Super Rugby shows ITM Cup still needed
Roar Rookie By sesenta y cuatro, 12 Mar 2012 sesenta y cuatro is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- ITM Cup, New Zealand Rugby Union, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Related coverage
At times, it has been difficult to follow. At times, it has been amazing. At times poor match attendances have raised questions over the feasibilty of the ITM Cup, the professional competition involving the strongest New Zealand provinces.
Now the whole model is under revision due to the enormous debt that year by year the New Zealand provincial unions are accumulating. This has been brutally true in the case of the Otago Rugby Union.
So some voices have been heard for the past weeks stating that the ITM Cup model has to be reviewed, that the whole rugby model in New Zealand should be reviewed.
But now that the Super Rugby competition has kicked off, we see the results of that much-maligned ITM Cup.
An ITM Cup where all the Crosswells, Perenaras, Smiths, Barrets, Taylors, Kerr-Barlows, Todds, Hoeatas, Kahuis, Rangers or Crudens have been trialled, have been put under pressure and have come out on top.
More than that, the ITM Cup has rounded up their games. Would you ask Cruden what an influence has Dave Rennie had in his game during the time he was the Head Coach of Manawatu?
When did we all first hear the name of this Perenara kid? What colours other than the colours of the Wellington Lions was he wearing then?
With all these quality players coming through the ranks, is there any option for the New Zealand Rugby Union other than ensuring the preservation of such a wonderful competition?
The rugby season becomes longer year after year, the physicality of the games is not exactly decreasing, according to Wayne Smith.
Is not more depth needed? Do not we hear in every SANZAR country, every Super Rugby coach, that building depth is going to be the key for Super Rugby?
After a very demanding international season, most of the senior players are either battling against time for recovery or out of form (or both). McCaw, Carter, Kaino, Woodcock are injured. Weepu, Slade and Cowan are out of form.
How much can a body be asked year after year before it is too much?
New Zealand is blessed with talent and kiwis should consider themselves fortunate of having such a great competition like the ITM Cup where all this talent is exposed and tested.
I think that competition is going to be vital in years to come to ensure the quality stocks of New Zealand are not seriously diminished.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- ITM Cup, New Zealand Rugby Union, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
March 12th 2012 @ 8:10am
kiwidave said | March 12th 2012 @ 8:10am | Report comment
There is no doubt in my mind that the ITM cup is a necessary tier in the rugby system. The thing is that it also needs to be affordable for the provinces and the NZRU otherwise we will end up kissing it goodbye in a couple of years when we run out of cash.
Whether the answer to that is a lower salary cap, a greater degree of semi-professionalism or less teams in the top tier is the next stage of this.
March 12th 2012 @ 9:51am
katzilla said | March 12th 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Well the proof of what would happen without it lies merely 3 hours flight time away.
March 12th 2012 @ 9:57am
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Entirely the NZRU’s fault. The insane refusal to allow single private owners of teams deprives the game of millions that could pay for the ITM Cup. Look at what the New Zealand Warriors have managed to get themselves:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/6514080/Billionaire-Owen-Glenn-buys-into-Warriors
The ITM Cup is obviously useful and with 14 teams covers everywhere, and it would be perfectly easy to pay for it if some rich private owners were spending their own money on the teams, freeing up millions for the NZRU to spend.
March 12th 2012 @ 11:54am
allblackfan said | March 12th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
KPM, the NZRU is ruled by all 26 ITM provinces (including the amateur heartland teams) so in effect it’s the ITM provinces themselves running the game, to a degree.
The NZRU wants to semiprivatise its Super rugby franchises, largely, I suspect, because it has little say in their running anyway (they should have fully privatised it). Any money coming from the broadcaster goes back into the Super Rugby franchises; that’s why the Highlanders were not affected by the ORFU meltdown.
Owen Glenn strikes me as being a `look at me” sort of guy hence the handouts he’s giving to all NZ sports except RU. Owen Glenn meet Clive Palmer — simply fabulous!!
March 12th 2012 @ 12:58pm
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
abf I meant private owners for the Super teams. Semi-privatisation provides no money, no one wants to do it which is why they haven’t found anyone. Multi-milionaires want to be owners of teams, not investors.
They would no longer have to pay millions of NZRU money into the teams, and could instead use it to support the ITM Cup
March 13th 2012 @ 4:58am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 4:58am | Report comment
hey kpm, i’ve heard you go on about private ownership and i’m wondering if you’ve thought of the full repercussions. the first is the effect that privatisation would have on the national squad. in NZ rugby is a pyramid and the peak is the AB’s. what if the private owner decided to sabotage the AB’s or not release their players for tests? other than cash what will a private owner offer? too many fingers in the pie for my liking.
itm needs to go back to semi pro and not pay so much players big money. clubs are living beyond their means. private owners would still mean that they’re living beyond their means and doesnt solve the business model thats failed the unions in the last 5 years.
nz just have to get used to having their players poached by other countries. what nzrfu need to do is entice those players back and treat their going overseas as a short term OE. if it were me i’d get the itm players into a course on money management geared towards investing in a nest egg while overseas making big bucks but always implanting in the back of their minds that they can come back one day and trial for the AB’s one day.
this idea of billionaires lining up to buy a super team is dangerous and i doubt there’d be actually a line. by definition billionaires are rare. privitisation doesnt ensure the survival of the game it just means some idiot with a lot of money will be in complete control of that club.
March 12th 2012 @ 11:56am
Pierce said | March 12th 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Who and where are all these millionaires/billionaires and their limitless piles of cash? Owen Glenn is a one-off who by buying into the Warriors gets exposure in Australia.
March 12th 2012 @ 12:56pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Clive Palmer should be a very, very strong warning against anyone who thinks private ownership is a good idea.
Diamond Joe Gutnick nailed how to do it right – he ran for election as the President of the Melbourne AFL club back in the 1980s on a platform of 1) Elect me, and no merger with Hawthorn, and 2) Elect me, and I’ll donate $2m to the club.
He won, easily.
Rich people sponsoring teams – great, go for it, give them a great seat and the Presidency of the team.
Rich people owning teams – Geoffrey Edelsten, Clive Palmer, Al Davis and the Glazers all argue its a bad, bad idea.
March 12th 2012 @ 1:11pm
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Ian I disagree: English and French club rugby is basically funded by rich private owners and the biggest sporting competitions in the world operate through it. But what these competitions have is controls to stop the likes of Clive Palmer behaving as he did.
It’s a very odd example, and just shows the need for safeguards while allowing private ownership which were obviously lacking there.
March 12th 2012 @ 2:14pm
allblackfan said | March 12th 2012 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
KPM, under the terms of reference for the NZRFU Super franchise expressions of interest, the would-be owners would have a certain leeway in team selection and the like but the central contracting role of the NZRFU would remain.
To someone like Glenn, that’s unacceptable and may mean it’s doomed to fail (unless the licences are bought domestically) but given the chaos in Europe, the NZRU has every right to be wary of private owners
March 12th 2012 @ 2:49pm
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
abf of course they would want some more power, but that could be controlled as it is in other countries.
There doesn’t seem to be so much chaos in Europe: in France and England private owners pump millions into the game while being kept under good control. The NZRU just has to set rules while allowing them their freedom.
Having said that, new Super teams with private owners would be as easy way to do it.
With so many more millions in the game, not only could the ITM Cup be funded and stars retained and stopped from going overseas, but much more money could be put into youth structures.
March 12th 2012 @ 3:39pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
cf Glasgow Rangers
March 13th 2012 @ 5:05am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 5:05am | Report comment
KPM – how has private ownership improved the level of rugby in France/Europe?
NZ is successful in rugby because its all controlled by the NZRFU. Now they arent always correct in their decisions but being answerable to the unions means that everyone is kind of on the right page and focussed on making NZ rugby better. introduce private owners and thats an obstacle that wasnt there before. sure an injection of cash would be great but that comes with strings and the NZRFU will no longer be the sole arbitrator of NZ rugby talent, doesnt address the business model failure and puts too much power into an individuals hands that your not sure see’s the bigger [icture of the AB’s.
super and ITM can survive if the clubs stay within budget. during the good years they need to put some money aside and live off these savings during the lean years. theres a lot of money to be made. lets not sell the cow to get some milk.
March 13th 2012 @ 5:32am
kingplaymaker said | March 13th 2012 @ 5:32am | Report comment
mania private ownership has nothing to do with the level of rugby: the point is simply that is provides vast amounts of money.
New Zealand rugby is successful because rugby is the biggest game, and with private ownership things would be quite similar, but with the difference that the NZRU would not lose millions every year, would easily be able to fund the ITM Cup, would not lose stars overseas such as Carl Hayman, would be able to fund even more academies, recruitment and development officers and buy up the South Auckland talent that goes to league.
Private ownership doesn’t mean any loss of control of the game: the governing body that grants the ownership of clubs can determine the rules as it likes. Owners are kept on a tight leash in France and that could be true in New Zealand too.
March 13th 2012 @ 5:52am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 5:52am | Report comment
KPM – thers already a bad business model in place that needs fixing and you think that throwing more money at it is going to fix it? the model will still be bad and lose money its just that your hoping some rich guy would be happy to throw good $ after bad into it? at some stage the owner will start cutting players to save money.
i cant see the ego of a billionaire being told that you can own the team but the NZRFU still gets to make a lot of decisions for you
March 13th 2012 @ 6:04am
kingplaymaker said | March 13th 2012 @ 6:04am | Report comment
mania whether the business model is bad or good is a different issue.
Whatever the business model, having millions more is only beneficial.
The private owners need some control, but mainly over coaches, squads and marketing, not over rugby in the franchise area as a whole or over. Nor over which players they get.
In France the union dictates how many players of what nationality a team can have, and the same could be true in New Zealand.
March 13th 2012 @ 6:09am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 6:09am | Report comment
KPM – “Whatever the business model, having millions more is only beneficial” theres always a cost. your thinking of this commercially where most kiwi’s are thinking about the good of rugby. call it small country syndrome but kiwi’s think about the level of rugby and the success of the AB’s than the profit margin. a bit simplified but also focused on what matters.
profits nice but doesnt guarantee rugby dominance. rugby level is primary and profitMargin secondary
March 13th 2012 @ 6:12am
kingplaymaker said | March 13th 2012 @ 6:12am | Report comment
mania you assume that private ownership would have to change the way rugby is run and organised, when in reality it wouldn’t.
It could be pretty much the same as now but with a lot more money.
In France they let the owners plough millions into the game but keep them on a tight leash and New Zealand could also do this.
March 13th 2012 @ 6:22am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 6:22am | Report comment
sorry KPM, respect your opinion and enjoy your arguments but your over simplying this. “It could be pretty much the same as now but with a lot more money” is such a simple view on privitisation. theres also a price to pay for handouts. nothings for free and quid pro quo would be more in force in ths situation as it involves millions.
first the business model needs fiixing. if you have an oil leak in your car you dont upgrade the motor to a V8.
March 13th 2012 @ 7:51am
kingplaymaker said | March 13th 2012 @ 7:51am | Report comment
mania I don’t think though there have been any negative effects in France or England.
I think some new teams with private owners now would be good, as it would mean the existing franchises could continue as they are. Also it would bring the spread of Super rugby and the ITM Cup closer together which could only be good for both.
By the way I also think there should be single private owners in Australia and South Africa and it’s bizarre that Australia haven’t done it.
March 13th 2012 @ 8:01am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
KPM – we’ll just agree to disagree on this one. by all means if aus want to test this scenario out i say go for it, but in NZ i doubt it would be for the greater good.
need to fix whats here first before commiting to any commercial improvements.
ITM is NZ’s comp, i dont think Aus should be involved in it. Aus club rugby isnt good enough to play ITM. ITM needs to drop payments for players it cant afford. not every up and coming player deserves to be paid.
poaching from richer nations is just a neccessary evil in modern rugby.
March 13th 2012 @ 8:12am
kingplaymaker said | March 13th 2012 @ 8:12am | Report comment
mania well I certainly agree that it would be very hard for Australia to join the ITM Cup and not necessarily desirable for either party, unless someone very generous was willing to pay for it.
I think Australia has bigger problems that its own national competition, which is thought of as a magical silver bullet. They desperately need more Super teams to compete against the dominant NRL and each additional team would revolutionise rugby in Australia in its own way. Once there are a decent number of Super teams then a national competition could be added.
March 13th 2012 @ 8:28am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
KPM- i dont see how throwing more money at aus club sides would make them any more competitive to play in ITM. its not about money its about quality of rugby. aus clubs would just dilute the quality of ITM.
yes aus has a big problem with no national comp but adding more super teams? please no. not the same old rubbish from the SANZAR nations. get new teams from different countries in.
your line “…and each additional team would revolutionise rugby in Australia in its own way” how? what has Force and Rebels revolutionised since their inception? nothing and they are as usual the easy beats.
you need the national comp before SR but before that you need a grass roots structure. your putting the cart before the horse. no to more superTeams from the SANZAR nations. sort out your inhouse problems first and foremost of those is organising a strong grassroots system to nurture and develop young and up and coming talent.
March 13th 2012 @ 9:10am
kingplaymaker said | March 13th 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
mania I didn’t say Australian sides should join the ITM Cup.
The Force and Rebels were in virgin markets and so will take a long time to develop players, but it will happen and those areas are massive.
In terms of spectators they have added two new huge areas. So yes they are revolutionary.
As would Adelaide be although again in terms of players it would take a long time as it’s a virgin market.
But the other new possibilities, Western Sydney and Gold Coast, would add not only new spectator markets but would instantly produce players, the vast numbers who are plucked by the NRL because there are only one Super team in NSW and Queensland. The presence of rugby in its two heartland areas would instantly be doubled as would the number of contracts that could be offered to players.
March 12th 2012 @ 1:16pm
Bay35Pablo said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
KPM,
The same logic applies as in Oz.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/16/where-are-australian-rugbys-nathan-tinklers/
March 12th 2012 @ 1:24pm
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Bay absolutely, and even in South Africa although they might not appear to need it.
On the Spiro thread where they are wondering about a lack of talent in Australia, I would suggest that rich private owners would give the franchises the money to bid successfully for young talent, that which currently goes to league.
A mega-rich Waratahs or Reds could buy young talents like Jamal Idriss so they don’t go to the NRL.
March 12th 2012 @ 4:44pm
Thurl said | March 12th 2012 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
You could be right there KPM.
All these billionaires treating NZ as a playground. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10791406
We’ll just make it a condition of entry that they buy a Super Rugby team.
Problem solved
March 12th 2012 @ 8:46pm
kiwidave said | March 12th 2012 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
We’ll need more rugby teams at that rate
March 12th 2012 @ 11:07am
nomis said | March 12th 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Having the structures that NZ rugby has (and particularly with it’s professional ‘third tier’ in the modern era) has undoubtably been one of the key ingredients in the AllBlacks success. But it’s more than the ITM cup. NZ rugby has such a strong pyramid structure from schoolboys up, that their best players develop really thoroughly in all facets of the game before emerging at the top level.
What’s interesting is that SA’s system is fairly similar to NZ, yet AUS and SA are very even in terms of results at every level of the game. While SA produce heaps of depth, could it be politics holding SA rugby back from reaching it’s full potential? Or could it be that AUS are punching above their weight?
As for the future of the ITM Cup, I think the NZRU would be wise to try and maintain their current structure as much as possible. But unfortunately, I don’t think it’s sustainable without some sort of change as kiwidave has suggested above.
March 12th 2012 @ 1:17pm
Bay35Pablo said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Australia has been punching well above its weight for decades ….
March 13th 2012 @ 5:19am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 5:19am | Report comment
nomis. imho the only thing that keeps NZ at the top is other countries self inflicting restrictions on themselves. if the NZ model was used in anyother tier 1 country then we’d no longer be #1.
in Aus they do us the favour of being predominantly a private school sport so its not for the common man. they pretty much cut out 60-80% of their population. good for AB’s bad for rugby overall.
In SA yes they have politics in spades not only at a National govt level but also within the provinces. at provincial level the animosity between unions is so intense that i reckon they hate each othr more than they hate the AB’s or Wallabies. this shows in their derby games when you see the brutality level is far above what they dish out to the non SA teams. when ever a coach is selected he’ll almost always pick from his own province and look unfavourably at others. i’m not sure these coaches even realise they have a bias vs other provinces but the results are there to see.
england has the same issue as aus in that predominatly players come from a private school background. i find it funny that in england rugby is for the upper class and football is for the lower. you’d think that the contact sport would appeal more to the blue collar workers.
so ITM is vital to nz staying on top, though the ITM is just one level down from the tip of the iceberg and loads and loads of work is done long before a player gets to ITM level.
March 12th 2012 @ 11:55am
Atawhai Drive said | March 12th 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
KPM, I respect your judgment in all matters rugby, but I can’t agree the NZRU was insane in refusing to allow single private owners to get involved with ITM Cup teams. Leaving aside the risks associated in letting buffoons such as Clive Palmer or frauds such as Allen Stanford adopt sport as a personal plaything, where is the evidence that the idle rich would want to buy a team in NZ?
The ITM Cup will just have to live within its means. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the pay scale for ITM Cup players (i.e. those who don’t also play Super Rugby) is $15,000 minimum up to a maximum of $60,000. Some provinces, such as Southland and Otago, have paid at the top end of the scale with ruinous results. The talk now is that the pay will be more towards the bottom end, in which case some ITM Cup players will have to go out and get a proper job for the other nine months of the year.
The ITM Cup is undoubtedly useful in developing players, although 10 teams should be enough.
March 12th 2012 @ 1:07pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Atawhai Drive,
Just a word of warning on dropping the ITM cup back to being semi-professional, where players need day jobs to survive … Lewis Roberts-Thompson showed you can easily go from a rugby background to AFL, and become a darn good player.
AFL sides can pay New Zealanders in off-cap money, under ‘international scholarships’. If you’re earning $15k a year playing ITM, two years earning triple that on an AFL scholarship while you see if you can make better than Super 15 money playing Australian Rules is a pretty good bet for a jumping second-rower.
March 12th 2012 @ 1:19pm
Bay35Pablo said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Australia – no ITM.
If you don’t get a Super contract and are good enough, off to Europe, Japan or league.
As you say, that’s the threat to NZ – cashed up other codes or countries.
March 12th 2012 @ 4:56pm
allblackfan said | March 12th 2012 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
IW, the ITM Cup is currently semi-professional where is why a lot of unions are in strife.
What is being debated is whether the ITM Cup should become amateur again; the Heartland Championship remains amateur. No problems there!!
March 12th 2012 @ 5:55pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Allblackfan,
The point Im warning you about is that if you’re six foot or more, eighteen to twenty years old and athletically talented, then Vlad wants to give you fifty grand a year.
If you’re six four and can pick up a bouncing ball blow your knees, then I think he’ll spring a hundred grand, cold.
If you can show you can train hard – like for example, learning what a beep test is, and showing you improved your score on it since last time he talked to you – then we can probably add to that number what a bottom end ITM Cup player earns in a year.
And thats before Vlad knows if you know anything about Australian Rules football.
March 12th 2012 @ 9:02pm
Emric said | March 12th 2012 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
Ian
The argument is that most Kiwis don’t even think about AFL. It has no profile in New Zealand so its highly unlikely our rugby talent is going to be snapped up by the AFL.
Beep tests are part of every first fifteen’s training pattern every single NPC player in New Zealand would have to score well in fitness tests including beep tests (as well as others)
March 12th 2012 @ 9:11pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
Emric,
You may not care about them. But do they care about you ?
The AFL is not interested in New Zealand for crowds or sponsorship dollars – they are looking for elite young athletes they can turn into Australian footballers.
As far as beep tests, if you can score a thirteen or better, Vlad is paying attention. If you can score a fifteen, I’ll say right here and now that you’re hired.
March 12th 2012 @ 9:44pm
Mella said | March 12th 2012 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
then why aren’t they signing them?
March 12th 2012 @ 10:10pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
Mella,
http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/Community/HANZUP/TrentCroadScholarshipScheme/tabid/16181/Default.aspx
http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20110710181236318
March 12th 2012 @ 1:22pm
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Atawhai the fact that the Warriors could find two while league is a minor sport suggests there would be many more for the major sport. Often these rich owners are sports obsessives and where the major sport is rugby it will produce many of them. Oddly sometimes they have no interest in rugby but simply like a personal entrepreneurial project or to do something for a particular area.
See my reply to Ian above for how to control private owners.
Your point is a good one that the NZRU should have some control, especially over the broader franchise area. However, I don’t just think New Zealand got it wrong with not allowing owners, but Australia and South Africa too.
March 15th 2012 @ 11:55am
Ian Whitchurch said | March 15th 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
For the record, your way to control private owners is to say ‘Oh, dont worry, we’ll control private owners’
March 12th 2012 @ 1:38pm
Emric said | March 12th 2012 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
If you want to fix the itm cup
Make the All Blacks play a minimum of half the games. Put a bigger emphasis on ITM cup games over Super Rugby games, and finally start incorporating Australian provincial teams into the competition (club sides not state sides).
Sell it as a seprate entity to the sky-tv, foxtel sky is paying 12 million Aus dollars a year for the NRL they should be paying slightly more for the ITM Cup which has much better ratings then the NRL is getting.
March 12th 2012 @ 2:02pm
Working Class Rugger said | March 12th 2012 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
You’d still get loaded Aus teams but hey, I’d be up for seeing it.
March 12th 2012 @ 2:21pm
allblackfan said | March 12th 2012 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Emric, you’d assume so in terms of ratings dollars. I know that 2-3 years ago, while rengotiating its rugby coverage, SKY NZ paid 30% more for its deal. Not to mention Sky is on record as saying it is ramping its schoolboy RU coverage this year since they rate very well as well.
I wonder if Fox, in moving from two games delayed coverage into Aust two years ago to live coverage of all games last year, had to pay as well as an outside broadcaster!
As for Aust partcipation I think you need provinces involved but perhaps you could create regional side (ie Hunter, Illawarra, South Coast etc)
March 12th 2012 @ 2:56pm
Working Class Rugger said | March 12th 2012 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Stay provincial in Aus but include both NSW Country and QLD Country. That would spread the talent a little thinner without diluting it too much plus add more opportunity for player’s.
March 12th 2012 @ 3:04pm
kingplaymaker said | March 12th 2012 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
WCR your idea being to give areas which don’t really have a team now something? (In order perhaps to develop them into one day turning into full Super teams. I assume you would base one in Newcastle and the other on the Sunshine Coast, or if there isn’t a Super team there soon the Gold Coast).
March 12th 2012 @ 3:57pm
Working Class Rugger said | March 12th 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
I’d avoid the GC like the plague personally. I would look for both the Country teams to spread the love a bit actually. Take the game to the larger regional centres in both states. Though if they chose to centralize their squads would be fine by me.
March 12th 2012 @ 4:11pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Have a very careful look at the NEAFL, and specifically at the NT Thunder in the NEAFL.
I dont know how they are funded, but it seems to be what you are trying to do,
March 13th 2012 @ 5:34am
mania said | March 13th 2012 @ 5:34am | Report comment
i agree here with you emric btu ahve some issues. firstly tho i agree the AB’s should play ITM as it allows the up and comers to test thmselves against the best. the other side of the coin tho is when will the AB’s have time to play ITM? They’re already playing SR, a few mid years tests, 4Nations and then EOYT. i’m exhausted just listing them but we cant demand more from the AB’s when they play so much already. their pre-season starts in Jan and the season doesnt end till nov. the body has its limits and needs enforced rest.
NZRFU sold out the soul of NZ rugby by comprimising its ITM. SA did better in that they fought to preserve their CC. ITM could’ve died when the AB’s were withdrawn but its somehow survived and now the level of rugby and entertainment is better than its been in ages. that was a fluke though and this was due to the supporters more than any clever planning by the NZRFU.
dont need aus in the ITM sorry, aus clubs dont deserve to compete in the ITM. create your own ITM comp and then maybe in a few years there might be a team good enough to play ITM, but at this stage i’d see an aus club side just getting a medal for participating and they’d just bring the level of NZ rugby down.sorry
aus club rugby might be able to compete in our local club comps like the wellington jubilee cup but at ITM level they would get a hiding.
March 13th 2012 @ 6:23am
Emric said | March 13th 2012 @ 6:23am | Report comment
Mania
The issue is one of money and not one of too much rugby the fact most of the top All Blacks go to Europe / Japan on their time off to play more rugby shows they are not playing more rugby then they can cope with. The ITM Cup must be made viable and the best way to do that is to bring in Australian money – we do this by galvanising the Australian rugby public to support our competitoin just as the NRL have done with the NZRL supporting public in NZ and the A-League with NZ’s soccer public.
Bring in more money over a period of time and we will see the All blacks playing back in the ITM Cup
March 13th 2012 @ 7:00am
Darwin Stubbie said | March 13th 2012 @ 7:00am | Report comment
The idea that more money would flow in and the NZ provinces could afford to fly across the Tasman in some new comp is wishful thinking at best …. The size of it (14 provinces plus god know how many Aust teams) would mean the window for it would mean either stretching it so it runs concurrently with SR – therefore limiting the player base and sponsorship dollars (so no ABs) … The costs of the travel would kill off the provinces alone … there’s also this belief that SR is a cash cow so some another would also be … But SR isn’t a moneymaker the internationals are -this comp won’t make vast piles of cash because it’s third tier …..
The only way to get Aust players in is to have them playing in the NZ sides …. Get the ARU to formalise a program – use the NPC as their 3rd tier by identifying talent from club rugby and funding them via scholarships … The NPC is already shown here – so TV rights are already involved – more Aust players might spark more interest and therefore a better deal down the road for NZRFU
March 13th 2012 @ 12:33pm
Rugbug said | March 13th 2012 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Taranaki has imported Australian players on a few occassions, Ed Jenkins, Hilgendorrf, Brock James etc and I do believe Fainifo played for Waikato last year
March 12th 2012 @ 2:50pm
Emric said | March 12th 2012 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
ABF
That’s true, but its still not enough the salary cap for the ITM Cup is only 1 million dollars for the 14 top teams the NRL is recieveing 20million NZ dollars for a weaker product its time the NZRU stopped bundling the products and offered the itm cup as a individual product.
\I agree with the Australian team idea to a point.
March 12th 2012 @ 4:25pm
tc said | March 12th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
It wasn’t long ago if a kiwi had entertained the idea of allowing a trans tasman NPC you would have been hung drawn and quartered by other kiwis ,oh how times are changing in rugby . The NZRFU needs to set up some kind of NZ/AU comp ASAP and get tv involved ,i’d be one kiwi who would love to watch my beloved Southland crush all other Australasian NPC teams into the dust.
March 15th 2012 @ 6:23am
Uncle Eric said | March 15th 2012 @ 6:23am | Report comment
Not dust TC, MUD.
March 12th 2012 @ 4:34pm
sheek said | March 12th 2012 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
At the risk of offending Kiwis & their connection to their provinces, do you really need 26 provinces? South Africa has only 14 provinces, while politically Australia, a huge continent, is made up of just 6 states & 2 territories.
Why can’t South & Mid Canterbury be absorbed into Canterbury? Or Noth Harbour & Counties-Manakau absorbed into Auckland, & so on? Couldn’t the 26 provinces be reduced into a more workable 16 provinces? Or perhaps even less.
In the professional world, regrettably some of the ways of the past must give way to economic rationalisation & reality. Anyway, I’m not suggesting it must be done this way only, but offering it as a discussion point.
March 12th 2012 @ 4:44pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 12th 2012 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Sheek,
Thats not neccessarily going to help, if the people from North Harbour and Counties dont turn up to Auckland games, and so on.
The key, I think, is simply professionalising the back end – I personally think the single best thing the NZRFU would be better off hiring a couple of good accoutants to help the various provincial unions improve their systems.
March 12th 2012 @ 5:00pm
allblackfan said | March 12th 2012 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
Sheek, for a start, the 12 amateur provinces in the Heartland Chmpionship don’t have a problem with professionalism.
They are amateur. All the players have a day job. Not to mention the officials don’t feel the need to buy players just to be competitive. if a player wants to move on, these officials will just shrug their shoulders and get on with it.
So these provinces can continue life as normal. The issues lie in the semi-professional unions in the ITM Cup (both levels)
March 12th 2012 @ 8:09pm
sheek said | March 12th 2012 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Ian/ABF,
Thanks. ABF, yes, I had quite forgotten (momentarily) the bottom 12 provinces were amateur.
March 12th 2012 @ 5:16pm
nomis said | March 12th 2012 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
OK. So if it would allow the ITM Cup to continue to function at a professional level, would kiwis accept the aussies having a couple of teams in there?
March 12th 2012 @ 5:28pm
allblackfan said | March 12th 2012 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
If done right, I’m sure they would, Nomis.
Kiwis are conscious of the fact that the Warriors and Breakers have benefitted from participation in an Aust competition while NZ netball appears to have started down this road by signing up Aust-born NZ-eligible players (ie Courtney Tairi, Colyton girl now on the verge of becoming a Silver Fern)
March 12th 2012 @ 6:08pm
Emric said | March 12th 2012 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
I’d have no problem at all Nomis – it is time that New Zealand took Australian rugby seriously
March 13th 2012 @ 12:41pm
Rugbug said | March 13th 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
If it wasn’t for NZ rugby in the 70′s and 80′s Australian rugby would be non existent
March 13th 2012 @ 12:40pm
Rugbug said | March 13th 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
I don’t think they would at all, sure some might but I believe the majority would be against it as we already have super rugby where we play Australian teams. What makes the ITM cup special is that it is brother against brother, neighbour against neighbour and mate against mate and everyone loves a good old family domestic.
No to Australian teams but i’m certainly open to the idea of Australian players playing in the current teams.
The cost of international travel alone for these provinces in NZ and some of the Clubs in Australia would send them broke by week three of the competition.
Provinces are struggling to pay their players and now people expect them to pay international airfares and hotel expenses as well.
Sadly it just wont work and thats the cold hard reality of it.
Super rugby barely works as it is, and as has been pointed out it certainly isn’ the money spinner some like to think it is.
March 13th 2012 @ 12:53pm
allblackfan said | March 13th 2012 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
rugbug, the only way an expanded ITM Cup would work would be if Super rugby didn’t exist.
You obviously couldn’t have the two operating in parallel