´personally would much rather see the traditional old provinces qualifiyng for super rugby via currie cup & npc, rather than the americanzed regions we see at the moment .
from an aussie perspetive, super rugby is never going to b the answer and is never going to compete with nrl or afl , as 2/3 of its teams are foreign . the aru should give up in trying to use it as such, and hopefully private equity will provide the impetus for this to be realised
Yikes said | April 21st 2008 @ 9:20am | Report comment
sheek,
You’re the only one suggesting a S20!! So stop with the straw man.
The O’Neill suggestion, as far as I can tell, is for a S14 or S15 (with Japan) full round of playing all opponents (as we do now), plus a round of local derbies. This is to mitigate the travel aspect.
It would also mean that every domestic team plays its domestic rivals on a home and away basis. Which would be great as those are the games that draws the crowds.
sheek said | April 21st 2008 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Yikes,
You miss my point entirely. Whether it’s S14, S15, S16, S18 or S20, or whatever, is largely immaterial. I suggested an S20 merely for comparison with the 22 week comps of AFL & NRL, following on from your argument the ARU should have something reasonably long enough (duration-wise) to go up against these comps.
My principle point is travel & distance. Even a 15th franchise in Japan will create an enormous extra round of traveling for players. And frankly, also having a franchise in Japan manned by half its roster Australian, doesn’t really make sense to me.
You make some good points, I make some good points. We’ll just have to accept our points of difference until next time!
cosmos forever said | April 21st 2008 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Given the toll on the body and mind, and the traditional (and current) way rugby teams approach traveling - any expansion surely must have multiple teams from other nations. IE - if you go to Japan you are there for a fortnight and play against a couple of teams. Can’t see how it would work any other way.
Someone should ask the NBL teams what flying off to Singapore to play the Canberra Hunter Singapore team was like (sorry - always the Cannons to me!)
Roger said | April 21st 2008 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Completely agree that rather than an expanded Super Rugby comp with more overseas travel, have intersate comp between existing Australian teams once s14s is finished.
This way, if additional games are played on weekends during the same period as wallabies games we will have great trials for selectors and great coverage to reward sponsors. We wouldnt need to bother with changing the foxtel agreement, wouldnt need consent of NZ or SA, and might even get Ch7 or 10 to come on board and show the games on free to air….
Whether the games would have wallabies or not is tough..as if wallabies rested then new players would be exposed…perhaps in the first two weeks, wallabies should be playing, however not playing interstate games if named in wallabies squad, and then remaining unpicked S14 players could push their way into wallabies team for tri nations/France ext tests with dominant interstate games if wallabies falter. Having a look at Calendar it seems easy to run in conjunction with other internationals
I cant see a downside…anyone keen to purst this bubble? (as I am sure I havent thought of something..it couldnt be as easy as substituting ARC with games between Aust s14 teams….Tony Dempsey does say they players want more rugby)
Roger said | April 21st 2008 @ 11:44am | Report comment
just thought of a downside…club rugby would be stuffed! I suppose its a case of competeing priorites…I would think players, spectators and sponsors would like to see even interstate games with no history (Reds v Force) rather than say games with long history (say Uni v Eastwood).
Matt said | April 21st 2008 @ 11:57am | Report comment
I didn’t honestly think that the PE debate would actually arive on The Roar’s pages for a while yet. We can thank the ever progessive John O’Neill for this I guess (and I honestly do in this instance).
It was only mere days before O’Neill made his announcement that I was suggesting (with others agreement) that PE would offer a much needed shot in the arm for SH Rugby. Because it does need some serious rethinking at present.
I have also suggested, and strongly believe, that PE could be a means of sustaining a drastic change to the SH domestic season. Because this is needed also. What I don’t agree with is how it appears O ‘Neil is painting the picture for Rugby’s future.
To say it straight, I’m a fan of the type of change that Sheek has trumpeted (and which he has continued to suggest from the first days I’ve frequented this site). It is a vision for the future that I share for our game.
My question is, why bring in private money to a competition that is supposedly already profitable? That seems like a sacrifice without definitive benefits? I can understand bringing in money to sustain a struggling comp, like the NPC or ARC. But not into the Super comp at the expense of provincial and club rugby.
Why would you:
A) Scrap the domestic comp which is losing you money, but providing valuable developmental pathways and localised interest to fans
B) Extend the size of the Super Comp Super comp, which currently makes you money, but lacks tribal fan support.
C) Then sell off the newly expanded comp and the profits it generates?
As the governing body for a sport, where is the benefit of giving up the ownership of a profitable comp? Sure, O’Neil saw the benefits that PE had for the A League, but these sides have bled and are still bleeding millions a year. The FFA couldn’t afford to support them if not for PE. So what gives with the Super comp?
I understand that Rugby needs to grow and evolve (particularly in Australia), but I don’t believe that simply expanding Super rugby is the best way to go about change. Placing more emphasis and sacrificing more time from our season to a longer S14 is a risk for SANZAR (less so to Austalia) with little definitive beneficial proof.
What the S14 has shown us so far is that the fans don’t necessarily support franchises, regardless of how they perform. Fans love local derbies and fans love to see their teams play live. This is extremely evident in both SA and NZ, but is less so in Australia due to the fact that a domestic comp simply doesn’t exist.
After the rapid demise of the ARC, at the hands of the new O’Neil led ARU, we all wondered what plan they had to fill this domestic ‘3rd Tier’ gap. Just what would the ARU do to compensate their shortcomings when sizing up their neighbours and the established (and much loved) Currie Cup and NPC competitions.
The vision for Aussie rugby now appears to becoming clearer. O’Neils answer to combating the lack of a 3rd Tier pro level is simply to negate the importance of these competitions by squeezing them out. O’Neil is a clever man.
But, while 20 odd rounds of Super rugby would be a short term fix for a lot of Aussie rugby problems, it won’t fix other issues and certainly won’t do much benefit to SA and NZ rugby. The question is, can O’ Neil somehow pull the wool over the SARU and NZRU (again) and convince them to go with this idea?
O’Neil wants to make the S14 bigger and longer, chewing right into the heart of these older domestic comps and forcing them into complete amateurism (and off the sporting map in their home countries). He will then have successfully removed the obvious advantages NZ and SA have in talent development, whilst strengthening Australia’s (I’m not saying that this is his aim, but more a side effect that the other SANZAR unions need to think about).
Let’s be honest, how many people (both fans and sponsors) will remain interested in the 3rd Tier when both the professional Super comp and a completely amateur provincial comp being run at the same time?
Doubling the Super season will give more Aussie players a go at being a pro footballer, but it will kill the NPC and Currie Cups. NZ currently has around 500 guys earning decent amounts of money playing the game. These guys are also training (and I mean full time training) for at least 3 months of the year.
Cut away the NPC and you get maybe 200 full time pro’s, compared to the 150-175 in Super rugby at present, but you lose that huge next tier of semi pro players. You also put all your eggs into the Super basket, which is so far only generating decent media and fan interest during local derbies (Crusaders vs Hurricanes, Crusaders vs Chiefs).
The franchises also neglect large areas of NZ which are in most cases the Rugby heartlands that make the game so strong. This season, for the first time in many, the Hurricanes will not play a single home fixture outside of Wellington. The traditional provincial fixture in either Taranaki, Manawatu or Hawkes Bay has been scrapped in favour of playing at the more lucrative Cake Tin. These provinces, where rugby is undoubtably the sport of choice, averaged about 8000 at the gate in last years widely condemned NPC (about the same as the Highlanders do).
Why is it that O’Neil thinks that more of the same is the right answer? More Tri Nations games, more Super Franchises, more Super14 games. Why not look at the NH season structure which seems to work so well for pro soccer and rugby? The NRL and AFL run great domestic leagues, this is completely different from an international domestic league and should be treated as such. They have said that they can benefit from looking at other codes and what has worked in the past. Which codes have created a 26 week international competition which spans half the globe?
Matt said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Simple, here’s my alternative proposal to JO’N and SANZAR:
Introduce PE to the ARC (or provincial equivalent), NPC and Currie Cup teams. These teams all take part in their respective professional domestic leagues for the entire season (in my mind beginning in March, ending in October)
Each comp can take players from other nations, with a strict limit on foreign talent.
Each comp has a salary floor and salary cap for participating teams.
Each comp has it’s own tournament sponsors, each team likewise (not like NZ Super rugby)
6 teams from each SANZAR nation, along with 6 teams from Japan’s Top League take part in a separate Super Cup.
These will be the 6 highest finishers from the previous season’s domestic league.
The Super Cup will be divided into 4 pools of 6. The comp will be double round robin (10 weeks) and will be played periodically throughout the season. The incoming tours in June will be played as Mid-week fixtures, as RL’s SoO is.
National Team players will not play in the Domestic comp during the inbound tours period, unless not getting game time for their NT.
All domestic competitions will stop during a mid season 6 week window while the 3/4 Nations (or equivalent) takes place.
The domestic comp will then move into its final rounds before both the domestic and and Super Cup finals series (quarters, semis, final). The NT’s then heads off on their respective NH tours.
Every player would then have a dedicated 12 week off-season over summer to recover, along with the fans.
We’d end up with 30 weeks of Domestic rugby across 2 competitions.
The super comp would produce 120 matches of round robin and 7 finals games.
The domestic comp would also provide 14 weeks of home grown action, or 91 round robin fixtures, as well as 7 finals games. So there’s plenty of product to sell to both the locals and the international markets alike.
However, this type of change would require PE.
More importantly, fans would support the same teams throughout the season. More fans would have access to top level rugby and SH players could be retained in the SH by introducing private money and enjoyable competitions for them to play in. Each nation would have a good number of pro players in their ranks, broadcasters would have emotive, dramatic product to sell and the domestic comps could get rugby onto FTA TV and into the lives of more kids.
It would require extensive planning, charasmatic organisation and the ambition to take on such a drastic change, but the pieces are there to make the puzzle into a masterpiece.
Not a super-sized version of and already surposed super-sized tournament.
sheek said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Roger,
Whether or not you consider club rugby stuffed, depends on your perspective, I guess.
I believe premier club rugby will always have its place as the last port of call for players aspiring to be provincial/super players & Wallabies. Premier club rugby is the finishing school for higher aspirants. That’s its role in the big scheme of thing’s, & a mighty big role it is. This fact should never be trivialised.
On the other hand, I don’t have much sympathy for those who say premier rugby is dropping down a rung with the introduction of a 3rd tier (ARC) comp. Club rugby has had its chance over 100 years to develop its niche, & you can argue it hasn’t exactly been overwhelmingly successful.
The Sydney GF attracts what? Several thousand fans? A regular club game attracts several hundred? It’s just not good enough for a comp claiming higher status in the scheme of things.
Rugby union has evolved differently to aussie rules, rugby league & soccer, a fact I believe sometimes missed by rugby union fans. While the other 3 codes have made club football its centre-piece, RU made the Wallabies & state teams its centre-piece.
By association, the interstate rivalries go back over 100 years. NSW playing WA at rugby union might be a recent phenomenon, but NSW playing against WA over a range of sports, predates Federation. So the tradition & history exists, in that regard.
Fans going to see NSW play WA will see those two states playing against each other in rugby union, as an extension of state rivalries, stretching back 100 years.
So I think if you look at things from a different perspective, you might see the logic of my arguments???
cosmos forever said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Don’t forget - club rugby also is the breeding ground of our other great (seemingly) weakness - coaches…
No clubs, no more than 5 - 6 coaching positions to learn the trade in.
PS - good to see a Canberra and St Eddie’s old boy taking the Japan coaching option over the ‘Tahs, according to reports this morning!
Roger said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Sheek, you may have the wrong impression of my post. I completely agree with you, as I said I think everyone would rather interstate games rather than club matches anytime.
Redb said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
The ARC failed because it was not the best rugby comp on display - good for purists but not converts (and it was only given one season). The answer is to expand the Super 14 to include a Melb team and finally get some traction in the two key markets - Sydney and Melbourne.
I agree with the thrust of what Sheek and others are suggesting, rugby has pitched itself at above domestic club level - most of its rivalry is at international level. It’s stuck with that level of profile it may as well keep playing to its strengths and not reinvent the wheel which inevitably will disenfranchise existing supporters.
At the moment in Australia the Super 14 is trapped in Sydney with good representation from southern QLD, but outposts such as Perth and non event Canberra (from a rivalry perspective).
The ARU has to understand Melbourne will deliver in time, the Storm’s following is fragile, mostly expat Kiwis desperate for some rugby action, even if it is rugby lite. The masses still remember the Wallabies and will readily warm to union more than they have with league - which has not jelled with the populace thus far.
Be bold O’Neill, but perhaps he’s too scared of the Melb market becuase he does not understand it?
Redb
cosmos forever said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Which brings us back to Andrew’s original post. JON doesn’t NEED to have an opinion about Melbourne either way. Any private investor worth their salt would agree with you RedB and invest in a Melbourne Franchise (and probably a Western Sydney one) immediately.
What better rivalry could you have at a provincial level - Melb v Syd, and Syd v the part of syd the NSWRU ignores!
(I just put that last bit in for you Westy!).
sheek said | April 21st 2008 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Thanks Matt for the support,
I’m just trying to approach the myriad problems with some practical common sense. I’m aware I might go on too much about a national domestic comp, but I’m still waiting for someone to blow me out of the water with a better, sustainable idea.
I try to manage ambitious & monetary issues in a practical manner, aware one is not much good without the other, but one shouldn’t override the other either.
I’m not opposed to the S14 expanding to the S20. I am however, opposed to the S14 or S20 or whatever, having more games per team. For Australian rugby to have a national comp, the S14 or equivalent must be truncated. Furthermore, both comps can be financially viable. In fact, probably more so than just having a S14/20 whatever.
Think about it, keep the S20 or whatever tight. No more than 10 games/weekends max per team, including the final. You could have Argentina, Japan & the Pacific Islands involved. great opportunities for broadcasters & corporate sponsors.
Now consider national comps in each of the respective countries. RSA have two divisions of Currie Cup; each 7 teams. NZL have three divisions of ANZ Cup, each 9-10 teams; Australia has a 8-10 ARC; Argentina has two divisions of 6-8 teams each; Japan has a national comp of 8-12 teams; the Islands could come up with a 6-8 inter-island comp.
Great opportunities for broadcasters not only televising national comp within own borders, but sharing broadcasts with other countries in region. Sponsors not only have their product highlighted nationally, but also through shared broadcast into other countries, not forgetting prior Super coverage as well.
With regards the ARC, we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The ARC was a great concept. However, the structure given it by the outgoing regime, damned it from the beginning. You had Sydney Fleet, representing Sydney south-east, playing out of North Sydney oval. You had the Sydney north shore players representing the Central Coast Rays at Gosford. Crazy!
Most damning of all was the absence of the 30 leading Wallabies. The comp was always going to struggle without its marquee players. this being the case, wouldn’t it have made more sense to postpone the implementation of the ARC by 12 months. For the sake of being seen to be doing something, Flowers did more harm than good.
But make no mistake, the concept of ARC is right. The configuration of teams is mostly right. I might further consider an Adelaide team & a separate Sydney north shore team. The timing of the comp from late August to mid October is right.
But the leading players must be available. And the S14 needs to be truncated to allow the leading players extra game time in the ARC.
Matt,
Will read your second post in more detail, but briefly, agree with many points. generally speaking, I don’t see much change to the season from present. Obviously PE, rigorously managed, is the key to developing Australian rugby, especially at the domestic level.
At the higher level, S14 or equivalent runs into incoming tours, runs into 3N or equivalent, runs into ARC, runs into outgoing tours. At club level, premier rugby kicks in during early part of S14, & runs through to early stages of ARC. It would be nice to find a ‘window’ for the premier rugby finals, when leading Wallabies & provincials might be available for their clubs.
As we should be aware, there’s a cap of 30 matches per player per season, which makes sense. 10 tests, 10 supers, 10 provincials, & whoof!……….there’s 30 matches already. The trick is finding a balance for everything.
sheek said | April 21st 2008 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
RedB,
I’ve argued for a long time now that if Australian rugby is serious about developing a national profile, & leaving the significant ‘footprint’ that O’Neill talks about, the game must have a “window shopfront” in every mainland capital - Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide & of course the nation’s capital, Canberra.
That “window shopfront” must be in the form of a team involved in a national comp (ARC), be it provincial based, or national club based. This then gives the youth of each state/province, the inspiration & aspiration to one day play for their state/province/city.
Apparently player participation numbers in WA have increased dramatically since the Force came into existence. Just imagine the same thing happening in Vic & SA?
I don’t claim to be an Einstein, but this makes so much practical common sense to me, I am continually amazed that the powers that be keep ignoring the idea. With PE, the ARU might have run out of excuses!
Redb said | April 21st 2008 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Sheek,
Melbourne has had a rugby comp for 100 years, the city has a strong corporate culture that gets behind sport, an historical icon in Weary Dunlop, and a spectatorship that prefers the ball to be played “in contest”. There is enough room for a Super 14 team in Melbourne alongside Melb Victory in the soccer, not sure Melb Storm would survive (although News Ltd has deep pockets).
I find it ironic that Perth was chosen for its expats (nothing against Perth btw), but Melbourne has its fair share of expats from a population base that is twice the size of Perth. For me, the ARU’s choice of Perth was akin to a soft expansion decision that the AFL could make if it chose Tasmania instead of western Sydney.
We’ll see if JON has the aggots.
Redb
cosmos forever said | April 21st 2008 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
The Melbourne Weary…
Redb said | April 21st 2008 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Noooooo.
but the bloke’s not a bad icon for the club, it creates some history for the game and its supporters.
Redb
Al said | April 21st 2008 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Sheek, heres one strong counter argument: Why would we want a situation where fans can’t support one team for the entire season?
Look at every other major sporting competition in the world: EPL, NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, NRL, AFL (btw im not putting the Aussie comps at the same level as the others). The one thing they all have in common is that fans can follow ONE team all season. They have their All-star games (or State of Origin for RL) which are the best of the best but at their heart is consistency of knowing you can support the one team all season.
I think that if we can’t expand Super rugby (in no. of teams or length of season) we should be aiming ( if possible) to contract rugby back to national comps with the top teams playing a Heineken Cup or Champions League format keeping the number of games to a minimum.
Either way we need to have the same teams running around all year regardless of who they are playing.
P.S. Please, please, please will someone tell the NZRU and SARU to bring back geographical names in their teams– thats one way to add some rivalry to the comp. At least thats one thing the ARU have got right. Give me Auckland vs NSW, or Cape Town vs Jo’burg over Blues vs Sharks, etc. BTW does anyone notice that the Aussie commentators will still refer to the teams the the Auckland based Blues all the time anyway?
The Link said | April 21st 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Al and why you’re there, lets stop calling states and territories in Australia provinces!!
sheek said | April 21st 2008 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Al,
I’m with you. If I had my way, I would get rid of the Super comp, & make the ARC the centre-piece of the Australian rugby domestic season. But……….Rome wasn’t built in a day. We need to take it one step at a time…..unfortunately.
On the other hand, following say the Wallabies in the tests; Victoria in the Super comp; Melbourne in the ARC & say Moorabbin in the premier rugby is a nice mixed bag of goodies. Enjoy the difference RU has to offer.
Obviously it’s a sore point with you, Vic missed out to WA on the S14. I think at the end of the day, the ARU went with WA because they would “stick” better during the bad times. I know Vic has a small & loyal base of RU fans, but WA has a bit more.
Al, in the 1930s Victorian rugby was so strong it seriously challenged NSW & Qld as a major power. Unfortunately, WW2 stunted its development.
Of course, Vic rugby has Wea