By Spiro Zavos
November 13th 2009 @ 1:16am
Related coverage
SANZAR finally gets it right on Melbourne
AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy - Managing Director and CEO of Australian Rugby John O'Neill
The Expert Determination Panel, otherwise known as Barry Paterson QC, a former New Zealand High Court judge, and David Kirk, former All Black captain, lived up to its grandiose title in allocating the fifth Australian Super Rugby to Melbourne.
The decision was a determined one, in that the madcap South African bid was rejected, and it was expert in that the rejection was based on the economics and shape of the Super Rugby format.
The three SANZAR countries – Australia, South Africa and New Zealand – now have five franchises, which allows plenty of local derbies in the new Super 15 format that comes into play in 2011, and at least two home matches in each country each week.
The EDP calculated that there would be a direct loss to SANZAR of at least $500,000 with the Southern Kings in the Super 15. On top of this, it would be impossible to conduct the second round of home and away local matches with South Africa having six teams and Australia with only four teams.
The EDP tried to massage the bruised egos of the South African rugby authorities by pointing out the excellence of its business model. But the harsh fact is that the Southern Kings, playing out of Port Elizabeth, are a political entity.
The team played well enough against the British and Irish Lions. But it does not compete in the top tier of the Currie Cup.
With the dismal performance of the weaker South African sides in Super Rugby, it made no sense to put another very weak South African side into the tournament.
If the ANC is so determined to have a rainbow coalition team in Super Rugby, it should have coerced SARU to take, say, the poorly performing Lions out of the tournament and replace it with a politically correct, if rugby inept, side.
The argument will be made that Australian teams have, in general, performed as poorly as some of the South African sides. This is true, to a certain extent.
But there are 100 Australians playing professional rugby out of Australia. A number of these players should be enticed back to Australia.
Moreover, the current Super Rugby squads in Australia are larger than the ones in South Africa and New Zealand. If, say, squad numbers in Australia were reduced to 27, the New Zealand number, then Melbourne could pick up up to 10 Super Rugby players immediately.
There are, too, a number of good rugby players in the Sydney premiership who can’t make the current squads.
Some of these players would be great for Melbourne, a city that is handy to Sydney, so that players going to it from NSW or Queensland would not have to cope with the oppression of distance that is inflicted with a shift to Perth and the Western Force.
John O’Neill has also foreshadowed the possibility of relaxing the restrictions on imported players to allow for ten rather than two imports. The imports would come from Argentina, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, to develop their players closer to home than Europe.
Providing the Melbourne franchise gets a good coach, and Rod Macqueen who is involved in one of the bids should be used to ensure this, I think that the team could be a strong one, like its rugby league counterparts.
There is a healthy rugby union culture in Melbourne, where the game has been played for 100 years. Rugby union is played in a number of the elite schools.
There is a keen senior competition.
In the 1930s, in fact, Victoria defeated NSW with the great ‘Weary’ Dunlop, later a Wallaby, leading the way in the forwards. A game between the Western Force and Canterbury Crusaders, the Force’s first outing, drew a crowd of 12,000 plus at Olympic Park on a wet night.
And when the new rectangular stadium is built for football, rugby league and rugby union, I would expect large crowds for the Super Rugby matches.
This has been an annus horribilis for Australian rugby. But bad things, like good things, tend to come to an end.
The Wallabies have defeated England, which is always something to be savoured. Now the new Super Rugby tournament is in place, which will give Australian players (and supporters) the season-long they need, with the first round-robin Super Rugby matches to form one section of the season, then the June/July Tests, followed by the home and away local Super Rugby derbies, then the finals, with six teams and at least one from each country, and finishing with the European tour, except in Rugby World Cup year.
More and more rugby, in other words.
Meanwhile the name of the new Melbourne franchise needs to be created. Some Roarers have suggested the Melbourne Barbarians, a name that might run into copyright problems.
I like the idea of a Melbourne Harlequins. It is has an English resonance (as in the Harlequins playing in London) that should appeal to Melbourians.
So bring on the Melbourne Harlequins!
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...
(66)
Redb said | November 13th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
We’re Australians not Poms – ‘Harlequins’ Pfffft!
fox said | November 13th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Personally I like the Melbourne Mexicans, but am resigned to it not getting up. Victorians seem inexplicably not to like Mexicans. I can already see the sombrero-wearing mascot coming out of the tunnel on a donkey shooting six guns – now that would be a hard act to follow, even for Tah-man!
I have another one that will probably gain wider acceptance: the Melbourne Underbellies.
vicrugbynut said | November 13th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Spiro,
I am born and bred Melburnian and rugby is my one true sporting love and I have played the game here for nearly two decades. I simply cannot endorse a name like Melbourne Harlequins. This is because there is already a Harlequins amateur side in the eastern suburbs with their own proud history. I am, however, not a current or past Quins club member and have opposed them bitterly for many years on the field. I agreed with JON that we do not use “The Rebels”. I think we need a name that is unique and with no legacy to past teams or a tie in to current amateur clubs, because that is where you will get the strong supporter base from.
As to a name….?
wallythefly said | November 13th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Let’s get the beginning of the team name right first ‘Victoria’ not ‘Melbourne’
pothale said | November 13th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
How about the Melbourne Southern Kings – should go down well with the Saffas.
Brett McKay said | November 13th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
exactly what I said yesterday Pots – I’m surprised Grand Emperor O’Neill hasn’t suggested it already!!
Also, something Spiro may have known but didn’t include, the decision to put Team 15 in Melbourne results in News Ltd/Fox Sports paying US$15-20 million more than they would have if the “other”
Southern Kings won the gig…
Tragic said | November 13th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
He He! Funny in so many ways
Rin said | November 13th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Harlequins…..you must be crazy…what a rubbish name for an Australian side
MickeyB said | November 13th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Personally, I think:
SOUTHERN STARS
1. It has a broader appeal as it’s not just Melbourne centric but focuses on the State of Victoria and maybe more broadly as the term ‘Southern’ dictates. It could be used to engage other ‘Southern States’ over time with trial and promotional games to grow rugby support in SA, TAS through schools and universities?
Quiz:
Q: What Super team in Australia is branded as a city team?
A: Zip, it’s about creating broader appeal.
Trying to appeal to one city smacks of desperation to the locals and should be avoided.
2. The name Rebels was created as part of the failed ARC competition. Why carry that baggage around when you’re starting a fresh?
3. Keep the current colours; Royal Blue jersey with silver (white) stars creates a strong symbol – looks good.
4. Essentially Australian. A good play on words incorporating the Southern Cross symbol with a Eureka styled brand (history lesson anyone?)
5. Not sure why the ‘Force’ was chosen? Freemantle Dr? But all the other Super teams have strong names Australian’s can identify with.
6. Rebels has to go. It brings up a Bikie brand with a Confederate’s style of font and logo design. Limited appeal for sponsors (bar Rebel sports) and families.
In essence, you need the strongest brand to attract sponsors, and to win over the community’s hearts and minds.
Rebels won’t do it.
New team. New players. New name.
SOUTHERN STARS
Nick (KIA) said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Er isn’t that the name of the Aus Women’s Cricket team?
And btw, we have the Southern Cross on our flag (NZ) too…
AndyS said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
And which country actually gets regular hurricanes?
AC said | November 13th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Neither — a hurricane is a northern hemisphere phenomenon!
Wally James said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Has a certain ring to it however I agree with our Kiwi friend. Australia appears to have hijacked the southern cross. It is not peculiarly Australian. The Samoan flag bears it for example. People from Terra del Fuego and the Falkland Islands have the same geographic claim to it as we do. It’s a bit like Soccer calling itself football. – all soccer is football but not all football is soccer.
It would be nice if Victoria followed the ACT and called the team something distinctly Australian. Devils, quolls, emus, dingoes or, dare I say it, the Melbourne Trams. I’m right on track with that last one I think.
reds fan said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
It’s up there with us hijacking “mateship”… don’t other countries make friends?
Gatto Nero said | November 14th 2009 @ 3:57am | Report comment
Australia hasn’t hijacked anything. Stars are a common symbol on many flags. Just because Australia uses the southern cross, doesn’t mean that other nations can’t. Besides, the Australian southern cross features stars with seven points, which are unique.
Comrade Bear said | November 13th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Victoria:
Floral emblem: Pink Heath
Animal emblem: Leadbeater’s Possum
Bird emblem: Helmeted Honey-eater (Yellow-tufted Honey-eater)
Not a lot to work with with regards to names…so I did a google search:
- the Vic Secrets? Could be an interesting kit? and a sponsor ready to go…
- the Vic Bushfires? I am well aware of the recent tragedy – but I kinda like it
- the ‘Vic Ticks’ :: sucking the Reds out of Rugby? … but I seriously can’t see the Reds getting plundered again – no one left to take – except for the Faingaa brothers…please? Anyone?
Google has not really helped – looks like it will have to be ‘The Victorian Pink Helmeted tufted Possum Eaters’ …
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
While I don’t mind the quirkiness of a name like Harlequin – I agree with VicRugby above that a Harlequins club has been part of the Melbourne rugby scene for yonks (alongside the equally quirkily named Powerhouse) – so I don’t think that’s an option.
As an added note, here is a copy of a post I put up to something I just saw on thesuper15 website:
I notice in that link that they are using the name: Melbourne for the moment.
You know what – let’s bin this provincial bull$hit once and for all.
It’s a new club – it’s not a state rep team – 85% of all Victorians live within spitting distance of the CBD – let’s just call the damn thing: Melbourne!!!
Maybe add Rebels (don’t mind that at all), if not – just leave it as Melbourne.
At the end of the day – that’s what it is – let’s not kid ourselves otherwise.
For once, the rest of the world will know precisely where a S15 team resides!!
MickeyB said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Melbourne fc – nicknamed the Demons are marketing their team as ‘Melbourne”.
Not a bad idea though.
Doesn’t blow my socks off either….
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
The Age has big double page spread on this story today.
Some quotes:
The ARU boss also said he would prefer that the new franchise not ue the name the Rebels, which was used by the VRU-run team….”I think they ought to put it out to popular choice…”
O’Neill again: “This is probably in for a dig but so be it, Super rugby will be the only truly international competition in Melbourne.”
AndyRoo said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
I won’t point out how wrong Oneil’s statement is but what a great statement
…there is also them talking about getting a couple of AFL stars.
MV and Melbourne Storm have tip toed around the AFL, it will be interesting how RU’s approach will go down.
But good on Oneil for seeing some positives in having 5 teams from South Africa in the comp that most Australian’s couldn’t give a rats about.
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
AndyRoo
I thought similar things – given that the Victory will play some ACL games in the new stadium in the first half of next year (and with a little luck, the year after as well).
But – well – it’s all good fun!!
AndyRoo said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
This team in Melbourne will apparently have up to 10 foreigners but currently the AFL is more cosmopolitan and has more internationals (Irish, Americans and Canadians) than the Super Rugby teams do (they are only allowed one non Australian eligible player).
Where is MC when you need him
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
AndyRoo
Not in terms of individual clubs! (well, actually, maybe one or two clubs might have two when I think about it)
But I hope Melbourne get the concession to have 5 to10 spots for overseas-born players (out of 30) – that’s still 20 to 25 spots for Australians (20 to 25 more than now), and to have a few internationals is actually a selling point (as it is in the A-League).
AndyRoo said | November 13th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
I am sure they will. I think most are going to come from Argentina as their is some sort of plan to have 25 Pumas in the Super 15 by a certain date so they can join the Tri Nations….. probably best for Mr Oneil to wait a little while before asking the Saffa’s permission though.
Sam Taulelei said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
SANZAR got it right but they will get it completely wrong if they accede to JON and the ARU if reports in the NZ Herald are correct.
Petitioning their SANZAR partners to relax the foreign player restrictions to enable Melbourne to field a competitive team in 2011 is completely at odds with what JON, Matt Carroll, Robbie Deans and the ARU have been claiming all year that there was sufficient depth in Australia to fill a fifth team. Not only that but there was also the expat player market that could be tapped into.
Now JON is going cap in hand to ask for up to 10 foreign players to be allowed to play for Melbourne. He’s claiming that preference will be given to Argentine players to assist with their preparation for entry into an expanded Tri Nations and even some PI players.
I suspect that this is all politically correct speak to make their case more appealing but it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that the true targets of the ARU’s recruitment drive for Melbourne will be players from NZ and SA. Foreign players is not enough to assist a fledgling union team in Melbourne where you have strong competition from AFL and the Melbourne Storm.
Marquee players that will generate headlines and media exposure (Karmichael Hunt ring a bell) as well as attract bums on seats will be what Melbourne will need to sell the Rebels. The only way SANZAR can agree to relaxing foreign players is to also change the eligibility rules currently preventing players from switching countries during the Super season to play international rugby for their home country.
I’m extremely happy that I’ll be able to watch regularly live first class rugby in Melbourne from 2011. The NZRU and SARU won’t be if it comes at the expense of some of their players. The ARU has already got what it wanted in establishing a fifth team, SANZAR doesn’t and shouldn’t also have to give them a leg up in making it competitive – that’s the ARU’s responsibility and not SANZAR.
Working Class Rugger said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Sam
Personally 10 is excessive. Though I’d like to see a few Argentines given a shot through the Melbourne/Victoria team. They will need player’s in Super Rugby in the future to compete beyond 2012.
AndyS said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Is it within SANZARs purview to dictate how teams are filled? SA has allowed foreign players for a long time, NZ allows non-AB eligible players etc….should Australia have been blocking that because it wasn’t consistent with their approach? Equally now then when Australia is looking at the new team – surely it is up to them who they spend their money on.
Working Class Rugger said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Victorian Vikings.
Working Class Rugger said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Could use the Scandanavian God ‘THOR” as the Mascot.
Hit And Rum said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Melbourne And Bred
Sam Taulelei said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
It won’t just be NZ and SA that will be affected if Melbourne is allowed to recruit up to 10 foreigners. How will the other Australian Super teams feel about this. Particularly the Force and especially the Reds. If the ARU establish one rule for Melbourne and a different one for the rest it will generate a lot of bad blood.
AndyS said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Yes, that and the means by which concessions are progressively removed will be the interesting issues. Endless amusement ahead…
sheek said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
I’m not aware that JON is opposed to the nickname Rebels.
And why the sudden opposition to the nickname Rebels? Most of the suggestions I’ve read, both serious & light-hearted, want to make me puke, frankly.
It’s obvious we are too quick to forget our history, because the influx of miners accelerated the declaration of the Victorian colony as a state. Also miners grievances eventually led to legislation providing most people with better rights & conditions.
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Sheek
he’s quoted in the Age today as saying he prefers they didn’t use Rebels
sheek said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Oh, I see. Well, we do live in a politically correct world.
However, here’s an opportunity for the fans to give the establishment the finger – providing they care to!
Brett McKay said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
don’t mention the ARC Sheek!!
zhenry said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Sounds like all goodness and light. This 5th franchise is going to be one long contentious pain in the arse as far as I am concerned. The sooner peak oil kills it the better.
The lure of NZ players to Melbourne to help fill the Australian player void could be catastrophic for NZ. Mr Tew would say; ‘But that has always been the case.’ No it has not, the conditions now in Australia, have never existed before.
From a NZ point of view this 5th Australian Franchise is a huge loser.
The economic arguments being touted, in the Australian media for Australians and NZers, are totally spurious for NZ Rugby.
Mr Tew needs to think about what is in NZ’s long term interests, focusing the NZ rugby public on, and building a sustainable NPC should be Mr Tew’s clear focus. If he cant do that he should remove himself from the NZRU.
Justin said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:04am | Report comment
Isnt he doing that now, with big crowds and ratinalisation next year?
Redb said | November 13th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Don’t mind the Pioneers.
zhenry said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Real Pioneers are independant and try to be self sufficient and sustainable.
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Precies als met de boere mannen hier??!!
sheek said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Oh, Pioneers is bound to offend somebody, like the original inhabitants……….
No wonder we go for ethereal-like names these days like – Storm, Fury, Victory, Glory, Power……….
zhenry said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Its a 5 year tenure, a fat salary, a quick fix and I am out of here.
Redb said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-3020-27630-0-0
Gone anyway, Bendigo Pioneers.
King of the Gorganites said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
lets get the argies down here. we need them to teeach our front rowers how to scrummage.
it would be great for aussie and argintine rugby if we had half a dozen argies in the vic team
AndyRoo said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
How about “Melbourne 15″ or “Victorian 15″
Sounds a little bit traditional.
zhenry said | November 13th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
What about O’Neills’ Heros
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Melbourne équipes de quinze joueurs
Shortened to Le Melbourne Quinze
or
Le Quinze Magnifique
sheek said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Pip,
Now you’re just showing off…..
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Sheek
I’m happy with the Rebels as well – but the numero uno is saying otherwise.
sheek said | November 13th 2009 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
Stuff the numero uno!!!
This time he’s wrong…..W-R-O-N-G…WRONG!
reds fan said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Considering the weather they get perhaps the Melbourne Mudlarks.
But lets no forget that Super Rugby does not use provincial or city names as in SA and NZ the franchises are conglomerates of numerous provinces.
So Victoria or Melbourne arent in.
But i’m not from down there so i have no idea of what they feel represents them.
Pippinu said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
I think it’s been a very long time since we’ve seen muddy fields!!
LT80 said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Melbourne Rugby Football Club. A nickname could develop over time, which would make it all the better.
At the least please not a new-age fancy abstract name like Fury, Force, Storm or Roar. Woeful!
zhenry said | November 13th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
JON – Jolly Old Nestablishment
BennO said | November 13th 2009 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
I agree with you LT80. I get tired of these artificial names chosen by marketting types. I don’t think having some title makes a difference, particularly if it’s not actually a mascot, like the Force, Fury or Roar.
I think I might be a bit old fashioned but I like the name of the place to be the name of the team. At least then I can pretend it’s a club that’s a little bit tribal and not a bloody franchise. I detest that word in sport.
Tragic said | November 13th 2009 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Rebels gets my vote. It would be fitting for the team to be called something different though, so that the true believers could be rebellious and call their team the rebels in spite of the actual name. Rebels by name. Rebels by nature…
Roger said | November 13th 2009 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
Melbourne Goannas.
Damo said | November 14th 2009 @ 5:10am | Report comment
I personally don’t like abstract names – but if we had to have one – Victorian Stockade – as in Eureka . With all the politics around it still it may be appropriate
DELL said | November 14th 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
I’ve said it here before but what about the VICTORIA VALOUR if we’re going for abstract?
- brave coorageous etc
- in line with the feats of Weary Dunlop, you could even rejig the weary Dunlop club logo as the teams one
Peter K said | November 14th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
They cannot have Melbourne or Victoria added to the name, remember its The Reds not Qld reds etc, stupid but the way it is.
So what is Victoria famous for, and sounds combative? Its bushrangers like Ned Kelly. So maybe call them the Bushrangers.
Dan said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
That is nothing but a bit of bureaucratic bullshit though. Everyone thinks of the NSW Waratahs and the ACT Brumbies… they don’t just think of their logos – that’s just a retarded rule made out of commercial necessity that nobody takes seriously.
.
They’ll be identified as Victoria – end of story. As for the name… well I’m all for sticking with state emblems, but possum’s are a little weak. Maybe they could do something like the reds and come up with a simple colour based name while sticking a possum in their logo? Maybe give them a three colour theme and call them the Victorian tri colours? worked for the French
DELL said | November 14th 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Like their Cricket team?
Peter K said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Dell – yes except the cricket team is Victorian Bushrangers.
But if not acceptable the other thing Victoria was famous for was its gold fields, and the term digger was used for gold diggers before we were a nation.
So The Diggers could be a good term for an Australian team, it has multiple connotaions and symbolises strength and hardiness especially in adversity.
damos_x said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
I haven’t read all the posts so forgive me if someone has suggested this name already but the Melbourne Maulers ?!
AndyS said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Best one I’ve heard was that they should take their lead from the naming of the state and call themselves the Victoria Queens…