Packer’s 70s vision for football applies to rugby
Roar Guru By sheek, 11 Jul 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Australian Rugby Union, Australian Soccer Federation, football, Kerry Packer, Rugby Union, Super Rugby 2011, wallabies
In another post, Midfielder mentioned that back in the 1970s, Kerry Packer had offered a deal to the then Australian Soccer Federation (ASF) to bankroll a ten team national comp. The ASF told Packer to go jump.
Packer’s vision was way ahead of its time.
His blueprint allowed for the following teams: Sydney x 3, Melbourne x 2, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Newcastle and Canberra.
I was struck by how appropriate such a national comp structure would be totally appropriate for Australian rugby union.
The only change I would make to Packer’s suggestion for football some thirty years ago would be to replace the second Melbourne team with another from Gold Coast.
Other potential candidates, such as Central Coast and North Qld, would have to wait until a later time-frame for inclusion.
It seems the Super concept is going to be with us for a long time to come, in one form or another. Whether it remains provincial, or transfers to national club, remains to be seen.
In any case, Australian rugby union needs to develop another tier below Super level to broaden the exposure and experience of the next future generation of Wallabies.
Some will argue that Sydney and Brisbane Premier rugby can provide this next tier by themselves. This might be so if we want to keep rugby strong in only NSW and Queensland.
But if we want rugby union to be strong nationally, then of course we need a national competition to reflect this.
At present, Australian rugby appears to be in a rut.
The other footy codes appear to have stolen a march on rugby, though this could change quickly.
But at the moment the perception is that rugby has lost ground to the other codes.
There is a talented group of youngsters coming through the Wallabies, and we can hope to enjoy some good success in the coming years.
However, developing our junior base has once again become a priority.
Australian rugby ought to emulate New Zealand and South Africa, whereby our downturns in success never last more than two years at most, and so we constantly have quality talent coming through, pressurizing and replacing the incumbents.
Recommend this story.
July 11th 2009 @ 11:10am
Spencer said | July 11th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
ok, i will open the bidding. Would that be ARC – with money?
July 11th 2009 @ 12:00pm
Brett McKay said | July 11th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Sheek, glad to see you back on this horse, and there’s no reason why such a model couldn’t work. Does James like rugby, or should we direct that question to Kerry Stokes perhaps?!?
Interestingly, and disappointingly, since they got we rugby fans excited by the mention of the ARC not being as doomed as we thought, there’s been precious little follow-up from the ARU. That in itself is not the surprise, more a case of you raised the idea (I’m talking to you, JO’N), so what’s happening about it??
July 11th 2009 @ 12:16pm
Rickety Knees said | July 11th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Good one Sheek – we Roarers have been on about this for a long time and it is the glaring hole in Australian Rugby. Let’s keep this fire stoked until this hole is plugged.
July 11th 2009 @ 12:50pm
sheek said | July 11th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Brett/Rickety,
I must confess I sent Zac an email last night to pull the post, simply because I thought people might be getting sick of it. Don’t know why I keep returning to the well of frustration? Anyway, here it is.
When Midfielder mentioned Packer’s interest back in the 70s, I wasn’t aware of it, but I was struck by how far-forward thinking his vision was. The current A-League is obviously a mimic of his idea, & it will become more so with second teams from each of Sydney & Melbourne.
With respect to rugby, as mentioned, substitue Gold Coast for the second Melbourne team, & you have an excellent starting point of an ARC-style 10 team comp.
Three teams out of Sydney satisfies history, tradition, geography, economics & social factors. Eastern Suburbs & North Shore are the traditional regions of rugby union, while the Greater West is the future growth. Old money lies in the former two, new money in the latter.
Three teams out of Sydney in a 10 team comp also reasonably satisfies player population distribution.
Spencer,
“Would that be ARC – with money”? More likely WITHOUT money, the way the ARU is travelling at the moment. But as Rickety says, “Let’s keep this fire stoked until this hole is plugged”. (Don’t know how many different sayings you mangled there, mate?).
July 11th 2009 @ 1:13pm
Rickety Knees said | July 11th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Thanks Sheek – yeah I thought did a good job of mangling few different sayings, Rex Mossop lives on!
Like you I just cannot understand why the ARU does not address this.
July 11th 2009 @ 2:04pm
Brett McKay said | July 11th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Sheek, it’s fair to say that we don’t talk about it as much any more, but that doesn’t make it any less relevant or important.
I’m still waiting to read John O’Neill responses to our questions, becuase the ARC (and even TT talks) was a definite topic we wanted answers. I understand he’s a little preoccupied currently with some minor legal matter, but I’m sure he’ll get back to us eventually!!
July 11th 2009 @ 5:04pm
Bay35Pablo said | July 11th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Packer obviously saw money in soccer to make that offer, and had it been done right (which Packer had the people and money to do) we could now be in the 4th decade of a proper professional soccer comp. Yaarrgghh!!!
Why couldn’t Packer offer some money to rugby then, so we could have the WRC kick start to professional rugby 20 years early!?!?!?!
We absolutely need a level to rugby beneath Super rugby. However, it appears to be able to be done in one of 2 ways:
1. The comp starts after the S15 comp finishes in August, so the teams get their Super players back, thus making the comp better and more attractive. I.e. like the NPC and Curry Cup are now. As such, it does not compete with Super rugby, but you end up with it providing the extra rugby after the Super comp, presumably as a backup to the Wallabies. This also allows the current club comp to continue, although it either ends when Super rugby does, or gets gutted of players just as it runs into the finals. I.e. the ARC, but longer.
2. The comp is run while Super rugby is, and probably longer. This means they don’t have the Super players until after it is over (in the run into the finals), and is essentially a premier club comp. This will kill/replace club rugby, and essentially relegate it to the top level of subbies. I.e. a premier club comp with a long season.
Of the 2 the first is probably my preference to fit with the current structure. However, whatever is done must be able to cope with the S15 becoming a bigger and longer comp in due course,, which might make the 2nd option the preferable one in the long run. The decision made now could limit options in due course.
Keep in mind JON’s desire in the S15, to have rugby going longer during the season and not leave after July to the NRL and AFL. However, to my mind the aim is to provide depth, what structure provides the depth we want? Profesionalism without the Wallabies/Super players around, or exposure to Wallabies/Super players, or both?
Personally, I want to see the professionalism extended to a wider number of teams. Currently there are only about 120-150 professional rugby players in Australia. That will increase with the 5th S15 side (assuming it is Australian sourced). This is a fraction of the AFL or NRL/Toyota Cup. It drives me nuts that the NRL U-20s comp can get TV coverage and professionalism when rugby can’t get a pro club level!!!! However, it is easier to watch and a decent quality. But to my mind the ARC (with the then ELVs) provided this!!!
Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. The ARU found that out to their cost, but they started it the wrong year (i.e. a WRC year), with no TV deal, little advertising, no Wallabies players, and with 2 costs they probably should have started without one of – travel for Perth and starting a team from scratch in Melbourne. I’d be interested to see how it would have gone if done right.
Which one do you want sheek? And what do you see as the aims, and how to deliver them?
July 11th 2009 @ 6:28pm
sheek said | July 11th 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
Pablo,
Whatever the ARU does (re national comp), if/when it does it, will have to fit in with current structures, unless of course, the world turns upside down in the meantime.
This means the ARC would follow the S15 or whatever, running partly con-currently with the 3N before getting its own space. This would also bring it line with SA’s Currie Cup & NZ’s NPC.
When we’ve discussed this before, some have raised their concerns that its a bit back to front, that actually the ARC should precede the S15. However, as I said at the beginning, while this might be desirable (ARC before S15), we have to work with the structures already in place.
I’m a bit fatalistic, as opposed to pessimistic, about rugby’s future, but more particularly, their desire to do something about it. Does rugby really want to be a big-time player? Or are they just happy meandering along as the 4th most popular footy code??
It’s about time the people running the game told us where they stand, & I don’t just mean the ARU. The Sydney & Brisbane premier rugby clubs appear most resistant to change. Many of these clubs have had 50-100 years to establish themselves at the forefront of the game.
If they haven’t done so, then they only have themselves largely to blame. I really do question rugby’s desire to be collectively better than they presently are.
July 11th 2009 @ 6:35pm
sheek said | July 11th 2009 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
Pablo,
We’re all mostly agreed why we should have an ARC. But how to deliver the comp, well, I’m not the expert here.
Obviously, 2007 showed us how NOT to do things. Teams not representative of their area (Central Coast); teams playing outside their area East Sydney at North Sydney oval; expensive stadia; (30) World Cup players warehoused.
You could almost be excused for thinking some people didn’t want the comp to succeed, with such blinkered thinking. I’ve always been in favour of selling a “mixed bag” of goodies to the broadcasters – Wallaby tests; 3N; S15 (or whatever); ARC; premier rugby; cross-feed from other countries (SA CC, NZ NPC, Europe 6N, Argentina, etc).
As for costing, it would depend on what the game can afford, obviously.
July 11th 2009 @ 8:20pm
Nird99 said | July 11th 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
I have always been in favour of another teir in Australian Rugby. My concern is that we will be asking (if we have a 10 team comp) roughly 300 more players in the country becoming “professional” footballers. I am making an assumption based on limited understanding that the vast, vast majority of players in the club comps are still completely amataur players. I know that is the case here in Canberra, and would we expect this teir of players to train and play outside of their work hours.
Dont get me wrong i still want this extra level.
What I would suggest is an under 19′s format that precedes the Super 14 games. with 5 teams in an Australian conference, it would offer a semi professional comp for about 150 of Australia’s best junior players. it would mean 8 games a year for each team, exposure to super rugby, a talent pool for super teams and extra value for membership holders, hopefully attracting more members.
Having a comp for this level has worked for league and is what the NSL used to do with the national league. Talent scouts are able to offer training contracts from a younger age and would also help in preventing player drain to other codes. I think it is the best way of developing the junior talent and gives them the best possible pathway to super rugby. I dont know how to address the shortage of players with experience outside of super 14 and what we would do with the talent that is over 19?????