Melbourne has won endorsement from the ARU Board as Australia’s sole contender for the 15th Super Rugby licence.
The hugely-popular provincial competition will expand by one team in 2011 with the SANZAR joint venture to decide later this year on where the new side will be established.
While the 15th team will play in the Australian Conference as part of a revamped and extended Super Rugby format, interested parties in South Africa and New Zealand are also bidding to have the side based within their national boundaries.
“It was for this reason that the ARU Board accepted a recommendation from Management to put forward only one bid to the next stage of the selection process,” said ARU Managing Director and CEO John O’Neill.
“The decision to be made by SANZAR before the end of the year is not where in Australia the team will be based – but in which country.
“Therefore, it will be in the ARU’s best interests to proceed with what we consider to be our best and most compelling option.”
There were seven Expressions of Interest initially lodged with the ARU – three from Melbourne, and one each from Western Sydney, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and NSW Country.
NSW Country withdrew from the race last week as ARU senior management travelled to each of the regions to discuss their ability to meet the SANZAR criteria for Super Rugby participation.
In finally settling on Melbourne, the ARU has also called on the three parties from Victoria who put forward separate Expressions of Interest to join forces to ensure Australia’s prospects of securing the 15th Super Rugby licence are maximized.
“We want to make sure the 15th team is in Australia; thus the ARU will facilitate the potential for a seamless and sensible amalgamation of those interested parties. It will surely put us in the best position possible,” Mr O’Neill said.
“There are elements in each of the Melbourne EOI’s that ensure the sum of the parts will be extremely powerful. They offered a variety of advantages – from the proven ability to operate and finance a professional sporting franchise to delivering on crucial Community Rugby activities. We intend to align these components in a sensible format of ownership.
“At this stage in the evolution of Super Rugby, we believe Melbourne has the best chance of success.
“We are in a three-nation race for the licence and we want the 15th team in Australia. So we need to focus our energy on what will be our most compelling bid.
“However, that is not to say we are turning our backs on other areas that we consider extremely important to our strategic plans and future development.”
SANZAR has indicated the expansion of Super Rugby will not necessarily end with the move to 15 teams in 2011.
A new competition format – where five teams will play in an Australian Conference, five in a South African Conference and five in a New Zealand Conference – will offer the option of increasing those numbers to six or more per Conference at a later stage.
Other expansion options would also be available if teams outside the SANZAR nations were to be included in the competition.
“We believe Western Sydney, Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast all have great prospects for the future,” said Mr O’Neill.
“At this stage, though, Sunshine Coast does not have a stadium.
“Gold Coast and Western Sydney certainly had strong applications and we are absolutely determined to grow the game in the western suburbs of Sydney where the junior numbers are strong and the population continues to increase.
“This is not the end of the aspirations those regions have to be part of Super Rugby.
“It’s simply a matter of looking at where the game is now, how far the respective parties have gone down the path of preparing themselves for potential entry to the Super Rugby competition, and making a decision on the best contender.
“ARU Management took to the ARU Board a recommendation that Melbourne was our best chance of securing a fifth Australian team.
“The Board, after significant thought and discussion, gave a unanimous endorsement to that recommendation.”
ARU will now pass on its endorsement of Melbourne to SANZAR, with the joint venture to decide shortly about how many interested parties will be asked to make formal bids for the right to establish the 15th team.
A final decision from SANZAR on the successful bidder is expected in late October.
The winning bid will field a fifth team in the Australian Conference alongside the NSW Waratahs, Brumbies, Western Force and Queensland Reds.
Under the Conference system that will be introduced along with the additional team, each side will play the other four in its Conference on a home and away basis for a total of eight “local derbies”.
Each team will also play four of the five sides in the other two Conferences – on a home or away basis – for a further eight matches.
If the 15th team is based in Australia, the number of regular season games in Australia will increase from 26 to 40 – an increase of 54%.
The total number of matches in the competition will increase from 91 to 120 – an increase of 32%.
The playoffs will also expand to include six teams rather than four. The finals will last three weeks as opposed to two. There will be five games instead of three.
The length of the competition will also increase from 16 weeks presently to 21 weeks in 2011.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ARU, Melbourne, Rugby Union, Super 15, Super Rugby
August 12th 2009 @ 4:06pm
MarkH said | August 12th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Ben, not a good idea as once its gone, there wont be another chance. NZ and SA have enough, we need somewhere for players to go other than syd bris and act. Good call ARU. Now get on with it.
August 12th 2009 @ 4:56pm
Republican said | August 12th 2009 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
Amateur Hour.
Semantics there. Melbourne is the cataylist to Vic getting the nod based on its corporate clout predominately.
Vic has very little else to offer Oz ra ra, certainly not as a nursery at this juncture and this will be born out as was with the Force, when its time to get their playing list in tact.
The bulk of the side will be players from NSW, Qld or the ACT and perhaps some internationals, with a token Vic or two to satisfy the illusion that is the tribal criteria.
This criteria would be better served by basing a team in demographics i.e. Western Sydney or the Northern NSW coast but the problem is that the Tahs are the Union that soley represents NSW in provincial terms.
This works against the heartlands in that respect because it implies that Qld and NSW are unlikely to ever be afforded another Super team and they will continue to supply non Union demographics with the majority of their players. An analogy is the Storm, a decade or more in Melbourne/Vic and still no grassroots to speak of, feeding into their elite squad.
I really dont believe Union has the depth in this country to sustain another Super Franchise as was sorely revealed with the inception of the Force. This is the converse for Australian Football or even League with the latter struggling to get any sort of a foot hold in Melbourne as it is, certainly far more than the Swans are in Sydney.
So how will Union go in Melbourne? I believe it will eventually succumb to poor patronage and have to be bailed out by the ARU who will then persist by re locating either the Force or Brumby’s, in order to expediently maintain a presence in this mecca sporting city. Remember, Union is in serious recession throughout Oz and even NZ, so why you would ever contemplate putting a new brand in the AFL heartland of the country during these perilous economic times, I do not know.
August 12th 2009 @ 5:07pm
Pippinu said | August 12th 2009 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
Republican
Some harsh analysis there.
In fairness, rugby has had a presence in Melbourne for the best part of a century, granted it’s not big by any stretch of the imagination, but on that score it’s well ahead of League.
The Force’s attendance numbers are/were pretty decent, but I suspect this new team won’t reach that.
Would the ARU be please to get a number somewhere between the Storm and the Brumbies?
August 12th 2009 @ 5:18pm
Pippinu said | August 12th 2009 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
Comments from some HS readers:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,25919243-11088,00.html
Interestingly, 4 of the 6 are quite positive, and 2 of the six question whether we need another rugby team in Melbourne (this might seem a curious response to all Northerners, but it is also indicative of the work the ARU has ahead).
It will be tough, but the ARU had to go with the 2nd largest “province” in Australia, to have done anything else would have been the biggest cop out imaginable.
August 12th 2009 @ 5:53pm
Republican said | August 12th 2009 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
Pippinu.
The Force have a huge Saffa expat population not to mention the ubiquitous Kiwi, which helped them reach healthy membership numbers and gates however these have been slipping markedly over the last season. Perths grassroots are yet to contribute to the national cause but they may just require more time, thats all.
I cant comment on what the ARU would expect in terms of punters for the Melbourne gig. Melbourne also has a healthy population of P.I’s who are the backbone of the Storm patronage, so perhaps they will support both. I agree with you that Union should fair better based on the games historical criteria although I hasten to say that this bares little relevance to success in 2009.
Interestingly, the VRU had been trying to poach the Brumby’s almost immediately after they were beaten by the west for the 4th franchise and this had O’Neils blessing on his first watch, before he went across to Soccer so anything is possible with a banker of his credentials at the helm.
The Storm seem to average around 10g a home game while the Brumbies have gone from having 20g to 13g over about three seasons which is dramatic. Alot of Canberra punters became disillusioned by the lack of support for ACTRU over a decade and more, on the part of the governing body who refused them represenation on the board, keeping it a Qld, NSW closed shop until the Force came to fruition. The ACT were also subjected to a barrage of anti Brumby publicity at the hands of the Tah backed Sydney media who in cahoots with the ARU, were also constantly making clandestine threats to relocate the side to Melbourne. This simply compounded to errode any trust or future vision the Brumby faithful held and punters have been leaving the game in droves ever since.
I just think Union is a game that lacks depth of support across the board in Oz so while it should by now have been making inroads into the Oz sporting culture since going professional, it onlly languishes behind the other footy codes.
I think much of Unions demise can be attributed to the old boys culture that continues to dictate what has been insular and perfidious type governance, most of which has come out of NSW. This aside, the game just does not passionately engage the majority of Australians and I dont see that changing with or without a Melbourne franchise.
August 12th 2009 @ 8:19pm
Pippinu said | August 12th 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Republican
I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying (I often mention the poor treatment the ACT has had at the hands of the ARU – wasn’t a vacant board position once filled by an NT rep, leaving no ACT representation?).
But I’m thinking that to get at least 10,000 (like the Storm), is certainly possible – whether that’s good enough for the ARU, I’m not sure.
Also – a Vic RU team has more chance of having a Victorian start a game than does the Storm – right now – that might change in the next few years.
I’m a Victory and Western Bulldogs member, but I see zero threat from having both the Storm and a Vic union team. Melbourne’s a big market, and both teams are going to have membership numbers of around 5,000 to 10,000, maybe 15,000 at a maximum – Melbourne’s plenty big to cope with that (all other things, like the economy, being equal).
August 12th 2009 @ 6:41pm
MikeN said | August 12th 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
This was the best and only decision possible. It is the only decision that the broadcaster will accept and the broadcaster holds all the purse strings. The broadcaster will want increased viewing numbers and a new market to expand in. What do the other countries have to offer here? What can SA and NZ offer in their exisitng and saturated markets, where is the potential for market growth for the broadcaster? Then within Australia, how would locating the team in Qld or western Sydney increase the broadcaster’s market?
Not saying Melbourne will be easy to crack, but it is a market that likes to support sport and it is starved of international competition. Its up to the ARU to make sure the business plan will maximise the chances of success.
Something like the ARC is required to grow the Qld coast’s, NSW Central Coast and Western Sydney, as well as providing a second layer in Melbourne and Perth. Somehow the ARU has to make that happen?
August 12th 2009 @ 7:44pm
Matt said | August 12th 2009 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Mark, SNAZAR! Works much better for me, has a real ring to it.
The (ACT) Brumbies must be breathing easier now the Melbourne threat has lessened.
August 12th 2009 @ 8:14pm
Working Class Rugger said | August 12th 2009 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
MikeN
Something like a National Academies Championship. Involving the 4(5) Super Team Academy set ups plus Western Sydney, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, NSW Country, QLD Country and Adelaide.
August 12th 2009 @ 9:00pm
Republican said | August 12th 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
These models have been done to death. The bottom line is that the ARU realize after the last attempt, that a second tier along the lines of a NZ NPC simply wont attract the punters to pay its way. Union is NOT big enough in this country to make this a reasonable prospect so they have no choice but to go the top down model of growth, which has little to do with fostering the local grassroots anywhere in the country but more to do with meeting tele criteria, which seems to be what matters most these days.
So, if you have little need to support a team that reflects true tribalism and community then the circus that is the elite razzle dazzle of franchise branding is for you, so long as they have the name Melbourne somewhere, the illusion is enough and it matters not that Melbourne does not actually produce rugby players of any note and in all probability never will, a la Storm.
I happen to find this an incredibly soul less evolution of sport – sorry.
August 12th 2009 @ 9:34pm
MyGeneration said | August 12th 2009 @ 9:34pm | Report comment
I’ve been busy on Wikipedia tonight (sigh):
“Victoria ha produced a number of top-level rugby players,including Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop , Digby Ioane (Queensland Reds and Wallabies), Rocky Elsom (NSW Waratahs and Wallabies), Lloyd Johansson (Queensland Reds and Wallabies), Tamaiti Horua (Western Force), Tom McVerry (Queensland Reds), Ole Avei (Queensland Reds), John Ulugia (ACT Brumbies), Christian Lealiifano (ACT Brumbies), David Palavi (ex-ACT Brumbies), David Fitter (London Irish, ex-ACT Brumbies and Wallabies), and Nick Stiles (ex-Queensland Reds and Wallabies). Also hailing from Melbourne is current New South Wales Waratahs coach and former Wallaby Ewen McKenzie.”
August 13th 2009 @ 8:10pm
Glen said | August 13th 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
Poor examples.
They were only born there and with the exception of Weary, none of them learned their rugby in Vic. There just wasn’t a competition. It’s akin to saying that Papua New Guinea is responsible for the success of AFL’s Mal Michael by virtue of him being born there.
Sorry, but that’s a fail for me!
August 13th 2009 @ 6:57am
Justin said | August 13th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Ah more grandiose incorrect statements, got to love it…
August 12th 2009 @ 9:23pm
bever fever said | August 12th 2009 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
Living in Perth i know a around a dozen Force members, a couple are from the Sydney region, 5 are from New Zealand and the rest from South Africa, sorry, one is from England and another from Wales.
I would say these demographics make up the vast vast bulk of the forces membership and support which i might add should go up this year as they are moving to members equity stadium which provides better viewing than subi.
Not sure who would make up Melbournes support base.
Junior rugby in this city is far bigger than rugby league, not sure about Melbournes junior base.