Could rugby return to each of the Tri-Nations for a domestic league, capped off by a ‘Champions League’ style tournament between the best teams of the Southern Hemisphere.
Let’s firstly look at the fact:
- Australian TV figures for Super Rugby have risen by 28 percent compared to last year, which is agreed to be a result of an increased level of local derbies and further highlighting the need to investigate a national competition sometime in the future.
While some may argue this has to do with the ‘honeymoon interest’ in the Melbourne Rebels, at least for the time being, TV figures in Australian rugby are increasing, not decreasing.
- Australian Super Rugby crowds are improving as well (except for New South Wales and ACT), however this could be unfairly influenced by the ‘new interest’ in the Melbourne Rebels as well as the Reds success, however this is another positive sign to see after years of decline
- The new Melbourne Rebels team has been a breath of fresh air and like the Western Force has identified a number of new players that could be selected as Wallabies such as Nick Phipps, Cooper Vuna, Hugh Pyle and Jarrod Saffy.
I am really excited to see greater intensity for positions and would love it to get to a point where players are not automatic selections for the Wallabies.
However, on the other side:
- Crowd numbers in New Zealand have remained flat. From recent articles, this is because fans are annoyed about price, poor game quality, inconsistent refereeing. However, what seems to be the primary influence is how many games are scheduled late night, in the middle of cold, wet winters. Terrible conditions like this, only exacerbate the other factors.
This is of course, a result of the influence of television, possibly to ensure Australians are provided with a 5:30pm kick off time, before watching their own teams straight afterwards.
- The Super Rugby tournament is increasingly ruining the domestic ITM and Currie Cup Tournaments, particularly in New Zealand, where they are constantly changing the competition to cut costs and to increase interest, to no avail.
- Furthermore, the Pacific Islands are still not getting the attention they deserve. Players such as Sitaleki Timani, Ita Vaea, Afa Pakalani, Cooper Vuna are all Islander eligible. Jerry Yanuyanutawa at the Brumbies wants to play for Fiji, yet if he does he may lose his position at the Brumbies since he is no longer eligible for the Wallabies.
Furthermore, I would love to see some of these players represent the islands over the Wallabies, as it would add so much more to world rugby.
I am suggesting that:
- Australia needs an 8-team national competition, with three new teams to be added
- One team based in Fiji
- Another team, based in Queensland, possibly at the Sunshine Coast – comprising of predominantly Samoans, Tongans and other island nations
- Another team, left to the Roarers to decide, as I cannot think of this one.
- Australia will have its own Australian Rugby Championship (ARC), New Zealand and South Africa can revert back to their ITM Cup and Currie Cup
- At the end of the season, or even during the season, top three from each competition, in addition to top 3 in Japan and top 3 in Argentina, play in a Cup tournament – a 15 team “Heineken Cup” style competition
The Australian Rugby Championship
The basic TV figures, crowd numbers and constant conversations on The Roar suggest that Australia should establish its own national competition.
Currently, Australian rugby is sitting with five teams. For this to happen however, I think Australia, at the very least needs an 8-team competition. Having this would ensure at the very least a 14 week competition between Australian teams.
I have always been a believer that this would allow New Zealand and South Africa to revert back to their original domestic competitions as well, revamping greater interest in their respective competitions.
New Zealanders and South Africans would no longer have to barrack for ‘two teams’ so to speak, particularly one that amalgamates old divides.
Obviously a number of people are going to bring up the same questions such as ‘who will pay for it’, ‘Australia can’t support another team’ ‘rugby does not hold enough national interest’, etc etc.
However, what I am simply saying is that TV and crowd figures indicate that it could work and increasing the number of players that could represent the Wallabies can only be a good thing.
We need to be in a place where previous form has no merit and that people like Adam Ashley-Cooper and Wycliff Palu are not even guaranteed a spot in the team, as they pretty much are right now for Rugby World Cup 2011.
Furthermore, it would help out New Zealand and South Africa and their old traditional competitions.
So if there were to be three new teams added, where would they go?
One article I read recently on the AFL.com website explained that ‘there are over 1.9m people in Western Sydney, speaking over 100 different languages’.
While no one can doubt the importance of Western Sydney for all codes, it is fair to say that it is likely to be one of the most difficult places to establish a successful franchise, particularly for Rugby Union.
As much as I hate to say this, rugby union in Australia is not in a position where they have multiple cities ‘bidding for their affection’ like the NRL.
Finding cities to put three new teams in, is a much more difficult task. Unfortunately the way I see it, these extra teams are required simply to make up the numbers, in order for the ‘greater good’ of an Australian Rugby Championship.
However, that is not to say that we should set them up just anywhere, with little to no thought. In fact, I know of one place, which could be supported by almost a million people, where there is much more cultural homogeneity and best of all, rugby is seen as their ‘religion’ and is considered, the number one sport. That place is Fiji.
That’s right, put a team in Fiji and have them play in the Australian national competition. They have a population of 850 000 and would no doubt fanatically support the country’s first truly professional rugby team.
The second new team, I think should be based somewhere in Queensland, possibly even in Brisbane or the Sunshine Coast. It would comprise of the remaining islander players, notably Samoans and Tongans. The way I see it is that Sydney and Western Sydney has 10 rugby league teams, Melbourne and Greater Melbourne have nine AFL teams, I think at the very least, considering the Reds success, Brisbane, or at least Greater Brisbane could at least hold another rugby team.
Obviously this asks a lot of questions such as ‘Will it take away from the Reds’, ‘Rugby can’t handle another team’, etc but I think it is worth investigating, particularly if you locate it in rapidly growing Sunshine Coast for example.
The third team, I have no idea, however I have no doubt the Roar Community can come up with this one.
Rugby Cup – A ‘Champions League’
New Zealand and South Africa can revert back to their ITM Cup and Currie Cup. The top teams from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan and Argentina go into a Cup (or Champions League) style knock-out tournament.
The way I see it is that TV figures and crowd figures, as evidenced with 2011 Super Rugby would definitely go for a national tournament in Australia.
Considering Rugby is bigger in New Zealand and South Africa, there is no doubt there figures would also improve.
The money generated from a truly engaging Cup, including the huge populations and economies of Japan and Argentina would bring large amounts of money back into the game.
It would allow continued penetration into the Asian and South American markets.
Furthermore, at the same time, we have provided for two islander teams, helping to boost the strength of island nations.
What do you think Roarers?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- rugby, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
July 5th 2011 @ 9:34am
Matthew Skellett said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:34am | Report comment
“On da button ” Klestical !!!!!!! Mr O’Neill might give those ideas short shrift though since it means that the private schools lose a lot of their power which i think he unofficially guaranteed when he got voted back in
July 5th 2011 @ 10:20am
Dave said | July 5th 2011 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Australia should look at the English premiership rugby and maybe having exile teams like london irish. West sydney islanders, Gold Coast Ferns and Exile Sprinboks based in Melbourne. This will give the Wallabies more expat players from this countries to pick the wallabies from.
July 5th 2011 @ 4:08pm
King of the Gorgonites said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
currently only one Irishman plays for the not nots.
July 5th 2011 @ 5:47pm
klestical said | July 5th 2011 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
not a bad idea dave!
July 5th 2011 @ 10:31am
Jason said | July 5th 2011 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Forget about FIji, need to develop our rugby first.
Teams:
1. North Shore
2. Eastern Suburbs
3. Southern Districts
4. West Harbour
5. North Brisbane
6. South Brisbane
7. Melbourne
8. North Swan (Perth)
9. (South Swan Perth)
10. Canberra
The only problem holding Aus back with a domestic comp. is travel expenses when compared to S.A or N.Z. That’s why I think creating derbies and concentrating teams where the population, talent and interest is will address this.
If that is sustainable, look at new teams in Ipswich, Logan, Sunshine Coast, Central Coast, Illawarra or Hunter Valley
July 5th 2011 @ 12:55pm
Nathan said | July 5th 2011 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
9 v 8
Bogans versus Snobs Derby, a contest for the ages.
July 5th 2011 @ 11:36am
AndyS said | July 5th 2011 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Hey, why not go the whole hog and do away with both Super and provincial levels. Go back to having a couple of dozen teams in each country – think how much money and how many options for the national sides would be available then! Still get the top three teams from each country to play off for a title, as that will doubtless pull the same money and TV crowds. I mean, who wouldn’t sit up late to watch Potchefstroom play Thames Valley?
Seriously though, it is about a progression. Any ARC style comp that replaces Super rugby is devolution, not an improvement. At it’s best, it pits teams of a lower average standard against similarly lesser opposition. It is county cricket vs the Sheffield Shield.
Expanding Super rugby is good for the Wallabies as it expands the selection options and gives more opportunities to players that have both skill and application. What the ARU seem to be missing is that Super rugby itself then needs to be underpinned by a wider competition that similarly tests and auditions players in a professional environment (in management and approach at least, if not all the players). It is not a case of either/or, we need both. All top level professional sport is a Darwinian selection process where the best are selected and progressed, then selected over again. If we just picked the Wallabies based solely on club form, do you really think we’d end up with the same team? The model is a pyramid and, if the top level of amateur rugby is the bedrock on which it is all built, the Wallabies are two layers above. The best 150 are picked out of club rugby for Super (with fingers crossed they can take the huge step up in required skill and dedication), then we pick the Wallabies out of that 150. All our main opposition have three levels, pre-filtering for Super rugby and testing them in a semi-professional environment – is it really so surprising that they seem to have production lines, over our reliance on spotting the odd bit of talent running around at school.
July 5th 2011 @ 12:23pm
allblackfan said | July 5th 2011 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
The problem here is that this format of Super rugby is bad for two-thirds of the three-partner Sanzar alliance.
Given the situation in NZ, it’s obvious to see that Super rugby is starting to do more damage than good (in stark contrast to Aust rugby). When the negatives outweigh the benefits then it’s time for change.
Sanzar boss Greg Peters says they are examining options for boosting crowds in NZ apart from daytime games, which he has flatly ruled out. In which case, why is he bothering? Perhaps to justify his salaried position?
July 5th 2011 @ 4:12pm
Denby said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Unfortunately crowd attendence figures do not figure too much in the calculations for SANZAR. They figure this is a problem for the provinces to solve. They are mainly concerned with where the big dollars come from and this is TV rights.
From my understanding crowd attendence in ITM Cup is also down and interest in that has been on the decline for years, maybe this is a wider problem in NZ.
July 5th 2011 @ 4:33pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
General impression I get from Kiwi rugby forums is that the cost to attend matches is a major issue combined with poor facilities and infrastructure overall – we seem to forget in Australia that the rest of the World’s economies are really sluggish. The average Kiwi is really feeling the pinch. There also appears to be tensions between the supporters of some provinces (e.g. Otago vs Southland and the Highlanders), though that’s more a minor consideration.
July 5th 2011 @ 5:36pm
allblackfan said | July 5th 2011 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
actually, interest in the ITM Cup has been on the increase. According to the NZRU, while 2010′s crowd figures were down on 2009, they were still up 43 percent on 2008′s figures.
Southland’s Ranfurly Shield campaign helped ignite the spark last year but the real worry this season is the condensed format. You will have live ITM Cup games on Fox from Tuesdays to Saturdays!!
July 5th 2011 @ 5:42pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
I have no doubt that interest is there, but the salient point is that the impression is that NZ cannot by itself support a stand alone comp like the ITM cup and still be competitive with other countries when it comes to keeping the talent. We know NZ has the talent and potential supporters, but does it have the finances. Of the 14 teams, several are in dire straits financially.
Maybe the ITM cup has benefited from the problems with the SR comp?
July 5th 2011 @ 5:39pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Should add that when I say poor facilities and infrastructure – I mean stadiums with no roof. So paying a lot of money to sit in the rain in the middle of winter at night when most of the games are scheduled is not so appealing for Kiwis.
July 7th 2011 @ 11:12pm
Jon said | July 7th 2011 @ 11:12pm | Report comment
Well that depends on how you look at it.
It’s all pie in the sky, this talk of an Aus domestic league. It’s fantasy.
They tried it. It cost tens of millions of dollars. It made no money. Almost no one watched it. The TV rights were given away for FREE to the ABC. Attendences were terrible.
It set the ARU back financially in a massive way. Essentially it squandered all the money that was raised during the 2003 World Cup.
It failed totally and utterly after ONE season.
It’s completely ridiculous to think it would work now, with the ARU having less money and the rise in tv funding to the NRL and AFL (this money essentially comes from a pool, a budget that the major networks have for sports rights. If they give the AFL and NRL billion dollar, multi-year deals, as they have/are doing, it means less money for other sports)
So in the real world a financially succesful Australian domestic comp is fantasy and simply won’t happen. The best that could be hoped for is some kind of semi-proffesional psuedo national comp consisting of the existing Shute Sheild and Queensland teams, with maybe reserve teams from the Force, Brumbies and Rebels. Even this has been looked at and rejected.
In regards to your point about Super Rugby being detrimental for rugby in SA and NZ, that is a fair enough position in some ways. It is detrimental to the popularity and exposure of the Currie Cup and the NPC.
However, it is better for the standard of rugby (anyone who thinks the CC and NPC are the same standard as Super Rugby is delusional).
And far more important than that (this is the crux of the matter), it is far, far more benficial in terms of revenue generation, particularly for NZ.
Newscorp likes Super Rugby. That’s what they want, it’s what they pay hundreds of millions of dollars for. They pushed for it to be expanded (its pretty simple for them, more teams and fixtures means more ratings and advertising space on tv).
The reason Melbourne got a team is that it’s a city of 4 million people with massive opportunities for revenue, advertising and tv viewing figures. Also, Australia is the only expansion market. As anyone who has done any economics knows companies need expansion markets and increasing profits to justify investment. Which is why Newscopr pushed for the expansion of the Australian conference. Figures are up 28%, and this is still a tiny fraction of the available market in Australia.
The Currie Cup offers some benefits to Newscorp. SA has the largest viewing figures of any of the SANZAR countires, and could generate some decent tv money. But the kicker is that Newscopr already owns it. And the amount they would pay for it is a very small fraction of what they are willing to pay for Super Rugby. It has appeal in one country. Newscopr buys it as part of the total package, but they see it as an add on, an extra bonus to Super Rugby. Take away Super Rugby, and the Currie Cup is just a much diminished version of what they already have paid for. They would just pay much less for it.
The NPC is worth a fraction of what the Currie Cup is. NZ is a small market. There is little room for growth in tv figures or advertising, and other revenue generation. As it is with Super Rugby the five teams means a concentration of viweing numbers, which means higher ratings per game. Basically all the same stuff that applies to the Currie Cup, applies to the NPC, only more so. Newscorp already owns it. It’s the same as the Currie Cup, except smaller tv ratings.
Ultimatly SANZAR and the respective national unions know all this already, which is why they signed the deal to expand Super Rugby, and whyy that is and for the forseeable future will be the way forward. Any reversion to domestic leagues with a much smaller cross continental competition similar to the HC will basically piss off Newscopr and result in a massive drop in revenue. This would cripple the ARU and NZRU, and to a lesser extent the SARU. Considering how desperate these unions are at the moment in terms of trying to generate additional revenue to stay competetive with the European rugby market, the last thing they would do is shoot themselves in the foot like that.
You cannot expect SANZAR to adopt the European model. It’s a very different market. There’s less people, less money. Which is why Super Rugby was conceived and implimented in the first place. It IS the way forward. It’s the only way.
July 5th 2011 @ 12:24pm
Rough Conduct said | July 5th 2011 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
A competition made up entirely of ‘created’ teams would be a disaster – just like the ARC. Australian Rugby has managed to build several strong provincial brands, these brands should be utilised to their fullest. An Australian equivalent to the top tiers of the Currie Cup and NPC is not that out of reach, the addition of 2 or 3 more provincial teams is absolutely possible. QLD Country and NSW Country; two teams with existing identities and brands – they would have instant support and already have existing grass roots infrastructure. The 3rd additional team would either be a second Sydney based NSW team or even South Australia. The ‘creation’ of a second Sydney based NSW team such as NSW Metropolitan based in the west, or an Australia Pacific exiles also based in the west has potential to work. The Waratahs have done such a good job of excluding, that a supporter base for an alternative team already exists.
A Southern Hemisphere provincial championship is the future, just read SA and NZ rugby media, everyone but Australia is sick of the current format.
July 5th 2011 @ 3:00pm
klestical said | July 5th 2011 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
RC, I agree. the ARC was a disaster becuase of this.i like the current Australian teams and I am simply saying we need to expand on these 5, for an 8 team competition – allowing TN countries to go back to original comps.
I think even some aussies are sick of the current format knowing that we are ruining it for kiwis and saffas.
July 7th 2011 @ 11:16pm
Jon said | July 7th 2011 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
The ARC was a disaster because no one wanted to watch it, pay for it or attend it.
It’s trite to think that just rebranding it and changing the teams around a bit is going to make it work.
Frankly the ARU can’t afford to impliment it anyway, and even if they could, why in the world would they take the risk of a crippling financial disaster?
It’s unrealistic.
July 5th 2011 @ 12:39pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
The big question that is nagging away at me is can NZ support a comp of say 10 traditional provinces and fund it so that they don’t lose players overseas? I’m all for establishing an ARC in Oz and for the Currie Cup and ITM Cup be the mainstay of Rugby in SA and NZ respectively. That way we can have 3 national comps and have a Heineken Cup style comp between the top teams in each country. Forget Argentina (still solidly amateur based with not much prospect of going pro) and Japan (different season).
Yet the big question for me is can NZ financially support a fully professional 10 team 1st division of 18 rounds and not lose the talent overseas to France and the UK? It’s really, really annoying to see good quality players running around up in the NH which strengthens them, when they could play down here and help the next generation come through. It should be like the NRL where generally only really past it players and fringe first graders go to Super League.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:53pm
klestical said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
Greco. I have thought about this aswell. I feel sorry for the NZRU – they are practically bailing out Super rugby teams AND ITM cup teams. The process is going to get completely out of control. If NZ Super Rugby Teams were disbanded, I would argue that this would at least cut some of their costs.
However as for a 10 team competition, I am not sure whether this is a viable option. Perhaps they would consider dropping down to an 8-team format?
The reason I have included Argentina and Japan is because, JONs only motto in life is ‘money talks’. While they may be amateur, they have a massive rugby loving population.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:08pm
Melbourne Red said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Why is it when the ARC conversation comes into flavour (as it does around this time every year) that it needs to start as this grand, perfect competition? We tried that once. It failed. Horribly.
We currently have 5 Australian teams. It seems quite simple to me, given that not all of the players registered with these teams will be involved with the Wallabies that they compete in a domestic competition.
Round 1
QLD vs NSW at Ballymore
ACT vs VIC at Canberra Stadium
WA bye
This format is sustainable. For Brisbane you could have one of the club premier ‘home’ rounds at Ballymore during the day followed by a QLD fixture in the evening. This could be rotated in a way that each club gets a home round at Ballymore once every two years (depending on ARC season length). The same could be done in Sydney at a smaller stadium as well as Perth and Melbourne.
This also gives the premier club rugby players something to aim for; being involved in a higher level competition.
It’s not rocket surgery. Once this format suceeds then expansion can be discussed.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:16pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
‘State of the Union’ concept. It failed. Horribly.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:56pm
klestical said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
MR, I understand where you are coming from.
I am not saying to completely start a new ‘tier’. That is what is happening in NZ and SA – and their tournaments are going backwards. I like having 5 Australian teams. I am simply saying we need to add in three more. But obviously Australian Rugby will find this financially difficult.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:31pm
Bay35Pablo said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
(places head in hands)
This had been thrashed out ad nauseam before on the Roar.
Sheek, enter stage left ….
There are enough flaws in your idea to be an article in itself.
Where does the extra money for 3 more teams come from?
What do the non-qualifying teams do during the HC period?
HC works in Europe where travel times and costs are low, and everyone is in a similar time zone for TV games.
Do you think the pick up in Aussie TV ratings is partially because the Reds are playing goo attractive football too?
You can’t even think where the 8th team should be based! (Western Sydney, Newcastle, Adelaide ….)
Gah!!!
July 5th 2011 @ 2:22pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
I know. I know. It’s getting exhausting reading the articles. At the end of the day though there are large swathes of existing fans and potential fans that could support a rugby club that are not going to be all because there is this constant feeling that the SR comp in its current form does not engage them. I live in Western Sydney and I hate the Tahs with a passion. I would love to have a team that represents this side of the city give them a flogging.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:36pm
sheek said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Thanks Bay,
(places head in hands & shakes from side to side)
You mostly said it all for me!
Except, I would add this – why do we feel the need to add pacific island teams into OUR comp?
Professionalism has killed islands rugby. I don’t like it either but it’s not our problem. The Islanders don’t have sufficient disposable income to buy pay-TV subs or sponsors’ products or replica playing kits in sufficient numbers.
If any young kid from Fiji, Samoa or Tonga wants to make the big time in the future, they can do so as either a Wallaby, Kangaroo, All Black or Kiwi. Which, in any case is happening as we speak.
Besides, I don’t even know what an Aussie is any more. Is it an Islander who was born here to parents seeking a better life, or a kid who emigrated at teens/early 20s, seeking his professional fortune?
It’s not unreasonable to see Islanders representing France, England & Wales in the future. Possibly even Italy, Scotland or Ireland. I can’t say I like the situation, but it’s happening.
I kinda miss the good old days when the Wallabies were mostly made up of Aussies; the All Blacks of Kiwis; Fiji of Fijians; Samoa of Samoans; Tonga of Tongans; England of English; Wales of Welsh & France of French. Note I said “mostly” – there was always the odd exception or two.
Now it’s kinda like the “all-nations” of one country playing the “all-nations” of another country……….
July 5th 2011 @ 2:39pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Well, well Sheek. Never picked you as an ethnic purist.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:56pm
sheek said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
GrecoRoman,
I’m certainly not what you ascribe me as being.
I simply suspect there are too many opportunistic country-hoppers when it comes to both rugby union & league…..
July 5th 2011 @ 3:07pm
GrecoRoman said | July 5th 2011 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t wish to offend you – I’ll add a smiley next time I do a bit of s—stirring. Anyway, that’s professionalism in sport and it exists in every sport where there is a quid to be made.
July 5th 2011 @ 3:12pm
sheek said | July 5th 2011 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
GR,
No, I wasn’t offended, but I accept some of the things I was saying were “sailing close to the wind”, so to speak…..
July 5th 2011 @ 4:10pm
King of the Gorgonites said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
a new one nation candiate?
or perhaps you should join the greens. these foreigners better not buy land in our country!
July 5th 2011 @ 4:12pm
King of the Gorgonites said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
12 of the english current extended world cup squad were not born in the UK.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:37pm
klestical said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Bay Pablo, The Roar has obviously cut out a number of points that i originally wrote. The title was originally called the “Australian Rugby Champsionship” and the “Asahi Cup” – but whoever is in charge obviously came up with something much more catchy.
In my original article I wrote that I am aware of the ‘money situation’, however I wrote that considering the positive outcomes of the extra Melbourne Rebels team – i think adding new teams, perhaps with private-aru partnership could be worth investigating further. I also did write that the reason TV ratings were up was because of the success of the reds as well as the ‘initial interest’ in the Melbourne Rebels.
I have thought about what non HC teams would do if it was implemented. Maybe like the Heinken Cup, the teams that do not make it could make up an ‘Amlin Challenge Cup’ style tournament as well, however maybe to cut costs, this could be based in one country over a shorter period of time.
I think ive highlighted two locations, which can provide for a competitive national championship – without draining the talent pool, helps pacific island nations and at least can allow a reversion back to an ARC, allowing NZ and SA to boost their own domestic comps aswell.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:12pm
Joseph said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
The buck stops at the fact even if Super Rugby was to be shut down and focused on domestic comps, the money does not exist to keep the players here and not head off to Europe and Japan.
Even if Australia and New Zealand had a combined comp. We are competing with European pay checks.
Current pay checks in New Zealand fall well short and many hold onto the hope of making the All Blacks. Look at the massive exodus that happens after every world cup.
TV networks, sponsors and other external income only happens because we as three countries have a potential viewing coverage of 77 million people.
When Argentina enters the Tri Nations our total viewing potential is around 121 million people. It’s all about the numbers.
If I had the skill of James O’Connor and we had a domestic comp and the most I could earn is $250,000 a year playing for Gordon for augments sake, there’s no way on gods green earth I’m going to stay. Especially when I can receive 2 million for playing with Toulon.
Super Rugby is the only way we can maintain our elite.
Crowds always turn up to see their teams if they are competitive. Stacking of teams in Super Rugby has been it’s problem. The talent must be evenly spread. 4 teams is all that has won Super Rugby. It is fast becoming EPL. Except we don’t have the money or the population to support teams that will never win the competition.
At the end of the day, if we resort back to our domestic comps our best players will be lost.
I think the answer lies within Super Rugby, we need more teams and make the domestic comps semi professional, with large salary caps put in place for SR.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 5th 2011 @ 2:43pm
klestical said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Joseph, the way i see it, is that obviously my ARC concept will not be a money maker to begin with.
However as we have seen with the explosion in popularity of the Heineken Cup – that is where the money is. We can do something similar, with the possibility of adding in Japanese and Argentinian Markets. It would be a massive financial windfall and I think this method would allow for a better competition format.
I think i am just sick of hearing of ‘adding in extra super rugby teams. It pains me to see the Currie Cup and ITM cup becoming increasingly irrelevent.
JON talks about how he wants to add in one team in argentina, one team from japan and one from the US!!! where does this stop. Providing a champions-league style tournament at least does not take away from domestic competitions.