By Neville Howard -
October 15th 2009 @ 4:52am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Melbourne Super 15 bid has local support
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!
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
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...
(70)
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.
therealalekid said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
“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.
Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm”
To be honest I always thought that was going to be the case? The conference system essentially becomes a national league, which is beneficial to broadcasters as it means more local time matches. With a champions league style play off system on top of that. The biggest problem Australia and New Zealand have at the moment is that you operate in small markets so a conference system that would also include a pacific section and one for the Americas, would be the long term goal as well.
Invictus said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Eventually you will have 4 conferences – Africa, Australasia, Pacific and South America. You are probably looking at about 8 teams per conference which gives you the flexibility to introduce teams from Japan/HK etc should this prove economically viable (perhaps Dubai also?). It would depend on just how many teams the original SANZAR members feel they are able to support.
Bay35Pablo said | October 17th 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Which is apprently JON’s plan.
It occurs to me, again, that the 5th Australian side will be decided by what makes sense for the TV coverage. If it is the Sourthen Kings, how attractive is it going to be to the TV broadcasters for 1 in 3 games every 2nd weekend of the derby rounds to be in the wrong time zone? They’ll cruel the TV rights for the Australian Conference, all so the Saafies can meet their guilt quota? No way.
TommyM said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
As stated above, without Argentina coming into an expanded 4 Nations, an expanded Super comp would interefere with NPC and Currie Cup. If/when Argentina comes in, tha ability to play 2 games a week in the 4 Nations will allow a more condensed timeframe and extra time for Super rugby (meaning S18 feasible
TommyM said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Why does the smiley face on The Roar look so evil??!
Gav said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
The only issue that is going to prevent “take up” is not the lack of supporters, general interest… It is the same reoccurring issue found in all competitions: Entertainment. Watching the 2008 competition and subsequent Tri-Nations was some great running Rugby. Plenty of excitement for the fans. Compared to this year, no one likes to see constant kicking and endless set pieces/line outs. This is what separates Rugby from League, the free flowing nature of the game.
I’ve read somewhere that SANZAR has the ability to re-implement the full ELVs for Super Rugby. Maybe we, the supporters and fans should unite and pressure SANZAR to implement them for the 2011 competition.
Look forward to seeing all Victorians at the MRS in 2011… Go Rebels!
Skip said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
GAV,
Where di you read the article about SANZAR being allowed to reimplement the ELV’s?
sheek said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
When SANZAR agreed to move to 3 conferences x 5 teams (ie, S15) it virtually guaranteed the 15th spot will go to an Australian franchise (ie, Melbourne).
If now one country (ie, South Africa) doesn’t want to accept this, then it might mean ripping up the entire agreement. What would happen then is anyone’s guess.
Will SANZAR go to a S18 instead?
Will Australia & NZ form a Trans-Tasman comp?
Will all 3 countries go their own way domestically?
It makes no sense to me whatsoever, having agreed to 3 conferences x 5 teams (one conference per SA, OZ & NZ), for SANZAR to then turn around & award the 15th franchise to sanyone else bar Melbourne, Victoria.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
That sums it up pretty well.
fox said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
It’s a pretty cut and dry case for me too. A pity the Sth Africaans don’t see it that way, although I know at least two Stouh african mates who agree that awarding the 5th team to Sth Africa, or corrupting the 5th “Australian” team in this conference, would be ridiculous, undeserved and unfeasible. The Cheetahs and Lions struggle to compete as it is.
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Fox,
I don’t know any South African supporters or Ex-pats who think it’s a good idea! And I know a lot
Republican said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Melbourne can’t sustain that sort of growth and very soon they will have run out of H2o with which to water their new you beaut Super pitch.
AC said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
They’ll just have to rip up their water guzzling Aussie Rules/Cricket pitches.
mudskipper said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Melbourne will get up and SA union admin is just saving face… they’ll let it go…
Seek I look forward to a S18 one day…
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
I agree, the SARU president already indicated that it’s not likely to go SA’s way. They can be stubourn all they want, they won’t get ARU of an NZ swing vote.
Republican said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
I still for the life of me can’t fathom how an extra Oz franchise is going to present as a competitive force when the current Australian teams in the Super 14 are struggling due in the main to the introduction of the WA franchise, which single handedly diluted much of the fledging talent in those union nurseries of NSW, Qld and to a lesser extent the ACT.
The pool of available Australian players will be spread so thinly that any vague interest Union may attract initially in Melbourne will all but expire unless they plan to stock this team totally with Kiwis; then why not since that’s where the support will primarily come from and that is also how the game continues to survive here, i.e. on the back of NZ expatness.
The Australian Super dynamic will be a farce in any expanded comp and probably top heavy since the organisation that commands the biggest corporate clout will in turn attract the cream of the crop.
Pete said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Republican, its been said here before by others, but the lack of talent claim was a concern when the Brumbies came on board. Then again when the Force were launched. Admittedly the Reds lost players to the Force. They cite this as the reason why the Reds have been doing badly, but the truth is that the Reds were floundering well before the Force were launched. The Reds poor results has more to do with mismanagement than the start of the WA franchise.
If the Vic bid gets up, they will find players (Pacfic Islands, Argentina, SA, NZ, League and most importantly Local Rugby players). I don’t think there will be a discernable drop in player quality. The hidden gems in club land will finally gtet to prove their worth on a bigger stage.
The Truth said | October 16th 2009 @ 5:32am | Report comment
That’s why they devised this conference system. Weak Aussie sides can pad their records against even weaker Aussie sides and at least appear to be somewhat competitive.
Republican said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Pete
Not so with the Brumby’s who drew on almost 50% local talent in their early years however this is ironically no longer the case despite the Brumby’s being based in the Capital for more than a decade. The Union GR are looking grim for that demo but I digress. What you are saying is true of the West however and this will also be a similar scenario in making up the numbers for any Vic Super squad.
It is evident that the inception of the Force has been the catalyst for the mediocrity shown by Australias Super franchises in the S14. This was not so when it was a S12 with the Brumby’s, Tahs and Reds all featuring more prominately at the busuiness end of any given season.
Its not rocket science to ascertain that by creating yet another franchise in a non Union demo any potential elite stock will be spread thinner, while those proponents of top down growth talk up the GR growth that we can only hope will slowly ensue; the question is can the game in Oz afford the luxury of waiting around for this to take place, I happen to think not.
Finally, are Australians really going to embrace a team of imports as you have alluded to in support of any Vic Super side, because that’s what this franchise will ultiimately have to present as if it hopes to be competitive while not leeching off the two strong Oz nurseries of Sydney and Brissy.
As I have already stated, expansion here continues to see Unions growth promoted very much on the back of expat P.I’s and Kiwis and of course Saffas in Perth all of which are non Union demos. I just happen to have always seen this as fraught in planning to sustain a game of small status in such a competive market place.
Far better to grow the game from its historically strong cultural enclaves by focusing on the domestic potential of Sydney and Brissy and perhaps even Canberra, however I believe Union has lost it’s devoted for very good reasons in that heartland which has seen Leagues resurgence and Australian footy’s new found growth.
Neville Howard said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
I’ve seen this argument over and over. ‘a new franchise will dilute the pool of existing players’ – While it rings true, in the long term what the additional franchise does is give younger school, club players hope of reaching the top level of the game. Thus instead of them moving to League (Which so many of the Vic Schools boys does), they stay in Union, and their interest, abilities are retained, especially considering that now they will actually get paid for it if they reach the top-tier.
It’s a growing pain, not a step backwards. I can assure you, while The Force might have diluted the existing franchises a wee bit, the total amount of professional players, semi-professional players have increased dramatically. Give the young guys time to come into form and grow up with the current infrastructure. The Brumbies and Force are young teams, and have only been around for 1 generation. I think ARU have reached a point of go/no-go where they needed to take the risk of diversifying in ‘foreign’ WA and VIC markets, and in the long term breeding a new generation of players. They’re doing the right thing here, even though they’re not producing instant results.
The big secret here is the ARU is not as dependant on the local market for support as much as the League for instance. With global tv rights etc, them getting an even share of the profits (Compared to Super 14) they can get away with less than pleasing crowd attendance until performance picks up.
The wheel will turn! Analyst Howard signing off.
Pippinu said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
I agree with the general sentiment that more professional spots provides greater incentive for youngster to strive and make the grade – meaning a strengthening of overall quality, not a diminution.
The key is bridging school boy levels and the elite level.
Invictus said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
That is the challenge.
Neville Howard said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
The Storm is a team of ‘imports’, and they’re pretty well embraced!
Republican said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Neville
I think you will find that their support base has hardly grown in the time they have been based in Melbourne. They attract about 12g on a good day to Olympic Park and the expat support gleaned by the Styorm is significant but their patronage does not seem to have made inraods beyond that. That this is enough to sustain the code in Vic is a moot point but the Storm continue to perform extremely well despite home gates being less than flattering for a population of 4mill plus.
I have yet to see evidence of any Vic home grown players coming through to play for the Storm either, so what is happening at the GR and how is Union being added to the Melbourne elite sporting mix going to make this any easier for League and visa versa – in that respect? Again, ‘long term’ is a luxury this particular code can ill afford in my opinion but I may be proven wrong.
Neville Howard said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Ever the optimist!
Yeh, I definitely don’t see how the introduction of Union to Melbourne will do Storm any good. A few foreigners like myself go to the games and support it because they have oval balls and pass backwards! Point is the schools, universities around Melbourne have Union, and that’s the market the VRU will be interested in retaining. I don’t want to go into a debate on which code is best (don’t want to state the obvious
), but if I was a 20year old player faced with the option of playing club League and one day being included in the Kangaroos, who frankly play nobody but England on occasion, or the Wallabies with a tight international schedule – it would be an easy choice to make.
Justin said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Rep – The Storm may not have any locals in their side (yet) but do you kow how many VIC kids have played Super football? There is a few and more than the Force comfortably…
Bay35Pablo said | October 17th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Repub, I undertsand the Storm’s junior side has done very well this year with almost all local grown talent.
sheek said | October 16th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
It’s interesting to speculate that had rugby league not happened in Australia, all the country would be AFL mad. So I guess that’s a missed opportunity for Australian football.
Also interesting is that union & league help each other, whether they want to or not. The RU have always had a stronger presence in Melbourne, which helped the establishment of the RL Storm. Now the establishment of the RL Storm will help the creation of the RU Rebels.
However, how this will impact on the Storm in return is uncertain. The Storm has established a niche following, which was the purpose of the exercise. Also however, their failure to develop homegrown talent must be a worry. You would think RU, with its stronger presence, ought to be able to do this sooner. produce homegrown talent ,that is.
I think the Rebels have a bright future. The Storm’s future is less certain. But of course, the Rebels are not yet over the line, although, seriously there cannot be any other choice?!?!?
Pippinu said | October 16th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Sheek
The Storm has a strong niche following – I don’t think that will be affected. But what it might mean is that the Storm will have little growth going forward, so the question becomes – is the current niche following sufficient to sustain the Storm into the future? (I don’t know the answer to that)
I don’t really know how the Rebels will go vis a vis the Storm’s attendances – I expect they will catch them reasonably quickly (super attendances are pretty good around the country).
One thing I can say is that in the short to medium term, the Rebels have a greater capacity to produce home grown talent (even if it is limited), but the Storm are starting to make up ground on that front.
If there’s one place in Australia where both rugbies could pursue the option of joint training programs at youth level – it’s definitely in Melbourne.
Dogs Of War said | October 16th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
The Storm needs the NRL to get them on Free to air TV to grow. It’s the one advantage the Storm has over any new Union team, who can really only attract those interested in the game in the first place.
Pippinu said | October 16th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
that’s true – FTA is potentially a boon to the Storm (which the Rebels won’t have) – that’s counteracted by union’s longer history in Melbourne
mcxd said | October 16th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Sorry if i may repeat whats been said above, i dont have time to read it all. IMO besides the actual logistics of oz teams going to SA often, one of the biggest things about awarding the 15th team to SA is the times at which games are played.
Oz S14 teams are already having issues with spectators at ground or on TV, it would struggle even more if games were played in the early (late) morning. As a Tahs supporter id definitely watch a Melb v Reds or Melb v Brumbies game but no chance would i watch a Eastern Province (or whatever theyre called) v Reds or Eastern Province v Brumbies.
Mudskipper said | October 18th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
The Melbourne franchise will work. They’ll be enough public interest for the game there and especially in the new rectangular stadium. Hopefully they can field a team which can win matches. AFL supporters will stay with AFL but those who have been exposed to rugby will enjoy having a team in the S15. The fact that it will likely be broadcasted on pay TV and not free to air will encourage rugby fans to attend the matches and we know Victorians more than many other Australian city enjoy seeing their sport live….
Lets hope that Melbourne gets the 2011 S15 nod next week….