By Remy -
February 12th 2009 @ 6:02am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Go broke or grow: where to now for Australian rugby?
The cold hard facts suggest that everyone in Australian Rugby seems to be losing money at the moment. Like any business that hemorrhages cash, it can only keep bleeding for so long.
I noticed an article recently that mentioned that New South Wales is likely to post a loss for 2008, and so too is the ARU. I can’t imagine that the ACT or Queensland are likely to startle world share markets with any ‘profit upgrades’ in the next few weeks. And the Force seem to be losing members (and probably money) quicker than Tim Johnston sailed out of Perth in his firepower fuelled private jet.
So, it begs the question. How long can the rot continue?
Before I focus on the big picture and suggest a few solutions, I really can’t resist asking how long the Western Force are likely to survive? Any sporting team that has its membership halved, its crowd reduced and looses sponsors quicker than it recruits them is on a very greasy slope to insolvency.
A quick review of the Force’s website tells you that they have lost 10,000 members in three years and, by my calculation, that’s a loss of income of around $2.5m – $3.0m per annum!
Granted, some of these members will pop up at the odd game, but surely this loss of income is catestrophic?
I notice the Force announced a profit of around $1m for 2007. How are they looking for 2008 and 2009?
Which brings me back to the ‘big picture’.
Sports development and growth is a little like the chicken and egg scenario. It’s really hard to work out which comes first.
In order to get growth, you need to invest in grass roots development. But in order to have the cold hard cash to do this, you need a TV rights deal.
Now don’t jump up and down and disagree on this point – it’s true. Look at basketball and its slow death as a good example.
The AFL produced the perfect model for game development and growth during the last seven or so years. How? By helping Sydney and Brisbane to be successful.
Was this fair?
Well, that’s another question, but the success of Brisbane and Sydney helped the AFL achieve massive TV deals. They took a punt and the chicken hatched a beautiful double yolk.
All credit to the brains behind the AFL.
So, how can the ARU learn from this?
There’s no secret that an expanded TV rights deal is CRUCIAL to the expansion of the game in Australia. The ARU have pretty much exhausted their cash reserves and can only spend so much on development, so its going to take a very strategic push into the unknown to convince broadcasters to write out some bigger cheques.
And what sort of ideas might excite a broadcaster? One thing: big populations that like watching rugby on TV.
Forget Perth.
The ratings of rugby in Perth are appalling and the ARU know this – think Melbourne, West Sydney and Japan. Big markets, big populations and lots of LCD’s in homes.
The ARU must convince their friends in South Africa and New Zealand that an expanded competition to include teams in Japan, Melbourne and/or West Sydney must be established and set up soon.
In addition to this, the season must simply be extended to a 18 round competition with a top eight finals program.
More games, more TV, more money!
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(75)
True Tah said | February 12th 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Remy
18K packed into Members Equity to see a trial match recently – whilst memberships may have been reduced, Im amazed they still average over 20K at a shit ground for watching rugby and without making a finals appearance. So maybe its not all doom and gloom in the West. They have had a sponsorship deal fall through – a timely reminder for everybody to do their research before doing business with an unproven business, although the Force were not alone there. They have had problems with player discipline and the coach being a dictator.
Where to now for Australian rugby – well its no secret the Air NZ Cup is bleeding cash from the NZRU, South Africa has got big $$$ and pissed off with us for trying to get a Japanese team in and Australia really needs a longer domestic season with fewer tests – get a team in Melbourne and look at creating a Trans-Tasman comp and dissolve Super Rugby in its current format – for the time being.
Yikes said | February 12th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Actually, TT, I hear that Members Equity is a rectangular ground, and that part of the disillusionment of the Force fan base is that Subiaco is so very very crap to watch rugby from – hence the good crowd at a real football venue.
The Force might regain a lot of those members if they find themselves a rectangle home.
sheek said | February 12th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Remy,
I think we’re killing this to death, but as stakeholders, we’re entitled to keep asking questions.
With respect to the problems of the Force – what’s the alternative? Cut our losses & run? I would totally oppose any withdrawal from WA.
I keep pushing a national comp. Why? You need to plant a tree in each separate garden (state) & nurse it to full health. Put the provincial team in the capital city to act like a beacon. Then go out & build your numbers form the ground up (juniors).
And you confirm the strategy arguing how having a footprint in both Sydney & brisbane helped AFL nationally, & with its TV deals. I don’t think it’s rocket science.
I agree with disbanding the Super series in its current format. And providing both Perth & Melbourne (& Adelaide also) with rectangular stadiums will obviously help them. Nor do I think including Japan is the answer.
A Trans-Tasman comp makes sense. Australia has the money & NZ the teams & players. 12 teams, 6 each country, province & capital, as follows:
1. Auckland (NZL), Auckland.
2. ACT (AUS), Canberra
3. Canterbury (NZL), Christchurch.
4. Hawke’s Bay (NZL), Napier.
5. New South Wales (AUS), Sydney.
6. Otago (NZL), Dunedin.
7. Queensland (AUS), Brisbane.
8. South Australia (AUS), Adelaide.
9. Victoria (AUS), Melbourne).
10. Waikato (NZL), Hamilton.
11. Wellington (NZL), Wellington.
12. Western Australia (AUS), Perth.
35 players per franchise. NZL franchises can recruit 5 AUS players, AUS franchises can recruit up to 10 players initially. Pacific Islanders (non NZL/AUS nationals) restricted to 5 per franchise. Obviously, these figures would be reviewed & revised over time (hopefully as Australia especially increases its quality playing numbers).
Pippinu said | February 12th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Going back to the AFL example, it is worthwhile noting that the then VFL was pretty much broke when it first sent South Melbourne to Sydney in 1982. They slowly got their act together during the rest of that decade, created the national comp, and then grew from strength to strength from the early 90s onwards.
So competitions can definitely turn things around, but there are key differences between the two contexts (by the way, this is not to suggest that RU is in as bad a state as the VFL was back in the early 80s, that’s for the experts to determine, I honestly wouldn’t know something like that):
1. The VFL only had to worry about Australia, and it only had to worry about domestic issues. These were a chanllenge in their own right (recalcitrance of South Australia for example) – but they had a bit more control over their destiny than perhaps the ARU does.
2. Following on from the last point, the Super 14s are a strength (high quality competion, international profile, etc) but the involvement of other unions does slow down the capacity to plan strategically and to pursue quick wins – very difficult to make quick changes (whereas the AFL is quite adept at change).
3. Related to both points – any problems that do exist in Australia, are generally not shared by the other major rugby playing nations. So every time someone suggests a change that necessarily involves other countries, I have to shake my head and think to myself: why would other countries want to embrace that change – they are not facing the same issues?
Above all else – this last point is the biggest challenge of all, and certainly a far bigger challenge than anything the then VFL faced in the early 80s.
True Tah said | February 12th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Sheek
I like your thinking re: Trans-Tasman comp, Im going to send some correspondence to the ARU and NZRU to seriously consider this. I would put a team in Western Sydney before Adelaide though, Sydney/NSW is simply too big for one team, even if the Brumbies have captured the South…the last think we would want is the Reds and their useless management taking everything north of Sydney too!!
I too oppose any withdrawal from WA, the Force have achieved a lot over there, even by playing out of Subiaco, not winning much and plagued by off-field issues.
sheek said | February 12th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
True Tah,
I understand the argument about Western Sydney, but it’s simply not practical to have teams everywhere you would like to. I agree Sydney is capable of two provincial teams, but not until after SA is up & running.
But I like the provincial concept of one team/one city/one region. This allows that Province to harness all the players, fans, sponsors, media, etc into the one entity, all with the same purpose in mind (hopefully) – success for that Province.
Western Sydney would still be represented by Parramatta, Penrith & West Harbour in the Sydney Premier Rugby.
Meanwhile, we need to get the game flourishing in Adelaide, the country’s 5th largest city. Just 15 years ago, Adelaide was our 3rd largest city, since overtaken by Brisbane & Perth.
The game’s been in Australia since the mid-1860s, while a comp was started in Adelaide in the mid-1930s. It’s disgraceful that 70-75 years later, the game in SA has hardly gone anywhere.
For the game of rugby union to flourish in Australia, we need to reach into every corner of the country (with player participation). IMHO, that’s an imperative.
Pip,
I agree. I made the Trans-Tasman suggestion in the spirit of co-operation, although it’s never been my first or second preferred option. But you have to have an open mind about (most) things.
Sooner rather than later SA & NZ are going to wake up to the fact that OZ has been getting a free ride (in a manner of speaking) at their expense re the S14. Perhaps for the moment it suits their own purposes. But as soon as they no longer need our input – financial or otherwise – they’ll cut us adrift.
And what is the ARU’s contingency plan? Japan?
I don’t have a problem with developing Japan. But we can’t even develop our own backyard at the moment. And that ought to be our priority.
Remy said | February 12th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
True tah, thanks for the feedback and I agree with your comments on the Aust/ NZ style competition. However, I feel this simply would work with TV broadcasters. Why? Again, its population and the potential to sell pay-tv. A ’super’ competition must exist and include teams in large cities with potential for big revenue. Whilst its not completely pallatable to the purist, its pure economics. And in the world of finance, its all about the bottom line.
In relation to Members Equity, its actually an Aussie Rules Stadium with a few temporary stands on the east and southern side. Whilst this creates the right rugby setting, the standard of facilities is very sub standard. Its amazing that a state like WA, with all its perceived wealth and cowboys, cant build a few decent stadiums?
I doubt the Force will be moved, though there is no doubt they are facing a financial crisis like never seen in Australian rugby before. The ARU needs to assist and I’m sure they will. Some on field results and some off-field maturity would probably help the Force too.
Sheek, I like the idea but I have mixed feelings about a few of those teams. Again it comes back to the level of exposure and ‘uptake’ of the game in each city. Is Foxtel really going to sell that many subscriptions in Adelaide from die hard rugby fans? I think not. Japan looks far more exciting. And, frankly, I really do think we need SA teams involved. In fact I think its crucial.
Pippinu, thanks for the feedback. The AFL have the advantage of being the national sport but are also constrained by their ability to grow.
Whilst some may see this as an advantage, the international flavour of rugby poses a risk to rugby in Australia. Cashed up European teams could easily strip our best players and I’d hate to see the Super competition reduced to something that resembles the ‘A-League’.
Which is part of my point.
By growing our game and expanding the Super competition we’re also potentially safeguarding our players from being lured to Europe. If there are truly big bucks to be spent in Japan, why not invite them to join the club? And even better, they can have two teams if they can bring Sony and Samsung (as sponsors) along.
True Tah said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Remy
I really disagree that the SA are essential – quite frankly they are what is holding Super rugby back – say you follow the Tahs or whatever Australian team and they are winning and you like watching them on TV – then they go to South Africa for a few games and effectively disappear into a black hole – sure you can follow them on the Net and even watch reruns later on, but the momentum of watching your team is gone.
Its not so much a problem for NZ because they are in a better time zone than SA.
If we need to SA teams, we may well have a Heineken style tournament with teams from South Africa, Japan, Aust/NZ and maybe Argentina. I feel if Argentina got a decent pro comp going then it wouldnt be too long until they’re competitive, as their club competition seems bloody strong, definitely stronger than Sydney club rugby…sadly there is a chance the Japs could be the whipping boys, unless they stocked the side full of Kiwis and Islanders. This comp would not be the bedrock of domestic comp.
Have the Kiwis ever realised that by giving Australia a free ride, they are reducing their chances of ever winning the WC…in 1999, if there was no super rugby, Australia would not have won the WC, in 2003, no super rugby, and it would have been an England-NZ final…are the NZRU that stupid, or are they that starved for cash they are willing to sacrifice their chances of winning a World Cup?
LeftArmSpinner said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
remy, I think that your initial premise is not sufficiently grounded in fact to use as a basis for the article. Sure things are tight, but no surprises there. Further, and in the same vein, AFL is a local sport and should not be held out as the beacon foe every one to follow.
20 Years ago, the Japanese economy was held to be the greatest. That myth exploded.
Sports like rugby are driven by the success of the team, be it Tahs, Force or Wallabies. It has been a fallow few years and it is remarkable that things are not worse. In such times, competent senior management is critical. JON and his team are the best in the business. Rugby is in good hands. AUs and NZ seem to be getting on and hopefully SA will get together on things such as the extended finals series in years to come. Watch Rugby continue to expand into the vacuum that is being left by the NRL. Super rugby will become a seies of local derbies in sutiable grounds, and with strong tribal support. Just look at the crowds that the derbies get now. NSW V QLD.These games have appeal because they are local and because the players know that it is an informal Wallabies trial, man on man. The International component will then follow as a finals series.
So relax, it is all okay. The future is secure as long as a No9 bus doenst take out JON!!!!!
pothale said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Am curious about this debate, although I will say first off, it is not something I’m familiar with living on the other side of the globe. Why is the automatic assumption to grow the game, mean more teams?
Australia is a big country, diverse, and with discrete population bases. Different sports are popular in different regions/cities. Why not focus primarily on the areas that like rugby union and support it? Would reducing and concentrating the teams be a possible option to counter the slowdown in financials? A smaller amount of teams would potentially provide greater resources and salary inducements for players.
Ireland and Wales – albeit much smaller countries and playing populations – went the provincial route, and concentrated its players into a small number of provincial teams. Even for those, getting good gates for their weekly matches can be difficult. Munster and Leinster probably fare better than most.
You say that grass roots development is needed to enable growth. However, you haven’t identified – in this article – why numbers are falling, why gates and membership are down, and sponsors are leaving (though the answer to the latter is more obvious). Are some of the teams not good enough? Is a relatively small amount of talented players spread too thinly across too many teams? Is lack of success in S14 beginning to disenchant fans?
Trans-Tasmaan comp may be the way to go since SA have said they would be interested in joining up with 6N as the time zones and travel are easier. Bringing in another country – such as Japan – could be very risky from a geographic and language point of view. It has a drawback, however, in that it isolates the two countries further. Unless, of course, there was value in getting Fiji, Samoa, etc involved as well – maybe initially as a PI team but with the ability to develop separate teams if growth and development happens over time. And that’s an essential ingredient – time. Difficult to put a value on that, or persuade a sponsor to back it.
Are there international examples that Australia could usefully study and adapt for their own purposes?
Lazza said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
“the success of Brisbane and Sydney helped the AFL achieve massive TV deals”
That’s not entirely correct. TV ratings in NSW and QLD are still very weak and the only AFL games that can get any kind of audience are the local teams. Tha’t why the AFL is or was trying to get two new franchises up there. Without significant ratings in 55% of the Australian TV market the next deal may not be as lucrative.
Remember the big stand off with Foxtel? Basically they got everything they wanted since there was no-one else the AFL could negotiate with. The current deal with the FTA broadcasters is still very profitable but not nearly as much as they thought after having to make so many concessions to Foxtel.
Michael C said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Sheek -
The game’s been in Australia since the mid-1860s, while a comp was started in Adelaide in the mid-1930s. It’s disgraceful that 70-75 years later, the game in SA has hardly gone anywhere.
I reckon you’re being a bit harsh (on Adelaide in particular)……
Might I suggest that there are some very good reasons the game hasn’t gone anywhere.
A. the game is entirely in appropriate for southern Australia. The grounds are too dry and hard. That was the main thinking behind folk such as Tom Wills (a Rugby old boy and an advocate for the inclusion of his preferred aspects of the game from the school of Rugby – - – but also cognisent that the full transplant of that game was NOT appropriate).
Sometimes, it just has to be accepted that you can’t swim in the desert – so to speak. Sydney and northern east coast of Australia is a tad bit wetter and more lush. Rugby thrives.
B. the game itself, was NOT that attractive – - many in the Aust Footy states preferred by far their own brand (as did many neutral observors – I refer to published Englishman Richard Twopeny as a quotable source). In Sydney, Aust Footy was on the verge of squeezing Rugby out – - – it seems by many accounts that without the onset of Rugby League, that Rugby was facing decline (and did so anyway, but due to RL).
C. the lack of footballing vacuum. i.e. Australia, esp the Aust Footy states – we amongst the leading football uptake regions in the world. i.e. football as recreation for adults. Rugby was not the prefered version and other forms of contact football became well entrenched.
D. the whole RL/RU divide in Sydney especially.
So, I reckon, don’t go the ‘disgraceful’ path and perhaps aim to berate the administrators of the time. I’d suggest that they never had a hope. Other than to go professional – - – perhaps that’s the basis of your ‘disgraceful’ judgement????
Now – - the modern era, well, perhaps anything is possible. But, I might suggest that climate change, global warming, warmer and drier climates in southern Australia will serve to make either Rugby code all the more unsuitable. If RUgby want’s to seriously expand………it might need to engage in carbon trading.
Remy said | February 12th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Left arm, I perhaps should have expanded my commentary to include my views on the current ARU administration.
JON and his team have done a great job since last year. He’s cut competitions, costs and shown initiative – and thats the point of my article. JON is also on the record as being very pro about expansion in to Asia and particularly Japan. He’s smart. He knows that Japan offers enormous benefits to rugby in the Southern Hemisphere.
As for the AFL, of course they’re not perfect but they have done a few things well. Smart businessman keep an eye on your competition and learn from them. I’m sure JON has some similar views to Demiettrio.
What concerns me most about the ARU is Queensland. Clearly the ARU has lost the battle in this state over the last decade as AFL has grown and league has been successful there. Its time to rediscover a few more Tim Horans and John Eales’s in Queensland and claw some ground back in this territory. As many a Queenslander has boasted, when Queensland rugby is strong, so too are the Wallabies. Simple, but perhaps true?
My point is, unless super rugby does expand Australian rugby does face some challenges. I guess you agree with this. Now is the time for growth and initiative. Lets hope the ARU can lead the charge – they’ve got the smarts to do it.
Lazza, I can assure you that Brisbane, a few years ago, was getting better AFL TV ratings than Adelaide. This is a fact and you’ll find this printed. These results, in early 2000, helped the AFL achieve their great TV deals at the time.
Potale, you raise some really interesting points. I’m actually opposed to a ‘third tier’ rugby competition in Australia. This blurs the lines between professionals (super rugby) and club rugby and costs far too much. The solution? Let the cities develop their own suburban competitions with grass roots support. The sort of rugby we loved as kids and the sort of clubs we used to identify with. But, of course, grass roots rugby should be rewarded, so I’m all for annual under age national tournaments and the states playing games against each other on a bi-annual basis.
I notice there also appears to be a general disliking for SA teams being in the Super comp. I have mixed feeling about this too, but the cold hard facts are important. Rugby in SA is big, they get massive crowds and big pay tv audiences. This is crucial to a TV deal being done. Having SA teams in the competition would be far more attractive to foxtel than the NZ teams. I know that hurt some to hear this but its a financial based argument. Replacing the SA teams with teams out of the Pacific Islands and Adelaide would decimate the financial rewards from a TV deal.
Make no mistakes about it, a city that packs 30,000 people in to a stadium with 100,000 pay tv subscribers is far more financially lucrative to pay tv owners than a city that gets the odd crowd of 50,000 but struggles to sell pay tv….
Potale, you also raise a good question about other sports as an example for growth, internationally. Soccer (football?) in Europe is a good example. Its massive, has huge support everywhere and is driven by….. you guessed it, pay -tv.
But there is one other important thing that helps European and particularly English soccer – private ownership.
Should Australia embrace private ownership? Should the ARU sell off licenses for $3m – $5m per team, establish a salary cap and other rules? It sounds simple, but I really think its something we need to explore.
What does the Roar think?
Lets just ignore any submissions from the “Melbourne Firepower” team……………
Lazza said | February 12th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Remy,
Football, Basketball, Tennis, Golf and Motorsports are always going to have their best talent going overseas. The money is one reason but they have to go to play and compete at the highest level and improve.
Rugby, League and Cricket players do it simply for the money. They can play at a high level in this country.
If all the best talent is playing in our small country then it just means there is not a lot of interest out there.
Remy said | February 12th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Hi Lazza
Good point, but Super rugby is a little different. I believe its the best competition in the world and players going to Europe and Japan are more likely to be motivated by the cash than the opportunity to improve. But of course there are a few exceptions. Though I’m still not sure why Elsom went to Ireland. The opportunity to improve or the cash?
As opposed to Football, Tennis and Basketball where the competitions are on another level overseas.
Woody Warambel said | February 12th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Remy
The AFL TV Ratings in Brisbane a few years ago may have been better than Adelaide’s. But last year they were coming last in their timeslot & rarely topped 100,000 even for Lion’s games.
Lazza said | February 12th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Hi Remy,
I’m glad you love your Super Rugby but its people like me you should be trying to get interested. Coming from a Rugby desert like Adelaide I was only exposed to Rugby in the 1980’s. After watching the Wallabies Grand Slam and Campo in particular I became interested.
Since then I have to be honest and say the sport has stagnated a bit. Tri Nations becomes stale after a while and playing NZ all the time just devalues the games. Super 14 with their non-geographic names is just incomprehensible to anyone outside the sport.
I’m sure you can give me all sorts of reason why this can’t happen but I think you should make the most of what you’ve got. A Super 10 every year involving ALL the Rugby nations with their best players would interest me a lot more.
A club based competition similar to Europe as the 2nd tier would be more interesting as well.
Westy The Real Rugby Fan said | February 12th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
The Western Force are in alot better situation than most NRL clubs in Sydney . How long did the Western Reds NRL team last in Western Australia ?
Melbourne will come soon rather than later and then we will finally cover most of the main cities in Australia . Western Force are here to stay and good on them . Some A-League and NRL clubs wish they had 10,000 members on their list .
AndyS said | February 12th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Just a couple of points:
1. The Force lost Firepower, but replaced them with Volvo. The issues with player sponsorships are, by definition, resolved. The last of the affected players will decide this year what that means to them going forward, but it is not an issue that threatens team viability.
2. I’ll start worrying about Force memberships when they fall below the numbers for the other three Australian franchises. They work elsewhere, I don’t see why it will be different in the West.
3. I think you may need to differentiate between “team” and “rugby”. All of the S14 teams make money – that is why they are capable of funding the amateur game below them. When a union posts a loss, that currently means they have spent more on the grass roots than they made + received from the ARU. Any loss of revenue will be felt at the grassroots level, but the team will survive.
4. Any S14 replacement better therefore make at least as much money. Grassroots development and surburban competitions are all well and good, but they need money from somewhere. If they are self funding through subs and the like, they are a totally separate entity – go nuts, what is stopping anyone from getting on with it now? However, if the expectation is that money will magically appear from somewhere above, then where did the new income come from? As it stands now though, the grassroots can only grow as the professional game grows and the sooner people stop looking at them as opposing concepts, the more likely it is that a solution will be found for the game as a whole.
5. If you want to know what the AFLs big success was, it was this: They managed to convince several separate but individually thriving amateur competitions to combine, creating a single professional entity and relegating the amateur game to feeder competition status. It was a bitter pill for the amateur game, I still remember the recriminations and predictions of disaster, but they are apparently now and “elephant in the room”.
Remy said | February 12th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Westy, I didnt want to compare rugby teams to other sports but our Super teams are, in the main, in better shape than some league teams. League has its place and I admire their connection to heartland, but I wonder if there are just too many teams these days.
The Force are great and they’ve done a great job. Its not their fault memberships have fallen. I guess the novelty value helped their enormous numbers in years 1 and 2 as well. The Force must stay and I imagine they will.
Hi Lazza, I agree with the points about tri-nations. It is a little tiring. I’d personally like to see 2 Bledisloes a year and 2 teams tour Aust each year for 2/3 tests each. Full strength Welsh and French sides would be great to see here.
As for non-geographical names, I must admit it took me around 6-7 years before I decided to pick up an atlas.
Brett McKay said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Sheek, just going back to your Trans-Tasman model, I think for the start-up at least, you might need to skew the number of teams back toward NZ. As you said they have the players. We’ve all spoken about this before of course, and when this idea first grew legs over the Ditch back in August, the 9 stronger NPC teams were pushing a 14 team TT comp with 9 from NZ (funnily enough) and five from Australia: the four S14 teams plus Victoria.
As a starting point, this would seem to make sense to me and would include little cost in terms of player relocation. Over time, perhaps you might look at going back to the 5 NZ S14 teams as well, if having teams from Japan or the PIs or Argentina was to again become an option. 14 teams would seem to make sense for me, but I don’t for a second think Australia could ever provide more than five. I like the idea of South Australia, but lets get Victoria bedded in first..
Midfielder said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Remy
Union will not go broke a total nonsense to suggest that it will …. that union management does not know how to build a grass roots park support network is far more important than money… dare I say football with only a fraction the money of union has a much larger base of grass roots park teams than union…. so look to the management getting on board people with the skills needed to build the support network you need …AFL & Football have heaps of people you could steal that can show how its done.
sheek said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
Michael C,
I understand some of your points, don’t accept others.
When I say it’s disgraceful, SA rugby hasn’t developed in over 70 years, the jibe is directed mostly at the ARU. I happen to know some SA folk who quite appreciate their rugby. And the SARU site is as good & well constructed as any in Australia.
So I think some/many people down there are just crying out for opportunity.
Interestingly, rugby union had better opportunity to expand when an amateur sport. People moved because of work opportunities, & took their love of rugby with them, spreading the word. Rugby league, ironically & by contrast, was hamstrung by its professionalism. People weren’t interested in taking the game to new markets unless there was some personal reward involved.
Now dare I say it, the same ailment will blight rugby union as a professional sport – “Show me the money” (first)!
The story of how Victoria, Tasmania, SA & WA embraced Australian football over rugby union/league is an interesting one that I haven’t embraced, meaning I haven’t fully read, absorbed & understood the whole story.
As for climate, I reject this. There are some tough grounds in South Africa & Namibia on the fringes of the desert. Doesn’t stop them loving & playing rugby. And I wouldn’t call the Adelaide Oval a desert! However, the operative word here is ‘oval’, & I do think a lack of appropriate facilities is a contributing cause.
Like Melbourne & Perth, Adelaide needs a dedicated rectangular stadium, another besides Hindmarsh Stadium.
Getting back to my “disgraceful” jibe, the traditional attitude of the ARU & Sydney/Brisbane clubs, was that they should develop themselves (Vic, SA, WA). Although I’m at a loss to understand how they were supposed to do this without significant assistance from the parent body & stronger unions on the East coast.
I also get depressed talking to good, rugby union loving friends in Sydney. Their rugby world is bounded by the Pacific Ocean, Hawkesbury River, Blue Mountains & Shoalhaven River. it’s all about protecting the Sydney Premier rugby clubs. Ditto the good folks in Brisbane.
Such selfish insularity & blinkered thinking is suffocating the game to death.
sheek said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Remy,
JON is smart, but he’s not the messiah. I certainly support expansion into Japan & mainland Asia, but at the same time, Australian rugby needs to develop its own backyard. What’s a good illustration?
Well, try this. When I first learnt to play chess, I was incredibly reckless. I would try to ‘checkmate’ the opposing king in half a dozen moves. But too often I left my defences horribly exposed. And then spent too much time on the back foot as I came under tremendous attack. I learnt the hard way that chess, like most sports, has to be built on solid defence.
Ditto life. What’s the point of opening up rugby to Asia, if our backyard is left exposed & under-nourished?
The saying, “When Queensland rugby is strong, Australian rugby is strong”, is a nonsense. And I consider myself a Queenslander, although I live in Sydney.
It’s true Queensland rugby pulled Australian rugby out of its mediocrity in the mid-1970s. And for the remainder of the 20th century was usually the stronger state than NSW.
But its also true for much of the 20th century, Queensland hasn’t always pulled its weight. So the saying is one of those urban/regional myths that spring up without sufficient credibility behind it.
AndyS said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
With respect to an expansion Super rugby team in West Sydney, surely the better outcome would be for the Waratahs to bridge the gap and actually represent NSW. If there is enough support for a whole other team currently going untapped, no wonder NSWRU is posting losses. That would have to be a better outcome – bring the West Sydney support into the fold and still allow the expansion team to access another location.
sheek said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Brett,
Yeah, I remember that T-T model (9 NZ, 5 OZ teams), & I don’t have any problems with it.
While I’m willing to discuss it (& perhaps accept it), personally I feel Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Argentina should be encouraged to develop their own domestic national comps.
As I’ve pointed out recently in other threads, the one exception is Australia. That can’t be a good thing, surely?
Remy said | February 12th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Sheek, as an avid chess player that too has learnt to be patient, I agree with your views!
As for Queensland, you are certainly right. I wonder whether its now time for the ARU to really work with Queensland to rebuild playing stocks and counter the development of league and afl? Its a state that is growing at an impressive rate.
Midfielder and Andy, we all know rugby wont go broke. There are lots of reasons why. The Force have been magnificent and their contribution to the game and its profile in Australia is quite underrated. If only their govt would help out with a better stadium.
Michael C said | February 12th 2009 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Sheek -
Yep, I kinda figured that might be what you meant.
- – the difference with Namibia and RSA is that they hadn’t developed their own version of a handling game more suited to their climate. For whatever reason. Melb after all had the wealth, growth and relative isolation (from land wars!!) etc to indulge itself. Once established – the availability of a compelling alternative is an issue. The fact that Sth Aust is only so great a population also over the years would thwart a code like RU (and again, having RU AND RL in Australia is just plain silly if both now seek to ‘expand’ into territories where Aust Footy and soccer are perhaps 1 and 2).
On Pips x-ref to VFL circa 1980s……….well, not sure that can be a blue print, as, a lot has changed since then – and those ‘opportunities’ don’t really exist anymore. The ARC was a stark reminder that the Australian landscape can be mighty tough and mighty unforgiving if you don’t get it (at least mostly) right. (AS Pip also mentioned) RU is a wierd beast via Sanzar, Super 14s etc. It needs it’s own unique structure – that goes without saying. Good luck I say, I wouldn’t want that job!!!!
ohtani's jacket said | February 12th 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
I’m not really in favour of a Trans-Tasman competition, but I agree something has to be done to liven up the Super 14 and Tri-Nations.
allblackfan said | February 12th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
The NBL, NRL and netball competitions show that you can safely involve trans-Tasman teams on a regular basis.
Aussie teams in the NPC (that’s what I choose to call it) would be a safe option but not necessarily the most attractive one (especially with Big Bad John at the helm of the ARU) from an Australian point of view.
However, what’s the alternative?
The ARC?
Look at how well that worked out!
Keith said | February 12th 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Sheek, I kind of like your team list, but if there’s riots in Taranaki let it be on your head.
Actually, I could see the NZ teams working on a promotion/ relegation system with the second division being played domestically. Shame Australia couldn’t do the same thing, would have been good for the symetry of the comp.
sheek said | February 12th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Michael C,
The reason behind going into Vic, SA & WA is to have a ‘presence’, a foothold. Not to challenge AFL or Soccer. The point is to find rugby’s niche market. It’s like buying property, it always seems so expensive, so out of reach. But it’s relative to each period. You have to start somewhere – & get on the treadmill!
You’re right about getting the structure right for any national comp. The ARC was a good idea, but oh so poorly structured.
Keith,
the idea was to combine the 6 biggest cities/provinces in country. Well, Gold Coast is larger than Canberra, but the latter is the Aussie capital.
With NZ, you could argue giving North Harbour the 6th spot. But I followed the NZ cricket blueprint. It was mainly a discussion exercise anyway. As mentioned, not my personally preferred option.
westy said | February 12th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
In my area of Western sydney it must be understood we rely on not only the Emu’s and two blues but West Harbour and more especially EASTWOOD. It has been the partial decline of this club that has hurt. The Two Blues have wonderful volunteers but only 1 full time employee the Emus none.The NSWRU has positioned itself recently to have the Waratahs with a separate Board ie. Waratahs INC with the possibility of another independent team under a separate board in the future both under the umbrella of the the NSWRU.
The problem for nearly all of the Australian super 14 teams is that unlike their NZ and Sa counterparts they are responsible to a mucjh greater degree in the actual development of the game. They attempt to do so to the best of their ability but simply do not have the resources or expertise to do so.
The rugby community does recognise its role in the development of the game in western Sydney . its support of prarievale High School is exhilerating and a proud achievement. the problem is that this engagement must be consistent and on a continuing basis not adhoc.
It is hurtful to some but some of our players simply fade to rugby league in western sydney because of its superior development and coaching practices from U16 to U/20. We simply cannot match it at the moment. For example the Two Blues have two excellent brothers one a current state rugby rep the other a lay down for selection this year playing for the parramatta Eels harold Matthews. There are more. They are our players but we lose them ( hopefully only for a time).
the waratahs for all their efforts can do little about this and the ARU and NSWRU in their special development project last year chose Northern suburbs and penninsular for their development strategy. It would I think be best if we once and for all accept that the Waratahs do not any longer represent NSW. This is not true and fails to acknowledge that NSW South Coast and South West Country NSW rugy are now aligned officially with the Brumbies. It is the Brumbies who do the best at the development side of their role followed probably by the Force.
All is not lost . As Midfielder says Australian rugby is far from broke but the next time ARU puts together a nest egg of over 20 million it woud be appreciated if it used the funds to unapolegetically direct the funds not towards the top end but the development of the game in critical parts of the country of which i believe Western Sydney is a key area.
westy said | February 12th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Andy S I will be at the Waratahs game at Homebush. I have not threatened not to attend. Check with the NSWRU but some supporters have. I acknowledge that the game location could cost the Waratahs upto 20000. The key is we will be taking a number of junior district teams from western Sydney . We aim for converts we aim to win over new supporters we aim to give access to people to elite live rugby. All power to NSWRU for the courage to commit despite the loss of income and explanations to sponsors. I unapolegetically encourage all Waratah supporters to attend North /East / South and West . I know it is further to travel and inconvenient but the game needs the faithful and any newcomer or non rusted on fan is the bonus we seek.
onside said | February 12th 2009 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
I dont have any real answers. None at all
But let me state the obvious.Australia is a big country.A union or league blockbuster is
QLD V NSW.But they are at least an hour apart IN THE AIR .This is not London to Bath .
This is London to Brussells.Roar supporters,sorry, QLD Reds (same same) cannot grab
the tube ,or a bus ,for a local derby.I bet most Reds or Roar suopporters have never been
to Adelaide,let alone Perth. How many Wellington supporters have visited any where in
Australia let alone Perth.OK, rugby, Auckland to Perth.Same same.That’s a bit of a stretch
for a home and away.
WHATS MY POINT?
No matter how pragmatic the above suggestions, Australia is different .Australia does not
make sense ,never has, and never will. 20 million people. Bugger all population.Too much
for some things,too little for others.What works in rugby both Sydney and Brisbane,is a
very competitive tribal system. Marketing gurus have desperatley tried to transport ‘the club
to the stadium’.No photos on the walls,no,, ‘there’s me dad scoring a try in the 1955 thirds
grand final”. No ‘old buggers’,having a quiet chat to the young blokes. No wives having a
glass of wine with “the women’ whilst the blokes tell each other lies in the club bar.(just the
one these days)I have no suggestions that make sense to the number crunchers ,but I know
this,THE CORNERSTONE OF AUSTRALIAN RUGBY IS THE CLUBS. Thats it.Ignore that at your
peril. Many times in my lifetime I have seen one company take over another and destroy
the brand name of the company they bought. Super 14 is doing that right now.I am no where
near clever enough to have answers,but I can see the ‘family/rugby’ brand is being destroyed.
The gurus think the ‘new you beaut Super 14 razmadaz’ will become the staple diet.It will not .
It never will ,it cant..WHY? Rugby is an aquired taste.Its impossible to truly appreciate and
understand rugby unless you have played it or you have sold a million hotdogs as a mum in
the canteen.The gurus are trying to dumb rugby down,make it seem like a simple game,a game
for the spectators.It aint.And it never will be. The beauty of rugby is you must work hard at
grasping it,knowing if you have never played it ,you never will.Yes a newcomer can enjoy it ,
and talk the talk.But ther attraction of rugby ,like boxing,is it is a violent sport.Rules define
excess.But mark my words,a rugby player can only do his best at his own level.There is
a direct correllation between a front row forward under pressure in a Test match ,and a front
row forward under pressure in a thirds grand final at GYMPIE Individually they are the same,
because its the best either man can aspire to.The Gympie thirds number 2 ,relates to the Test
no 2. Those people that have never played the game haven’t the foggiest. Thats rugbys
‘rite of passage.’ Doesn’t matter where you played or who made the hotdogs.
I read this again and I am not sure I have made my point,but the wine was good.If I was in China
somebody would by know be knocking on the doo r because this ipost is too convoluted.
I have never played rugby. But I can see the foundation of the game is being whiteanted.Lets
put the game back five years.Lets slowly get some sort of interstate inter club thing going,and
find a way forward.Nothing complicated. take it slowly.Super 14 is a different beast.
I realise what I say is unrealistic to many.However I believe the future of rugby in Australia must
somehow or other be built on existing club emotions .I dont know how.I have heard the rational
economic arguements(impossible to disagree with really) but i am sure the on;ly way rugby will
flourish in this country relates to existing clubs (not teams). How ?,I dont know, but find a way.
Mr O’Neill sir,ignore the clubs at rugbys peril
Yikes said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
I’d just like to say that Onside’s post above is officially one of my most favourite Roar posts, ever!
westy said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
For all my whingeing Onside go the Two Blues for better or worse.
Midfielder said | February 12th 2009 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
Onside
Excellent .. what more can I say .. also agree totally.. would add just that you also need to support the WS clubs as well.
ren said | February 13th 2009 @ 12:00am | Report comment
remy, this year is supposed to be the force’s last at subi oval, well according to the sunday times (so 50/50). They will then move to ME as they were initially meant too. Personally i put the blame at the carpenter gov who failed to provide us with anything to show out f the boom years other than some nice artists impressions before the election and the following financial crisis.
also firepower was only the second sponsor, the major sponsor emirates is still on board.
Michael C said | February 13th 2009 @ 5:18am | Report comment
Onside -
good point.
That’s what’s happened in the AFL – - no longer do we hear about 9 clubs in Melb (10 in Vic) are too many and X number MUST ‘go’. The AFL has realised that the heritage and supporter base etc of these clubs IS an asset. And also, realised that the ‘fortress’ Melbourne is critical to sustaining the ‘outposts’.
Rugby (U) seems to have allowed (by poor design or grand opposition) their home fortress to be eroded. Not good.
mitzter said | February 13th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
The problem with rugby union, however, is that if you haven’t played for a club you don’t support it. For instance, in Sydney not even all of the city is covered by the premiere clubs why would a cambelltown boy support or care about any of them! Let alone the rest of the country. I would argue that these old clubs are what have held rugby back over the last 10 years
Matt said | February 13th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Once the Force get into an upgraded Members Equity I think a lot of the waning members will return. It’s similar to the Homebush vs SFS debate, but in reverse? Is it better to have a bigger crowd in a half empty stadium, or a full house in a smaller but better suited stadium.
I can only imagine the electric feel of a sold out rectangular ME stadium in Perth hosting Super rugby games! It would also be the line in the sand for the WA government to do something of substance to either expand Members Equity or to reshape Subiaco.
The Force will need to ride out the Mitchell saga and continue to recruit East Coash Australian talent, until they can build a franchise with a bit more history. As a Rugby club they are still only a baby and are yet to go through all the growing pains associated with new beginnings. Either way they are still one of the premier sports franchises in Australia.
As for Australian Rugby’s future, there are so many positive options to look at. They have a close neigbour that has the best playing stocks and Rugby brands in the world. They are also on the doorstep to Asia. They are in charge of a game that is booming internationally and they are under no real threat of folding any time soon. What I have personally found interesting is JON’s comments about the next Aussie S14 team being most likley in Western Sydney? I would have thought Melbourne would offer the most in TV revenue increases or any Aussie side? But maybe he realises that many NSW NRL teams are on the brink of boom or bust and is keen to pick up some pieces? Surely it is a matter of time before the number of NSW sides becomes too much to sustain, especially when the salary cap level seems to be under constant question and when not all sides are financially equal. With the Super comp inevitably expanding later into the year (with longer playoffs), and with VERY strong indications of the Pumas joining the Tri-nations then Rugby will be poised to claim more TV money (more Airplay), more sponsorships and more interest from casual fans.
I reckon the real issue for JON and the ARU is which of the many roads is the most positive. They certainly have many good options.
AC said | February 13th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Matt,
I agree. A move to ME stadium will bring a lot of members back. It seems that the majority of the doom and gloom comments regarding the Force from contributors to The Roar are from east coast people with limited or no connection to people on the ground in Perth. They forget that there was a grass-roots ground swell of support for the Super rugby franchise being awarded to Perth. I know — I was there at Subiaco for the supporter rally’s with thousands of others! I didn’t see it in Melbourne: they arrogantly presumed that they would automatically be awarded the franchise because of their financial clout.
The Force are a talking point for many people in Perth, but how crap Subiaco oval is almost certainly comes into the conversation at some point and is far and away the biggest turn-off for even the rusted-on supporters.
sheek said | February 13th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Onside,
That’s why I argue the provincial system. It’s unique to rugby union (& cricket). Other sports have national super clubs – Essendon, Collingwood, West Coast & Sydney, etc in AFL; Canterbury, South Sydney, Newcastle & North Qld, etc in NRL – which works for them.
More importantly, the provincial structure protects the clubs, especially the Premier Rugby clubs, & gives them all a clear position in the hierarchy of structure.
How does a provincial structure work? Not all that differently from the current NSW, Qld, etc state system. At the apex you have the provincial rep team – Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Force, etc.
Below them, you have the capital city Premier Rugby clubs – Randwick & Manly, etc in Sydney; Brothers & Sunnybank, etc in Brisbane; Royals & Tuggeranong, etc in Canberra; Nedlands & Kalamunda, etc in Perth, & so on.
Below them you have the suburban leagues in the capital cities, & the regional leagues in the country areas. Below them you have your junior rugby – high schools, primary schools, districts & zones.
From the ground up, the juniors feed the regionals & suburbans, which in turn feed the premier rugby clubs, which in turn feeds the provincial sides, which in turn feeds the Wallabies.
The history & tradition is there in the states. So is the state tribalism, although carried over from other sports (e.g., cricket). The tribalism also remains in the premier rugby, suburban & regional comps.
Crikey, what on earth is so difficult or wrong to understand &/or embrace about this system/suggestion?????
sheek said | February 13th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Never let it be said I will let the matter of an Australian Provincial Championship (APC) rest……….just yet!
1. ACT Brumbies, home base Canberra (comprises Southern NSW & ACT).
2. Eastern Australia Cockatoos, home base Newcastle (ex NSW Country & comprises Northern NSW).
3. New South Wales Waratahs, home base Sydney (comprises Central NSW).
4. North Queensland Heelers, home base Townsville (ex Qld Country & comprises North Qld, obviously).
5. Queensland (Rampant) Reds, home base Brisbane (comprises South Qld).
6. South Australia (Black) Falcons, home base Adelaide (comprises all SA).
7. Victoria Rebels or Axemen, home base Melbourne (comprises all Vic).
8. Western Australia Force, home base Perth (comprises all WA).
Dousing flames of concern:
1. Provincial proposal continues state & regional history, tradition & tribalism.
2. Provincial proposal protects Premier Rugby clubs & their history, tradition & tribalism.
3. Provincial proposal ensures Premier Rugby clubs as last stop before Provincial & Wallabies selection.
4. Provincial proposal provides clear pathway from grassroots juniors to ultimate Wallabies.
Last call (well, make that another call) for the Bandwagon. C’mon, jump aboard. I promise it will be a ride to remember!
sheek said | February 13th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Some of you guys are concerned about tribalism, tradition, history…..well, let’s get the juices flowing with a look at the APC colour schemes.
ACT Brumbies – traditional colours blue & gold (used to play in blue & gold hoops, like Bay Of Plenty, NZ).
Shirt: dark blue saddle with gold bands on white; Shorts: dark blue; Sox: dark blue with gold bands on fold.
EA Cockatoos – carry over NSW Country colours of orange & black.
Shirt: orange, black collar; Shorts: black; Sox: black with orange fold.
NSW Waratahs – traditional colours Cambridge (sky) & Oxford (navy) blue.
Shirt: sky blue; Shorts: navy blue; Sox: navy blue with sky blue fold.
NQ Heelers – carry over Qld Country colours of royal blue & white.
Shirt: royal blue; Shorts: White; Sox: royal blue with white fold.
Queensland Reds – traditional colours of maroon (primary) & navy blue (secondary).
Shirt: Maroon; Shorts: navy blue; Sox: maroon with twin white bands on fold.
South Australia Falcons – primary colours red & navy blue; secondary colour gold. SA have so many shirt variations, I will go with the following.
Shirt: red & navy blue hoops (wide) each separated by gold bands (narrow); Shorts: navy blue; Sox: red with single gold & navy blue band on fold.
Victoria Axemen/Rebels – traditional colour navy blue; secondary colour white.
Shirt: navy blue & white hoops; Shorts: navy blue; Sox: navy blue & white hoops.
Western Australia Force – traditional colours yellow & black. You may not know the Force adopted their ocean blue jersey so as not to clash with Wellington Hurricanes in S14. However, they can revert to traditional colours in APC.
Shirt: yellow (or gold) with black (or blue) trim; Shorts: Black; Sox: black with yellow (gold) fold.
Either WA or EA may require slight tinkering to avoid colours clashing. That is, yellow/gold with orange.
Now try telling me none of this incorporates tribalism, history or tradition.
Remy said | February 13th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Some great ideas here and I’m torn between my love of tradition and the need to be innovative.
Sheek, to expand on your theory (and I do like it) do you think the ARU should scrap being part of the Super comp and develop an Australian Super League? Would this work? Would the TV deal be enough?
8 Australian teams could play in a 18 round comp with a final series after that of course.
Then, the best 2 teams from Aust, NZ and SA could play in a Tri-nations club championship and this could occur before the international series starts. Would this work? I think it may.
This model seems to work well with soccer (football) in Europe. Countries have their own leagues and the best few teams compete in the European and UEFA Cup. Both of these comps are very highly regarded.
The more I think of this, the more I wonder if it would be better. Imagine our top 30 players (in Aust) playing in an Australian domestic comp each year? The public could relate more to their teams and at least appreciate where the opposition are from.
It would probably also allow the ARU to focus more on local and club development.
And further, an enormous amount would be saved in accom and travel costs by not involving SA and NZ.
Personally, I’d much prefer to see the ‘tahs plays Melbourne than the Cheetahs (with all due respect).
True Tah said | February 13th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Sheek
you’re beginning to convince me that perhaps we dont need a Trans-Tasman competition to sustain – we may be able to go it ourselves.
I would envisage that the top two teams could go to a Heineken Cup tournament with the best NZ/SA/Arg/Jap/Islander teams if possible. Perhaps start it basic and have Aust/NZ/Jap/Islander as a Pacific Style comp.
The main issues for mine are
-Where are the players going to come from?? Lets face it, Australia does not have enough decent players ATM, but I think the situation has much improved from a few years ago, with the Force – a lot of guys are getting exposed to a higher standard of rugby – its no coincidence we are being spoilt for choice in the number of playmakers we’ve got.
There are a few solutions – I note the Fed Govt is keen to bring in Islander workers – Im just as keen to see some of these bloke arrive with a pair of boots instead of them heading to France and Japan – lets face it, they cant make a living in their homeland, and there’s not too many Islanders in a place like Adelaide – an Islander player like Finau Maka could become a cult figure in a place like Adelaide.
You could argue the same for Argentinan players, but I think the language barrier and the fact a lot of them qualify to play in france by having Italian/Spanish grandparents.
The other area is NZ – I can’t see how the Air NZ Cup can continue with 14 professional teams, this is going to have to be reduced, and this means reduced opportunities for players in NZ – like the Islands, its easy for Kiwis to come here (a little bit too easy I might add), so this seems the best decision. The Kiwis will whinge about it like most things, but this comp will hopefully mean that we dont need to rest of NZ Rugby to keep ourselves on life support and tell em to pay their players more.
To counter this the ARU has been pretty insular in its view to foreign players, look at the troubles they caused NSW when we wanted to sign the South African bloke…no such troubles for Qld and Force when they signed a bunch of Kiwis though.
the other main issue is $$$ – without NZ and SA the chances are any Pay TV will be a hell of a lot smaller than what it is now…I guess the apple would be the Heineken Cup style comp, if it involves Japanese teams, then it may carry the Australian domestic competition, sadly Pay TV seems to be the key for a successful sport. Whilst I think we could probably get some sponsorships on board (e.g. something I dont think would worry the Cockatoos), the new sides would need to be run as PE vehicles.
I dont know how crowds would go – judging from the ARC, I dont think Melbourne, ACT or Perth would have too much trouble getting crowds, nor would the Cockatoos. Adelaide would be a deadwood at first, as would Qld Country.
Crosscoder said | February 13th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Matt
Whilst i understand where you are coming from re the NRL viz a viz salary caps and the Sydney clubs it is a tad presumptive to suggest Sydney NRL clubs will bust at this stage.
Please note Gallop’s and the NRL’s committment to ensure that Sydney clubs survival is a vital part of 1) retaining an 8 team televised deal.2) retaining faith in the Sydney based fans .3) Avoid other codes filling the vacuum as happened in Nth Sydney a union strong area.4)The Next Tv contract due 2012 will also be uograded.
Another point to note the under 20s Toyota cup,has now a $1.7m per annum Fox Tv contract,which according to the NRL covers the costs of running that comp.That is a further relief for the NRL clubs.
Whilst NRL clubs in Sydney and don’t kid yourself S14 and AFL clubs will also feel the pinch during the current financial crisis,other sources of revenue have been and others being investigated, and games being played in venues such as Adelaide, will provide more income.
Membership for NRL clubs a recent innovation for that code has seen clubs already exceed last years figures.Perth is not off the NRL radar,so expansion will happen when the intnl crises is over.
Their are contingency plans drawn up by a committee involving Michael Searle called the “Doomsday ‘document,ie a backstop for worst case scenarios.Relocation is one example.You retain the teams,logos and colours.
It is worth noting that the NSWRL has just set up a new base for their Western Sydney Academy in Penrith,to further increase the base of 20,000 juniors.
The fat lady hasn’t sung I suggest.
Brett McKay said | February 13th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Remy, an interesting idea there, the TN Club Champs, it could actually work. However, one thing I have to pull up: there is no way in hell that the ARU would agree to play in ANY competition with the word “league” in it. Some wounds just never heal.
Sheek, good stuff as always. Confirm my seat on the ‘wagon please, I’m in. I still think the Trans-Tasman comp has more legs, but I really enjoyed the ARC as a whole, and would love to see some kind major Australian rugby competition.
westy said | February 13th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Brett and there is the rub you miss out on a majority of your support base. I am not a revisionist just willing to accept it took two to tango alas there was always blame on both sides. I get a national competition you can call it what you like especially because it is agame for all.
Brett McKay said | February 13th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
sorry Westy, are you referring to the ARU not wanting to play in a “league”, or the demise of the ARC? Apologies if I’m missing something really obvious, but you’ve lost me..
sheek said | February 13th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Remy/True Tah/Brett,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Can I see daylight at the end of the tunnel? Or is that a train coming towards me!
Remy,
It is not my intention to dissolve the S14 or equivalent. However, as I’ve tried to explain in other posts in other threads you can’t have a 14-16 week S14 comp PLUS a 8-10 week APC. Something has to give!
In order to implement the 8-10 week APC, the S14 needs to be truncated into a Heineken Cup style format of similar 8-12 weeks duration.
Also, it’s not practical to have a full home & away APC (each team playing each other twice) of 14-16 weeks, similar to the AFL , NRL & HAL. The Wallabies are required to still play a minimum of 10-12 tests per year, of which the domestic component (including away matches to ABs & Boks) would account for about 7 out of 10.
To have leading Wallabies miss 7 out of 14 APC home & away matches is too many, I think. That is why I’ve gone for a truncated S14-16 comp early in the season, then the domestic tests, followed by the APC before the end of season Wallaby tour.
The international fixtures required (10-12 tests per annum) is a component of the season that the AFL, NRL & HAL don’t have to contend with. Although the Socceroos come closest to this figure.
With the APC, Australia is the last of the 4 southern hemisphere countries to inaugurate a national domestic comp. It is my suggestion the remodeled S16 comprise the first 4 provinces from each of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Argentina domestic comps.
They would be split into 2 pools x 8 (two provinces from each country per pool). Crossover quarters, semis & a final to follow – 11 weeks competition max.
Then would follow the 4N with the 4 southern hemisphere countries playing each other once (max 3 games). To have a full home & away program (6 matches each) might be too much. Especially for EVERY year.
Then the APC kicks in late August/early September to late October – 8 rounds including double up local derbies. Local derbies would be – NQ v Qld; EA v NSW; ACT v Vic; SA v WA. This gives everyone an even 4 home & 4 away games. Semis & a final to follow.
Would the media moguls buy this? Well, consider this, with Fox Sports as our example:
1. They still have the Wallabies playing a minimum of 10-12 tests per year.
2. They still have a S14, now a S16, comprising Argentine provinces – 16 weeks x 94 matches changed to 11 weeks x 63 matches.
3. They still have a 3N, now expanded to 4N including Pumas – either 6 or 12 games total, compared to current 9 games.
4. There is now also an APC – 10 weeks x 35 matches.
Overall, similar total of matches for programming purposes. With APC replacing truncated S14-16 matches lost. Furthermore, reciprocal deals can be made between the host broadcasters of each country to view leading provincial games from their country. Also test matches outside 4N.
Also, co-operation between Fox Sports & ABC to broadcast leading PR club matches to each respective capital city. Finally, the sponsors would have to be happy. Not only would their products be advertised across the southern hemisphere, but also to every state & territory of Australia.
I know it’s not perfect. But I’ve gone to the best of my ability to combine desire with practicality, innovation with tradition.
sheek said | February 13th 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
True Tah,
Where will the players come from? This is obviously the major problem, & there’s no avoiding the reality – initially, we’re going to have to accept a reduction in quality per team. Obviously.
At present Australia has about 132 professional players across 4 franchises. Each has an academy of about, I don’t know, let’s say 20 players.
Each of the 8 provinces will require 35 players. The above 132 divided more or less equally, will mean 16-17 players per province. Academy players makes another 2-3 per province. You could open up 5 positions per province to islanders (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga).
Perhaps also you could open up another 5 positions to other nationalities (NZL, RSA, Britain, Ireland, France, etc). That’s brings us up to about 28-29 players per province. The remaining 6-7 per province will have to come predominantly from Sydney & Brisbane PR. Who knows, many league players might become interested?
What is obvious, is that the 8 provinces & ARU would have to work their buts off developing pathways & player participation numbers in each province, especially the non-traditional rugby states. The hope is, 10 years down the track, South Australia for example, would be producing provincial players from their own junior ranks system, instead of interstate.
When that happens, the number of overseas players quota can be looked at, & pealed back, if that’s practical. One other thing i forgot to mention – there’s heaps of players plying their trade in Britain, Ireland, France, Italy & Japan. How many – 100 plus? How many of these guys might be enticed back to Australia to appear for an APC province?
If/when the APC is up & running successfully, it will scare the pants off NZ. Especially the potential for money the APC could generate. It’s true NZ can’t sustain the number of provinces they currently have. But that’s their problem to resolve.
onside said | February 13th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
I would like to hear from the ‘decision makers’.The suits in carpet land who mould rugbys future.
This site overflows with creative pragmatic ideas and opinions .Roar posts bristle with passion.
Sheeks rational appeal for a national competion for example,others tweaking creative submissions.
But there is the constant dread,the feeling of hopelessness.Is anybody out there.Is anybody listening.
I would like to hear from somebody in RUGBYLAND.Tell us whats wrong with our ideas ,and why
they will not work.Or, “hey,thats a good idea sheek,we’ll have a look at that” .Instead we talk in the
dark and argue in a vaccuum. Its not only frustrating, its humiliating. Being ignored when passionate
about something does that to a person. Economic rationalism in Australian rugby is killing passion.
Waterboy said | February 15th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Gentleman,
Does anyone know the number of junior clubs, and junior participation numbers, League compared to Union in WA?
Waterboy said | February 15th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Matt,
Those rose coloured glasses of yours has the administrators of the other codes smiling, and what is holding back your code. By all means be positive, but you have to be realistic.
Union is on the doorstep of Asia…….so what. Aren’t the three other codes also? If any code has a foothold in Asia and an opportunity to capitalise on it financially, its soccer
For both soccer and Union your biggest problem can be summed up in one sentence…NO FREE TO AIR DEAL!
Without one, you have no financial clout, and no exposure to the masses.
I think it is fair to say that the residents of Unions heartland in Sydney is more likely to be able to afford Pay TV than the occupants of League’s traditional heartland. Yet Toyota Cup outrates Super 14 on Pay TV. Rose coloured glasses Matty.
Without a free to air deal, you’ll only ever be a bit player on the Australian sporting landscape.
Many contributors to this topis have esposed the performance of the AFL administrators and how they haven’t put a foot wrong over the last 20 years. I agree they have done very well, most specifically having everyone rowing in the same direction by way of an independent commission running the code. But no one seems to have mentioned the most obvious reason the gap between AFL and League has widened in the last 20 years as the number one and two codes. That reason is Super League.
AFL never had to endure an issue that took League to the precipice practically, financially and emotionally.
Super League was a massive leg up for all rival codes in NSW and Qld. With League on its knees, and completely exposed, no other code was able to deliver the knockout blow.
For League to be back where it is in just over a decade since is a miracle in itself.
Matt said | February 16th 2009 @ 5:25am | Report comment
Of the 4 football codes only one is truly direct competition for Rugby and that is League. Soccer is a summer sport played in the summer months to avoid direct confrontation. And when it does compete head to head it tends to do so with the other predominant ‘football’ code, which is the AFL.
Also, while soccer is undoubtedly well established in Asia, it has done so without the guidance or assistance of Australian Soccer. This differs significantly from the opportunity of Rugby Union whereby Japan Rugby (and the other emerging rugby nations of asia) offer the opportunity for serious financial incentives directly into the coffers of the ARU. And of all the established Rugby nations on the planet Australia is the closest geographically, has the most similar timezones and has also done more trumpeting for the asian rugby cause. Hence why they have a great opportunity Waterboy. It is true that the NRL and AFL are on the doorstep to Asia also, but it is soccer (who has already been invited in for the odd party) and Rugby Union (who has the spare key) that are best poised to take advantage of that potential.
As for the lack of financial clout and exposure to the masses, they aren’t necessarily inclusive ideas. Pay TV is where the money is globally, not FTA. FTA is what keeps the kids interested in the game, whereas the Pay TV keeps the best athletes in your sport. Rugby Union has a pretty solid financial base, even in Australia. It’s no secret the money on offer nowadays for Rugby Union players in Europe and Japan comes from wealthy individuals and companies who are passionate and supportive of the game. Sometimes being an upper-middle class supported sport has it’s benefits I guess? Although I can’t really relate to that notion coming from NZ.
But if Union is Australia was really in financial trouble I’d imagine that JON and the ARU would have to relinquish their control over domestic player contracts and sell the 4 Super franchises to private investors, as is the case throughout Europe. I’m sure they could find 4 very wealthy groups to ease the burden of the ARU having to pay all those players. That would leave the profit from the Test matches to go straight into the games growth.
This may well end up the case anyway if the two Hemispheres are ever able to agree to an international calendar where club vs country conflicts are removed. Coz the ARU would loathe to end up in the RFU’s position of having to beg/pay for player release anytime they need to change their minds.
The Super League is a fair enough call Waterboy, but surely League already had a leg up in Australia thanks to Unions amateurism. Look how fast Union has grown internationally since the game went pro 13 years ago. What’s gunna happen in the next 13 years? I though these were just regular tints, not those fancy rose ones.
Katipo said | February 16th 2009 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
The problem with speculation about a super-product that broadcasters will buy is that there isn’t as much money in publishing and broadcasting these days. Newspapers aren’t the cash cows they once were & credit isn’t so easy to get. I strongly suggest that the value of TV broadcast deals has peaked already and future deals will be a fraction of what they are now. For pro-rugby to flourish it will need to be self-funding.
I predict that the super series will devolve in to domestic tournaments for practical reasons: to save money on airfares and accommodation. Common sense will prevail and teams representing traditional “geographic” areas will replace “franchises”. Which franchise do you support? Ummm, McDonalds?
Sheek, you will eventually get your national club/provincial tournament, but probably not the way you think you will.
westy said | February 16th 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
Matt i obviously study my rugby history and declare again as our forbears did rugby league in Australia is ” a 9 day wonder”I am not necessarily against what you say just interested in who you say which geographical area the Waratahs will represent? or will they be split? Painful realisation is they may be missing half of Sydney and the North Coast. Parramatta penrith and Southern Districts are broke and Eastwood is not looking to good. Self funding at what level?
Matt said | February 17th 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Katipo, it’s an interesting prospoect the new SANZAR broadcasting deal. SARA have already sold off the TV rights to the Currie Cup and their in-bound Tests (not sure about the Lions?) so these will not be on the table for the next deal.
The Air NZ Cup will be, but goodness knows what that will be worth if SANZAR and the NZRU continue to undermine it’s importance and push the Super14 longer (and take out the AB’s completely). The irony there is that Aussie rugby fans yearn for the creation of a genuine domestic provincial competition while JON’s Super14 push continues to degrade what has been the world best provincial competiton.
Fans in NZ seem less and less interested in these competitions by the year, simply because the game seems to be growing away from them and the ideals they once represented. It would be ironic if Super rugby was to evolve into and expanded number of franchises and then into a conference style system only to become a qualifying tournament, like the Heineken Cup whereby you have to be the top 2 in your conference/ local group to make the finals. Why not just play the Super 14 as a qualifying tournament for domestic provincial teams from NZ, SA, Arg and Japanese company teams? The only thing missing is enough Australian representation.
Maybe JON should simply allow more foreign based players into the Aussie sides (aimed mainly at players from Asia, the Pacific and Americas) and simply introduce two new teams into Victoria and West Sydney? Then reduce the foreign quotas over a number of years until they are 90% Aussie qualified players? What I can’t really fathom is the huge cost of continual travel across the Tasman and Indian Ocean (and Australia) coupled with the known idea that local derbies are better supported by walk up crowds and TV audiences, yet the whole foundation of the Super14 is in play every single team when the costs are huge and the crowds are low?
Surely the ROI for a H-Cup qualifying style tournament is far more cost effective?
Matt said | February 17th 2009 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Westy, without ever having spent much time in Sydney I’m not the best person to talk about the sociol spread of the city or the geographical splits, although I’m not completely ignorant. But in my humble opinion I imagine the current Tahs side to represent the more affluent (again not the most knowledgable on these issues, apologies) Eastern Sydney suburbs and a bit of the north. Certainly not the west or the northern coast/central coast region etc. I think the West deserves its own team to better represent it’s unique identity and to really capture a rivalry that I somehow envisage already existing within rugby circles in greater Sydney. I can just imagine the sydney rivalry of a derby match between the Tahs and their western siblings. That’s just me though, maybe a joint NSW Waratahs is better for the sport?
Brett McKay said | February 17th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Just to keep this thread going (not that Sheek would ever let it stop
), we might need to give Trans-Tasman rugby a serious thought if South Africa pull their teams out of S14.
Watne Smith’s article from The Australian today: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25064310-2722,00.html
Brett McKay said | February 17th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
attempting to unite a couple of topics here. In another thread in reply to The Australian artcile above, Sheek wrote:
“Brett,
This is another reason why I have made my suggestion of truncating the S14, & giving glory back to the national domestic comps. In South Africa’s case, the Currie Cup.
My intention is to partly appease SA. I for one take their threat seriously to defect SANZAR. Unlike NZ, who needs Australia’s greater financial resources, SA doesn’t need Australia or NZ, either for finances, or players/teams. NZ on the other hand, have the players/teams, but require Oz’s greater financial resources.
A Trans-Tasman comp is still very feasible of course. However things pan out, Australia & NZ are more vulnerable than SA, which can stand alone if needs be. Oz & NZ need to work out contingency plans that may both include & exclude SA.
In any case, I have argued hard Australia is leaving itself exposed by failing to do something to develop a national domestic comp, however difficult the prospect may appear.”
Sheek, couldn’t agree more, and this potential move by SAf highlights just how exposed Australia could be. As you say, SAf could easily stand alone with the Currie Cup, and I’d even argue that if the NPC was to go back to full-pro status, after an initaial period of hurt, it may well propser again for NZ rugby. At that point, the ARU would have a serious problem, as no-one is going to put up with NSW, Qld, ACT & WA playing each other for very long.
Some kind of Trans-Tasman comp, or maybe a Pacific rim comp (as suggested on NZ RugbyHeaven) with Japan, the PIs, and the Americas, needs to be considered urgently.
(BTW, a sad indication of the local RH site, that this story doesn’t even feature. RH NZ and The Oz have it as lead stories…)
sheek said | February 17th 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Brett,
The above discussions don’t include the 3N, which I believe the Saffies still want to be a part of, irrespective of where their provincial sides are playing. Smart thinking on their part.
And I agree, NZ could quickly get back on their feet much quicker than Oz, if the S14 fell over. Although the Kiwis mightn’t be able to access as much funds as Oz, they have the advantage of a powerful provincial set-up.
At the moment, NZ domestic rugby is inefficient. If they reduced the 26 provinces to say, 2 divisions of 8 (total 16), they would reduce a lot of inefficiency, I might suggest.
This still leaves Oz out on a limb. We might think we’re very clever, using the Kiwis & Saffies to help give us a pseudo domestic comp. But if we’re abandoned, we’re going to look very foolish indeed. Striking a deal with the Kiwis over a Trans-Tasman comp becomes even more imperative as a fallback position.
I shy away from having a comp involving teams/countries from all over the pacific, or before, right across the southern hemisphere. You can of course, but I wouldn’t want it to be going past 10 weeks absolute maximum. You need pools, & access to one bye round per team.
Brett,
I notice on this ‘The Roar’ quite often, soccer stories get gangbuster replies compared to rugby articles. And occasionally, even AFL stories. For a site that began primarily as a rugby site, it’s a sad indictment of the passion of rugby fans, that we get “out-passioned” by the footy fans!
True Tah said | February 17th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
sheek
all the rage on the futbol blogs seems to be over their issues with AFL and some post match comments made by the Adelaide coach, whereas the rugby posters actually talk about the games.
Brett McKay said | February 17th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Sheek, I did notice SAf wanted to remain in the TNs, and you’re spot on, this is a smart move on their part. Interestingly, the RHNZ article I read was pushing for them to leave the TNs as well, and return to reciprocal touring every 2 or 3 years.
And I agree on the whole that the obvious starting point in Aust and NZ teams. 5 + 9 would seem a workable number of teams, and you’d probably want the comp to be a full home and away draw, so that Wallabies and ABs only miss the TNs period. Run the finals toward the end of the year, and with all players available. And go back to regional names!!
BTW, my last comment wasn’t so much about The Roar, but i do take your point. But in this case I was referring to this story (SAf quitting Super rugby) not even featuring on the Sydney, sorry, Australian RugbyHeaven site, while it’s the lead story on the NZ equivalent. The Oz and Foxsports sites are obviously still running it too….
sheek said | February 17th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
TT,
True enough. A lot of posts are along the lines of – “I know, you don’t”, or “you’re a dope, no you’re a dope”, or “its blue, no its black”, etc, etc, etc.
Brett,
I refuse to visit Oz rugbyheaven which is, or was, run by the same mentality as I described above to True Tah. A thought to keep in mind if SANZAR ever collapses – “when one door closes, another door opens somewhere else”.
Whatever replaces SANZAR, if it comes to pass, might actually be better, providing we’ve done some preparation. For example, a somewhat historical return to rotational tours of SA, NZ & OZ appeals to me.
Westy said | February 17th 2009 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
The Guiness premiership clubs will have their salary caps REDUCED next season from the current 4,2 million pounds to 3.5 million pounds to tide them over to the next television deal in 2010. I am as guilty as anyone else in perhaps holding a microscope to the ARU and rose coloured glasses to oversesas professinal rugby. Even in the strong professional English rugby club competition belts are being tightened.
Matt said | February 18th 2009 @ 5:14am | Report comment
I also doesn’t help British rugby when the pound continues to plummit compared to the Euro and that all the French clubs (even in the 2nd Div) are privately owned by very wealthy individuals.
So apart from clubs like Bayonne trying to lure Benji Marshall to play along side Craig Gower you now have Brive signing English players like Andy Goode and now Riki Flutey, the Kiwi who England have so hypocritically recruited and namedd in the elite player squad before he had yet to reach residency time, is off to Bayonne. With other Wasps (and Enlgand) players James Haskell and Tom Palmer leaving to play for Ewen McKenzies Stade Francais there has been a hole ripped through the heart of the London Wasps club.
Rumours have obviously been ripe also regarding Danny Ciprianni, but he is apparently gunna sign on for another year for Wasps and see what offers he can field after that. I find it ironically amusing that the Guinness Premiership clubs (Premier Rugby) has once again hurt the national teams chances of a stable platform. Just when the RFU thought they were getting somewhere with the agreement to make payments to whichever club could produce national talent, the clubs instead take all the money and put it into a shared pot. So teams like Wasps, who claimed to have had to return over 700,000pounds to the pooled fund, get as much for having to release a multitude of England stars. While teams like Worcester, who are full of foreigners, get money for nothing. And the end result is that Wasps can’t afford to keep their England players at the club and they all leave for France, where the RFU and Premier Rugby multi million dollar deal means jack all.
No preference and no requirement for the French clubs to release their players for England. And the trend is likely to continue even further, with more ProD2 clubs (like Racing Metro) ambitious about getting into the Top14 and willing to spend the money to get there.
So finally the English club might start to feel a bit of what South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have felt over recent years when their clubs can’t afford to hold onto their players thanks to richer pastures. What must sting England the most is that France is right next door, but with a warmer climate and increasingly more money. Maybe, now that self interest serves their cause, the RFU will start to think about ways that poorer clubs and coutries can protect their talent from millionaire European club owners.
Crosscoder said | February 18th 2009 @ 6:59am | Report comment
What appears to be lost on some,when referring to French and Japanese ru clubs many with wealthy owners,some company owned,is the real and growing threat to their finances.
In Japan we have had IBM pullout of supporting their pro union club.The Japanese economy last year sank by an anualised basis of 12.7%.That judging by the latest dour economic news coming from Japan,could be the tip of the iceberg.
As far as France is concerned,they have fare if that is the right word ATM better than the UK,however their car industry,and others are now slowly grinding down.The wealthy club owners who are passionate about their game,are only as passionate as their money holds out.Just ask Gerry Harvey of Harvey Normans.
In any case one has also to consider growing complaints I understand, from within the French rugby union,that there are simply too many foreign players,limiting their own players’ abiltity to gain a slot.I am sure Laporte the sport’s minister has an eye open on that one.
All it will take is for one club’s owner in the FRU to be unable or unwilling to pay the players,and the proverbial fan will be well and truly hit.
The big unknown are the TV contracts FTA and Pay Tv for the codes in Oz.The TV companies aren’t exactly enjoying boom times financially,therefore ratings,advtg etc will play a big part.Those codes enjoying FTA currently, with decent ratings will have their fingers placed deeper into the money jar.A point worth noting.
True Tah said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Crosscoder
you are definitely right about the foreigners hurting the French national sides prospects – whilst it has benefits the likes of the Islands, Georgia and Argentina by exposing their players to a professional setup and made plenty of Saffas and Kiwis wealthy, I can see the French rugby side going to way of the English futbol side for the same reasons.
Matt said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
One interesting point I have heard raised regarding PayTV and FTA TV is how each recieves revenue. Apparently the Pay-TV channels make about 90% of their income from Subscriptions and 10% from advertising (although this has obviously developed of late, because I still remember the days of ad free pay tv). Whereas FTA make all their money from advertising.
And in recents recessions (obviously not as sizeable as the current one though) Pay-TV subscriptions have actually increased rather than reduced. Apparently this has been put down to families deciding that in tough times they should stay at home more, rather than going out, and they still see Pay-TV as a valuable investment.
So the 2010 TV rights renewal shouldn’t be too much doom and gloom for SANZAR. It will instead be the FTA supported activities that will be hit the most by the recession.
As for the French invasion, it would be nice if Laporte and Lapasat could figure out a way to prevent too many ‘foreigners’ from playing French (and English) club rugny. It must certainly start to affect their national sides eventually, but previously the Kolpak situation has prevented any such discrimination by nationality. An ideal world for the sport globally would be the prevention of hiring other Tier 1 players, while players from lower Tier naitons (like Romania, Georgia, Pacific Islands etc) could earn a living from their sport and play in a pro environment. But all that is a long way off though.
I also agree that the times must be becoming marginalised for some of these big spending foreign clubs, yet they still continue to grow their wealth and continue to offer massive money to lure talent. It seems that while these French clubs are run by rich individuals, they are not the same super rich guys invested in English Futbol etc. Maybe they are in safer waters because offers like those given to Flutey, Haskell and Frans Steyn are still sizeable.
sheek said | February 18th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
It ought to be obvious to anyone running a professional sport, be it rugby, football, cricket or whatever, that a balance must be found between generating revenues & providing pathways for future test players.
For decades the English Country Cricket Championships helped hone the skills of numerous foreign players, while sending England backwards. While the EWCB got rich, the national team became talent poor.
Much the same could be said for the EPL & the England football team. Also, those great underachievers of international football – Spain – whose clubs & Premier League were the standard bearers in quality & revenue for decades.
Now the same is happening with English Rugby & the Guinness premiership; & French rugby & the Top 14. It’s great they allow overseas players into their leading clubs. But they’ve gone crazy on the idea. With the consequence native born players are being marginalised.
If any good will come of the financial downturn, it will force clubs & controlling bodies to remove the excesses from their game, & adopt a common sense approach (if that is at all possible!!!).
The Link said | February 19th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Matt – has Pay TV in Australia been through a recession? Wasn’t the last one in 91 / 92? Pay wasn’t round till at least 94 from memory. I’d say we’re in virgin territory.
Pay TV deals will be based on subscription growth. How S14 achieves that in Australia with heavy exposure to relatively saturated Pay TV markets in NSW / QLD and ACT is the key.