Forget Western Sydney, bring in a Pacific Island rugby team
Roar Rookie By Fragglerocker, 7 Aug 2008 Fragglerocker is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Brumbies, New Zealand, Queensland, Rugby Union, SANZAR, South Africa, Super League, Waratahs, Wellington
Related coverage
Expansion is the way to go. But how about we avoid any more talk of simply putting another team in western Sydney? If history shows anything, it’s that you shouldn’t discount supporter loyalty.
In the mid-90s when league was in their pre-Super League war expansion, a new team – the South Queensland Crushers – was proposed.
It was a done deal.
Jerseys were selling well in Toomoomba, Ipswich and other areas. Then the bean counters stepped in. They saw the size of the Brisbane population and thought, “why not just put a second team in Brisbane.”
They completely ignored the fact that every single league supporter in Brisbane was already a Bronco supporter.
The new Brisbane team failed.
The only way a new Super Rugby team in Sydney can succeed is if it depends on a supporter base that the Waratahs aren’t already targetting.
Somehow convincing the people of New South Wales to support a second team – against the Waratahs – will be a hard task. And no matter how hard the ARU tries to drop the title “NSW” from the Waratahs (or the “ACT” from the Brumbies), they will always be regarded as the NSW Waratahs.
If a second team is placed in Sydney, it must be a Pacific Islanders side.
And it must also be willing to play at least a handful of ‘home’ games in the Pacific Islands and in other Australian and New Zealand cities where there are large Islander populations, or they won’t be regarded as truly a Pacific Islander team by the supporter base they need – Islanders living all over Australia.
Make every game a mini-islander festival: kava, lovo, drums, dancers, the works. I that’s what is required to get the punters into the stands.
If expansion is what SANZAR wants, they need to go all the way.
They want more games in a season? Ok.
They want more teams? Ok.
The New Zealand provincial unions want individual representation at Super Rugby level? Ok.
Why not combine all those and simply expand the Super Rugby competition. Gain more games through more teams, not more games through a home and away series.
Remember a top level English club will play 34 regular season games, plus finals, plus three pre-season games (based on this year’s Harlequins schedule). French clubs are the same.
More games mean more revenue. More revenue means more money with which to pay players.
The new series could possibly be:
NEW ZEALAND (9)- CURRENT S14 TEAMS Wellington, Canterbury, Auckland, Waikato, Otago, PLUS Hawke’s Bay, North Harbour, Taranaki and Southland rugby.
SOUTH AFRICA (8)- CURRENT S14 TEAMS Blue Bulls, Natal Sharks, Free State Cheetahs, Gauteng Lions, Western Cape Stormers, PLUS Eastern Cape Spears, Northern Cape Griquas and the Witbank Pumas.
AUSTRALIA (6) – CURRENT S14 TEAMS Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Force PLUS Melbourne and a Pacific Islander team based in Sydney
REST OF THE WORLD (4) – Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Vancouver, San Francisco
27 teams means 26 rounds, plus finals.
This is still less than most professional rugby unions. So some clubs will lose players for internationals, but this already happens in Europe in rugby and worldwide in virtually every other professional sport – even rugby league.
It doesn’t seem to hurt those European clubs or the NRL clubs whose supporters seem genuinely proud when they have a player selected as a representative.
And if the expansion teams in the rest of the world don’t have the local players to field competitive teams, allow SANZAR players to play for them while still allowing their selection in national teams.
Why not?
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
- Explore:
- Brumbies, New Zealand, Queensland, Rugby Union, SANZAR, South Africa, Super League, Waratahs, Wellington
August 7th 2008 @ 9:19am
JohnB said | August 7th 2008 @ 9:19am | Report comment
How about something like – 4 groups of 6, play the other teams in your group home and away, play 2 of the teams from each other group home and away (on a 3 year rotation, so that you play all of the other teams in the comp in any 3 year block). That’s 22 games, plus a sudden death style final 8 (top 2 teams from each group). Add in some internationals, and that’s a lot of games. The 4 groups – NZ might support 6 teams, so that’s one. SA might support 6, that’s another. I can’t see Aust supporting more than 5 (especially as you need larger squads for a longer season – even 5 then looks borderline), so one team out of Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Japan, Canada, US and Argentina would join that group, and the remainder of them make up the 4th group. I admit that’s not quite ideal if you’re the one odd team out in the Aust group – I also suspect that Argentina would warrant more than one team. From an Australian perspecitve, you’re then playing “local derbies” every year, playing some Kiwis and Jarpies every year, and adding in some more exotic games. Whether the cost could be borne – luckily not my department!
August 7th 2008 @ 11:02am
Chris Beck said | August 7th 2008 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Why base it in Western Sydney?
If one is going to create a “Pacific Islands” team for the Super 14, then we’re talking essentially about Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga. Proposal: have a team composed of players from those three nations, and play every third home match in a rotating fashion – Fiji, then Samoa, then Tonga, then back to Fiji.
Of course, what’s missing is corporate sponsorship, which is made worse by the nature of the island economies. My solution to that thorny problem would be to rope the big multinationals (BHP, Macquarie, ANZ, Toyota, whoever) in as sponsors.
August 7th 2008 @ 11:55am
Blinky Bill - Bellingen said | August 7th 2008 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Solution – Big multinationals (BHP, Macquarie, ANZ, Toyota, whoever) in as sponsors.
Always the golden question from the guys who put up the dosh is “what’s in it for me”?
And the answer is…….????
August 7th 2008 @ 11:59am
Rickety Knees said | August 7th 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Blinky Bill – given this modle’s S14 viewing audience across 4 continents – the ROI on the “Toyota Pacific Islander’s” would be worth pursuing.
August 7th 2008 @ 12:17pm
AllBlackfan said | August 7th 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Guys, having been born and raised in Fiji, I see several problems with this.
1. Base the team in western Sydney and you run the risk of players being targeted by the NRL. A lot of islanders here in west Sydney, especially at a junior level, already jump between the two codes;
2. Travel: already an issue in the S14. Why make it worse by island-hopping? Not to mention the logistical problems with time zones, stadium facilities, etc;
3. Competitiveness: do we get the players from the Islands (in which case the team will be well and truly flogged), from Europe/Aust/NZ (contractual availability) or a mix (good luck!!)
4. Expensive: Increase the costs, you need to increase the revenue stream: an Islander team based in the Islands will always incur more costs then revenue.
August 7th 2008 @ 12:27pm
True Tah said | August 7th 2008 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
There simply isn’t the infrastructure for a professional rugby franchise to be based in the Islands.
If the Islanders compete as 1 entity, then it sort of erodes their credibility as standalone nations at say the World Cup. The Rugby World Cup is probably the only forum where the island nations receive international attention, and that would be better served for individual nations than as one unified team.
They are better served by having their players playing in professional competitions of other nations…now the issue would be which competition….I would want that competition to be Trans-Tasman Competition as opposed to over in Europe, Japan or South Africa, as it would facilitate ease of getting their team together for test matches.
Multinationals have no interest in sponsoring islander rugby, why would they sink $$$ for no return.
August 7th 2008 @ 12:37pm
Matt said | August 7th 2008 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Basing an Island team in the islands has numerous issues. They don’t have economies (even combined) that are large enough to give them a disposable income. The reason that so many Fijians, Samoans and Tongans leave to NZ and Aus is because they can earn more money there.
A team based in the Islands would not get enough money from either Sponsors OR match attendances to be sustainable. They would also add a lot more travelling cost to the tournament but would not increase the income from TV revenue at all. This is because, again, they don’t have the disposable income to afford Pay TV. So the TV deal would not increase by adding a Pacific Islander team.
If you look at the benefits on having an Island team in Super rugby:
A: Showcasing their amazing talents
B: Giving them a local high quality tournament to develop their players
C: Retaining their players and to keep them away from European contract release issues.
then I believe the best option is to simply allow a quota of Tier 2 players into Super Rugby teams. That is ‘each franchise must contain, within it’s playing roster, at least 3 players of either Tongan, Fijian or Samoan eligibility’.
That way the players get to play, the comp gets to showcase the talent and the Pacific Rugby Unions get to have access to a solid group of locally based players who will always be accessable for international fixtures.
That would also allow the current SA, NZ and Aussie talent to spread into filling any addiitonal teams that are added to the comp (ie an extra Melbourne or West Sydnet side) and maintain the current level of playing quality.
August 7th 2008 @ 1:00pm
Wallythefly said | August 7th 2008 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
The idea of the competition continuing despite the Internationals i think would be a massive, massive mistake. As a Waratahs man I can see myself going to every game at the beginning of the season and we’d be doing alright until suddenly the International season starts and half the bloody team is gone!!!!
I think a big problem with league at the moment is that during Origin is that there are games where teams are totally depleted by rep players (esp teams like Melbourne) and secondly you have dud games. The crowds will drop dramatically in this comp once International rugby starts.
August 8th 2008 @ 12:31am
Dicko said | August 8th 2008 @ 12:31am | Report comment
Don’t need a 5th Aussie team. What you need is two from Argentina and two from Japan. Both got decent markets (especially the Japanese) and could help expand the tri-Nations into a 6 nations (SA, NZ, AUS, ARG, JAP, PAC/Is).
Eventually you’d be looking at 4 teams in Aus, NZ, SA, Jap and Arg giving 20 teams. Then split it into two leagues with relegation, each with 20 home and away games and a premiership playoff serries. Say top 4 up, bottom 4 down to encourage mixing within the comp.
The ARU should be focussing on growing the grass roots support, not expanding the proffesional league beyond that which can be supported. With only 25k odd players active in the country its a wonder we can field even 4 teams the way it is.
August 8th 2008 @ 12:53am
Benjamin said | August 8th 2008 @ 12:53am | Report comment
Matt, why couldn’t there be a combined island team based in Australia or NZ?
Dicko, unless those two Argentine teams contained all of the top Argentine players then it wouldn’t be plausible. If Argentina were to be in a 3N their European players would be having a 52 week season. As it stands I don’t think there is enough Argentine talent for 2 competative teams.