Enjoy top level Aussie rugby while it lasts
Roar Guru By James Mortimer, 24 Apr 2009 James Mortimer is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Australian Rugby Union, John O’Neill, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Australian Adam Ashleigh Cooper (centre) is tackled by New Zealand's Jimmy Cowan (right) and Ali Williams (left) during the Tri Nations final between the Australian Wallabies and New Zealand All Blacks at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. The All Blacks beat the Wallabies 28-24. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
As the Super 14 enters its final month, the harsh reality is that beyond the Wallabies, top level rugby in Australia is about to end.
John O’Neill has been his typical vocal self in stating his and Australia’s requirements for Super 14 expansion. He is pushing for a fifth team and advocating a backup plan if the South Africans do not come to the table.
It has been suggested that the NZRU are backing up O’Neill, but this is only being made obvious by the Australian CEO himself.
New Zealand chairman Jack Hobbs and chief executive Steve Tew have remained impartial to the ongoing conflict within the SANZAR ranks that still sees us no closer to actually knowing what will occur with our premier competitions – Super rugby and the Tri-Nations – from 2011.
Add to this the documented falling crowd levels and television viewing audience, and this will affect the commercial and financial viability of the re-negotiations.
Only one country holds a relative trump card in all of this: South Africa. Ironic. It is the country of some 44 million that boasts the lion’s share of both stadia based audiences and television numbers.
And in this, there is one aspect of the South African proposal that will not be compromised: that of their premier domestic competition, the Currie Cup.
They also believe that they should receive a sixth franchise, based not only on their wish not to have their own tournament infringed upon, but also on the evidence that they wield the largest pure rugby market.
Irrespective of the above, it is hard to agree that South Africa warrant a sixth team, such as the Eastern Cape “Southern Kings” or a hybrid team of the mistreated Southern Spears. Especially with two or three of South Africa’s five teams consistently bringing up the rear of the Super rugby table.
As former Southern Spears CEO Tony Mckeever stated some time ago: “It is not fair that South African rugby rewards mediocrity”.
Essentially, the original agreement with the Spear’s and the SARU was that they would replace the worst performing South African franchise.
This did not eventuate, and legal battles and existing franchises’ stubborn stances caused ugly rifts in the South African rugby landscapes.
It is here that O’Neill is missing the point.
He talks of a lack compromise by South Africa, and vehemently states that Australia has made a concession in their negotiations.
But in what?
The reality is that it will be South Africa (with the Currie Cup) and New Zealand (with the Air New Zealand Cup) that will be making the compromises.
Australia made theirs a long time ago, which had nothing to do with their fellow SANZAR partners.
When O’Neill came on board for his second term as Australian boss in June 2007, he said the rugby landscape was in “deep ****”.
In 2007, the ARU was in deficit to a horrific tune of $8.48 million.
In the financial report of 2008, they had announced a stunning $9.19 million turnaround; recording a surplus of $712,000. Expenditure was cut by eight per cent, a formidable display of O’Neill’s vaunted administrative capabilities.
But it came at a cost which will only be felt this year.
There is no more Australian Rugby Championship, which was a complete fiscal disaster, posting a near $5 million dollar loss after administrators ran it more than $2 million over budget.
But also, the Australia A program, essentially the Wallabies B team, was scrapped.
While there is a significant Wallabies program this year, with a six match Tri-Nations and likely Grand Slam tour, that is it.
As O’Neill said: “We (Australia) don’t have a Currie Cup or an (New Zealand) NPC but at the end of the day our driving force of our success for 13 or 14 years has been Super rugby or Tri-Nations. We can’t forget that.
“The other stuff makes up the numbers but the revenue, if you ask Fox Sports what they pay the big money for, they pay the big money for Super rugby and Tri-Nations.”
But the foundation of South African and New Zealand rugby power is the success and history of their respective national competitions, and O’Neill must remember this.
For all of the talk of a Plan B, if South Africa is not included in Australia’s and O’Neill’s grand scheme, then the Super 14 as we know it ends – as does the Tri Nations, possibly the world’s premier international tournament.
Australia is not compromising in their proposals for SANZAR as South Africa and New Zealand will need to with the Currie and Air New Zealand Cups.
Thanks to O’Neill, they have already done that.
And it is the Australian rugby public, and quite possibly eventually Australian rugby, that will be poorer for it.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Australian Rugby Union, John O’Neill, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
April 24th 2009 @ 8:45am
Keith said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
What do you suggest should happen Gort?
April 24th 2009 @ 8:48am
Roger said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
James, Australian rugby has survived to date without a national comp…pray tell, what is different this year to previous years?
April 24th 2009 @ 9:00am
mother teresa said | April 24th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
KO YES .AND WHO COUNTERS THE OVERSEAS DOLLARS
AND WHO GETS RID OF THE INCOMPETENCE AT FRANCHISES
YOU ARE RIGHT ITS NOT BLACK AND WHITE
MY VIEW AS I STATED IS ALLOW FRANCHISES TO BE RUN AS PRIVATE ENTERPRISES TO GET RID OF THE WOODCHUCKS,GET SOME VITALITY AND VIGOROUS INTENSITY INTO THESE TEAMS WHICH SHOULD TRICKLE DOWN FROM LEADERSHIP
LIKE YOU IM NO FINANCIAL OR ADVERTISING WIZARD BUT IM AWARE TO CONTINUE THE SAME WAY IS INSANE AND THAT PEOPLE ARE THE BEST RESOURCE AND AT PRESENT THEY ARENT FLASH.
THAT IS WHY APART FROM WHETTING THE JUICES I ASK FOR YOUR SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS.
YOUR SUGGESTIONS OF IMPROVING FRANCHISES ,ABSOLUTELY;OVERSEAS PLAYERS SURE .DOMESTIC COMP OK
WE NEED THE FINANCIAL GENIUS;WE ARENT MUCH USE ARE WE
[mother teresa, please don't use all caps - it's considered rude. Thanks, Ed.]
April 24th 2009 @ 9:23am
Brett McKay said | April 24th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
James, an alternate view on the current impasse – with no domestic comp in Australia beyond club rugby, and with the Australian football market as it is, what else is John O’Neill to do?? I agree with most notions of his outspokenness, and of course that is the way he operates. But ARU does have something to compromise: existance.
So really, he’s only got too options: accept the status quo and stagnate (or shrink), or go on the front foot in an attempt to grow the game. Considering this, it’s a no brainer…
April 24th 2009 @ 9:39am
mother teresa said | April 24th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
editor.100 PARDONS
thankyou teresa
April 24th 2009 @ 10:22am
mother teresa said | April 24th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
brett i believe there has to be a continuity of good rugby product and in my view that requires insight better than mine and financial clout for this insight.
when i said the northern hemisphere dont want our style i meant our s14 chiefs type style which doesnt appeal to the purist.i personally can enjoy both depending on the match.deans at international level was conservative.
better people not politicians would be my suggestion to oneill;that is free up with new blood and vision;dont tweak the same old way ;could this be a third option brett?
April 24th 2009 @ 11:19am
sheek said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Firstly,
Let’s get the historical imperative out of the way. The 1908/09 Wallabies were not a patch on either the 1905/06 All Blacks or 1906/07 Springboks. That’s not opinion, but fact – the results don’t lie.
Furthermore, according to British & Irish scribes, the Wallabies lacked both the forward power of their predecessors & guile in the backs. Sad but true. We were the third of the southern hemisphere countries to send a team “home”, & we’ve remained third more often than not.
And let’s get this concept of Australia as the “The Entertainers” out of the way. In my experience (since 1969), it’s only happened in-frequently. Firstly, when Ella-O’Connor-Campese were team mates in Wallaby teams 1980-84. Then, the Wallabies under Dwyer-Campese in 1991-93. The the Wallabies of 1998-2001.
But even the team of 1998-2001 didn’t play entertaining rugby all the time. The WC victory of 1999 for example, was won with dour rugby, despite a backline capable of tearing opponents to pieces. And look at out sevens record – it’s deplorable.
You read Australian rugby history, & you hear from the Sydney-centric scribes how much we owe Sydney University, & how much we owe the private schools. Indeed, wasn’t it Sydney that kept rugby union going in the 1920s, when it just about died everywhere else?
Yet, it is this very introversion & refusal to expand the game to new frontiers that finds Australian rugby in the malaise it is now ensnared. Australian rugby has had 100 years to develop the game outside NSW & Queensland. Sydney, the home of the powerbrokers, often had this attitude that the weaker states had to “help themselves”. Hardly pro-active & co-operative!
Anyway, I won’t ramble on, except to say, that perhaps Australian rugby is fast approaching the day when it will get what it deserves – which won’t be much at all.
Just recently, I suggested tongue in cheek, the ARU should do a ‘Vichy’ on rugby league, & confiscate all of Australian rugby league’s assets – clubs, players, coaches, fans. Sometimes, there’s too much truth in satire.
Doing a “Vichy’ on rugby league might be Australian rugby union’s only future hope!!!
So James, you may well be right – “enjoy top level Aussie rugby while it lasts”.
April 24th 2009 @ 11:19am
KF said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Hi
Why is this 15th side such a drama – why not 3 or 6 sides (i.e. Super 20) –
1 or 2 SA sides (either Southern Spears or Eastern Province or both)
1 Aus Side (in Melbourne)
1 Pacific Islander Side
1 Japan and/or
1 Argentinian Side
Pick your choice for the additional side if you wish (i.e. Kora, China [HK], India…) Organise in confernces in any shape or form 2 or 4 conferences with full home/away set and finals based on one or two top sides in confernces playing each other in a cup system.
Schedule it for 2011 or 2012.
Cheers
KF
April 24th 2009 @ 11:24am
James Mortimer said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Roger, you are right, Australian rugby does fine without a national comp. But have the Wallabies grown without it?
If it wasn’t for the Super 12/14, Australian rugby would be a far worse state. I believe that O’Neill is devaluing the product by not recognising the SANZAR partners own competitions.
Would O’Neill be pushing his views so vehemently if Australia had their own domestic structure at stake??
And Brett, you are right in the fact that one could argue in the current situation, O’Neill is doing what a CEO needs to do to make his “company” viable.
But his “company” (because he clearly views it as such) is about a brand – and a brand is built on many levels. In one of my different guises I use, I work with hospitality businesses about the essence of brand management. For a great case study, I use the Mcdonalds model. Globally massive and still growing, but its entire model – including corporate – is built on the same principles as their countless stores.
The Wallabies are a brand, but is anything beyond the Super 14 channelling this brand?
In Australia, I recall precious little build up to the Super 14 season. Even now, have we really heard much (beyond writers such as ourselves) regarding the Wallabies. Compare this to the marketing campaigns focused around all other codes.
South Africa are not budging because they do not want to affect the sanctity of the Currie Cup. What is the problem with this? As I mention in the article, O’Neill says that because of this, that SA is not compromising.
Mr O’Neill, where are you compromising?
Equally, the one thing that concern me a little, is that is New Zealand standing strong over their own product, the ANZC. Nine provinicial unions (where the major bodies that dominate the Super franchises were conspicuously absent) have expressed concern to this point.
O’Neill is pushing for a fifth Australian rugby team.
Do Australia deserve to have the same number of top flight teams as South Africa and New Zealand. (not withstanding stacking it with pacific island players). On current and historic Super rugby results, should we not be talking about a sixth New Zealand team??
April 24th 2009 @ 11:28am
stillmissit said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
All these issues disappear if the product is good enough. At the moment apart from the occasional game ie Crusaders v Sharks the S14 games are all very similar and lacking in commitment with too much kicking.
The money flows from that point and if we had solid incomes then SA wouldnt be able to hold a gun to Aus and NZ heads. The unfortunate thing is that rugby admins have long memories and when SA is struggling as they may do, who knows what the pollies in SA are liable to do? Then there will be a payback time and this doesnt help any of the tri nations.
The game needs to grow or fall back to amateur status but we will still have a Wallabies team. I for one dont care too much as I will still watch it and enjoy it. The issue is can we expand and develop the game in Australia and that is what O’Neil is trying to do. Whether the CEO that follows him can keep it up is a different matter.