Melbourne Super 15 bid has local support
Roar Rookie
By Neville Howard, 15 Oct 2009 Neville Howard is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Melbourne Rebels, Rugby Union, Super 15, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011
For just over two years we’ve heard speculation around the ‘if’ and ‘when’ regarding Melbourne being awarded the fifteenth franchise in Super Rugby.
The naysayers have doomed this initiative before the proposals were even assembled, indicating that there is indeed no place in Melbourne for yet another code of football.
A mere eleven years ago, the same was said with regard to the introduction of rugby league to Melbourne, and again when the A League ‘grew up’ into a professional outfit.
In both these examples, the people ‘in the know’ cited that AFL rules the roost, and people won’t pick the one over the other. These are big words based on the assumption that Melbourne consists of traditionalist one eyed die-hard AFL fans.
Although this is partially true, I have to look far and hard to find an AFL devotee who refuses to follow or support the Storm or Victory when the occasion arises, or at least be willing to utilize these events as an excuse to have a beer or three with their mates down at the pub.
Yet another reason to challenge the theory that there’s no space for a new code is to look at the sociological make-up of Melbourne as a city.
With more than 50 000 new residents making the city their home every year, Melbourne is fast becoming more diverse than the non-thinker would dare to consider. To cite a few examples: the 2007 Bledisloe Cup game – more than 80 000 fans watching a union game, in Melbourne?
Or consider Crusaders Vs Western Force drawing more than 10,000 in a warm up match at Olympic Park.
And what about the fact that the first Wallaby captain was from Victoria?
I say the time is ripe for Melbourne to take its first step into the professional era of rugby.
We have the support base, and the love for the game. All we need is the team.
I look after a group on Facebook. The group in question support the bid for Melbourne to be awarded the 15th franchise, and in four months, we’ve acquired 2000 members.
Fans in support of the bid, ready and waiting!
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (15)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (42)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (3)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (14)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (23)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Melbourne Rebels, Rugby Union, Super 15, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
There is no doubt there is room in Melbourne for rugby union. As long as they dont directly schedule their games at the same time as the AFL they’ll be fine. Season does not totally overlap anyway.
Union has some grass roots and a 100 year old comp in Melbourne, growing Expat base, the Wallabies are well known to a point.
Population growth is now 90,000 per year. Many new people to Melbourne pick an AFL team to follow as well as following their traditional games.
Redb
fox said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
This is all presuming Melbourne are actually awarded the team. It’s looking very possible it won’t happen. Thanks Sth Africa.
kiwi said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Couldnt agree more Mr Howard. Just go down to any one of the miriad of rugby friendly pubs around town during S14 or Wallaby matches – the place will be full of Kiwis, Saffers, interstate Aussies and rugby mad Victorians – all supporting their teams. It’s about damn time Rugby came to Melbourne. Hey, even Etihad has pitch side seating now! The Oval rules no longer….
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
the Docklands Stadium moveable seating has been in place since day 1 – - however, it’s not cheap to move and for example, both Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Victory over the journey have not opted to exercise that expense. Somewhat surprising that SoO matches and the like have not opted for it either – - – which means you really, really have to question the business case in the first instance!!!
(noting, the venue – Docklands Stadium – was never going to built in the mid/late ’90s Victorian economic climate without the AFL on board – and the square peg codes will shortly have their own ‘home’ in Melbourne on Swans St with a tad more ‘attraction’ than the old Olympic Park).
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Yeah last night was the first time I ever knew it could support an Rectangle Configuration. It is indeed extremely suprising that the numerous sold out SOO and Wallaby Games have not used it (or indeed the Victory in any of their GF’s) but it was used last night in a game which only pulled 20,500.
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Crikey – - is that all the Socceroos got……
just shows there’s a whole difference in public ‘engagement’ b/w the World Cup campaign and the Asian Cup campaign!!!!
I wonder if they made any money then??? Break even for several AFL clubs is around 30,000……and that’s without the cost of moving the moveable seating.
(that’s why MVFC don’t do it, they can only afford to play there attracting 20,000 because they get a nice cheap deal that would absolutely proclude moving the seats – - although, surely they could argue that at season start move the seats and then let other people during that time pay to move them back should they require such??).
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
amazingly dumb decision to bring the seats forward and then open the roof!!
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
I don’t get why if the FAA was going to pay to move the seats they didn’t get it done a few days earlier to include the Sydney v. Melbourne game. Good idea re moving the seats into Soccer formation after the AFL season finishes.
AndyRoo said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Moving the seats doesn’t really change the view for most of the spectators though, they are still sitting in the same spot they were before. Only those in the seats moved forward.
Not worth the $$ in my oppinion
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
The decision from a SANZAR point of view need to be unanimous, and I doubt Australia will give up on their bid to give South Africa the nod for a sixth team to play in an Australian conference – I just does not make sense. They’re looking at expanding again in two to three years, and that would be an ideal time to expand the local conferences to 6 teams each with Aus taking a Pacific or Japanese team.
The Truth said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Relying on immigrants to support local sport? Why would rugby succeed where soccer has failed?
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
I wouldn’t say it’s failed – in fact, you could argue that soccer has retained a healthy post-war presence in Melbourne because of immigration.
If immigration also boosts support for the new Vic team – so be it – if people put their money where their mouths are, who cares who they are.
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Very true…I’m a foreigner myself, trying to get Melbourne a team!!
The Truth said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
I didn’t say that all immigrants were disinterested, but the native populace must be the primary focus.
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
It’s not going to have to rely on immigrants only, though it will certainly add spice! As noted on the VIC Rugby site :
Melbourne Rugby Club won the first year of the five-team Victorian Rugby Union competition in 1909.
During this time, a number of clubs have dominated the 1st Grade results. Boroondara (formerly Kiwis & Kiwi Hawthorn), Melbourne and Moorabbin Rugby Clubs share the most number of Premierships with 14 apiece. Moorabbin holds the record for consecutive Premierships, winning six in a row from 1981-1986. Other prominent clubs during this 99 year period include Melbourne University, Power House and Navy.
This definitely proves that Melbourne will be more than able to take care of themselves when the professional era comes knocking.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Don’t forget Footscray!! (whose ground by the sides of the Maribyrnong River, right next to the embankment that leads up to Footscray Park and the Victoria University, has probably been flooded more times than any other ground in Australia).
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Got Eltham out our way. A cute little pitch with the club rooms well sited on the hill side to enhance the viewing from the deck.
therealalekid said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
I’ve never had a straight answer to this, so I hope you guys can help.
It’s pretty obvious to me that both sides are very keen for an additional side, it is also obvious that a South African side running around the Australian conference is pretty stupid.
However both offer great positives a Melbourne side could potentially lead to a better TV deal for the ARU if the article from the Australian is correct. A South african side in Port Elizabeth can hopefully though tap into the black population and raise particpation levels. Both have credible bids.
Therefore why can’t they both be accepeted Super League is going to expand anyway would it really be much of a problem if the South Africans started early. Would a technical issue over scheduling be really more of a problem than the fallout if one of them misses out.
Some how i think SANZAR is making this needlessly more difficult for themselves, although if there is a logical explanation I’m all ears.
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
To be honest I don’t know why the South Africans can’t just have a Six team conference and we have a five team one. All we would have to do is have an extra bye and start the test season a week later.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
It’s a good argument you make.
The only downside I can see (apart from the fear of expanding too much all at once), would be upsetting the three way even conference system that has been mooted.
To have six teams in the SA conference might cause scheduling problems.
But if they could be overcome, there is actually plenty of merit in the idea (not to mention that it creates an additional game per round).
Bay35Pablo said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Because they would be a Super 16. There was enough kerfuffle on the Roar when the conference system was announced, which involves every team not playing every other team. Some complained this would lead to some teams getting an easier run if they didn’t play certain teams.
More and more this is looking like Sheek’s (damned) system will be the result. The countries will eventually each play their conference derby rounds home and away for the first few months, and then the top few teams will qualify for the Cup finals. With perhaps the losers in a Plate TFC award like the sevens, to keep up interest.
Invictus said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Yep, that’s where it’s going.
CraigB said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
i think you’ll find they will still play every team, just not play them twice
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
yep! You’ll only play the teams in your own confrence twice – home and away.
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
No, you only play 4 out of the 5 in the other two conferences.
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
I think the biggest concern was to have the competition start and finish within a period which won’t impact the ANZ Cup, Currie Cup and TriNations – Expanding it too much too soon would have reduced the local competitions to second-grade match-ups. BUT, with Argentinia joining the TriNations it could be a different ball game. The reason I say this is because they’ll be able to play 2 games a weekend, and reduce the 10 week stretch while incorporating an additional team.
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
I think also that SANZAR went to the braodcasters and said that it will be a three-conference, fifteen-team comp from 2011. That’s how they sold it to them. Now this being the case, is it worth more to the broadcasters to have Team 15 being based in Melbourne or Port Elizabeth?? I’d imagine two games in all markets every weekend would be fairly attractive, more so than two games in one market every weekend, and the other two markets getting either two or one/three games each weekend.
Obviously SuperSport would love to have three local games every other weekend, but would Fox Sports cop only getting one match on the alternate weekend?
Also, as I understand the process now, the decision doesn’t have to be unanimous like most SANZAR votes (think the 6-team finals debate before the 09 season), meaning it’s essentially up to NZ. But I’ve also read that NZ aren’t comfortable with having the final say (or don’t want it), and so independant mediation is likely.
October 21 is the day of decision apparently…
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Brett, I believe the decision does have to be unanimous otherwise it must go to arbitration.
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Yikes, I thought that was the case too, and that was why my fear was always that no decision would be made at all and we would stay at 14 teams (the 6-teams finals debate could never get a unanimous vote, and so 4 teams remained, for eg), but I recall reading a RugbyHeavenNZ article where it said the vote did not have to be unanimous, and that NZ would likely defer their decision to the mediators.
I’ll have to try and find the article…
fox said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Apparently Aus and NZ were happy for it to be a majority vote, but SA won’t have a bar of it (according to the rugbyheaven article today). Obviously they have decided they won’t get support from NZ.
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Yikes, if I did read the “majority rules” somewhere, I’ve found a more recent one that says it’s by unanimous vote. Apparently NZRU suggested majority as an option, quote from the artcile below (words from Steve Tew):
A solution could be for Sanzar to accept a majority decision on this one rather than an unanimous one. It was a proposal put forward by the NZRU but one that was shot down.
“We suggested that at the last meeting,” Tew said.
“But South Africa in particular said, `No, we believe we should be a mature enough organisation to make the decision by unanimous agreement’.
“They both assure us they’re going to make a decision in the best interests of Sanzar, so we’ll see.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-14/2952503/NZRU-stuck-in-the-middle-over-Super-team
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
The foundation of South African rugby success is the fact that they have a multi-tier system retaining the interest of players from school level. They recently launched ‘Varsity Cup’, which is similar to the UK, and US version of Monday Night football, with most games played on Mondays, when there’s no sports to watch. The next level up from this is Club Rugby, and then the Vodacom Cup (Which runs concurrent with the Super 14) which is a breeding ground for young players. As the Super 14 comes to a close, the ‘best of’ Vocacom Cup players unite with the returning Super 14 players to play in the Currie Cup.
Thus, you have School Rugby, Varsity Rugby, Club Rugby, Vodacom Cup, Currie Cup, Super 14, in that order. Saying there’s merit in adding a 6th South African team needs to be justified by their team performances in any/all levels outside of the Super 14. Unfortunately for them at this point in time this is non-existent, their local teams struggle in the Vodacom Cup, and play in the B-League of the Currie Cup. This makes it evident that, when taking the step up to Super 15, they will be wooden spooners for the foreseeable future.
Bay35Pablo said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
“I say the time is ripe for Melbourne to take its first step into the professional era of rugby.”
Perhaps then Sydney and Brisbane can then follow!!! (honk)
Why can I see the Melbourne side outshining NSW and Queensland, a la the Victory (or Brumbies), and us lot (again) looking at our administrators and thinking “what are you highly paid amateurs doing?”
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Hilarious, Bay! One of your best!
sportym said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
Gold.!
Working Class Rugger said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I don’t see why not. A couple of months ago I suggested foregoing the S15 and making the leap to a S18 format. Made more sense to me.
Working Class Rugger said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
I see the conference system as a way of keeping both the CC and ANZC intact whilst incoporating them into Super Rugby. Over time the conference’s will grow larger to a point that they would be self sufficient competitions within a greater Championship.