Future’s not All Black for New Zealand rugby
By Rugby Andrew, 30 Jan 2013 Rugby Andrew is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, New Zealand Rugby Union, NPC, Rugby Union
134 Have your say
Related coverage
What would happen if New Zealand rugby was able to fund a fully professional domestic competition? What would the implications be for Australian rugby in particular, but also the Pacific Island unions?
An article I read this week led to this line of questioning. The article discussed New Zealand Rugby Union’s bid to increase global sponsorship (i.e. into the USA) of its flagship ‘brand’, the All Blacks, using its association with American insurers AIG.
There are plans to take the All Blacks name to the wider rugby/sporting world, earning the New Zealand Rugby Union more sponsorship dollars, primarily those of the greenback appearance.
I’m going to take a mental leap or two forward here. Imagine a fully cashed-up NPC with players earning a decent living at just the provincial level. These teams could travel to games by air, have the ability to host top notch live events and even say no to TV demands for night games to attract crowds.
What impact would such a scenario have on Australian rugby?
At first, second and possibly third glance, none. However, much closer scrutiny reveals there may be hidden benefits for Aussie rugby.
The emergence of a fully professional NPC in New Zealand could provide a useful ‘plan B’ for Australian rugby administrators wanting to create a third tier of completion. I view the proposed under 23 competition as a nice start but still inadequate.
If, and this is big, the New Zealand Rugby Union can cash up its NPC then it could allow the ARU to develop, not to mention keep, its top players by providing them with a lucrative and challenging pathway.
Okay, fellow Kiwis, settle down! Let me explain.
The AFL and NRL’s billion-dollar deals pose a problem for the New Zealand Rugby Union. These codes (and soccer, to a lesser extent) are increasingly eyeing their trans-Tasman neighbours and New Zealand is not such a big country/market that the New Zealand Rugby Union can afford to ignore such intrusions.
The Warriors have two rich owners (although Glenn Christie’s involvement still baffles me given he is a self-confessed rugby union man) and the AFL are making noises about jumping the ditch.
If the ARU cannot, or will not, start up a domestic NPC – the Australian Rugby Shield was the perfect development vehicle and the only true national sporting competition – then the players needs to take matters into their own hands.
At the very least, the New Zealand Rugby Union should set up a trans-Tasman player registry so if Aussie players want to play in the NPC, the New Zealand provinces will be able to pick them.
Look at Australian NPC alumni the likes of James Hilgendorf, Brock James, Peter Playford and new Waratah signing Peter Betham (who was apparently in the sights of New Zealand Super franchises and says he wants to return across the Tasman for this year’s competition).
Next time I will look at how Aussie teams could be assimilated into a Tasman Provincial Competition – TPC anyone?
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (252)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (243)
- I was dead-set wrong about Folau (237)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Deans promises ball in hand rugby for Wallabies against Lions (183)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (182)
- My Lion tamers for 2013 (167)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (171)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (252)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (190)
- Berrick Barnes inspirational in Tahs win over Brumbies (164)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (29)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (175)
- Leinster win European Challenge Cup (6)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (190)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (29)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (175)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (517)
- Wallaby backline options (68)
- An exciting weekend in Australian rugby (1)
- Western Force vs Sharks: Super Rugby live scores, blog (114)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, New Zealand Rugby Union, NPC, Rugby Union



January 30th 2013 @ 5:02am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 5:02am | Report comment
AFL and NRL’s billion-dollar sponsorship doesnt pose NZ any problems. they should be welcomed onto NZ shores and given a chance to prosper. diversity is the key to survival. i love league and i played a bit of aussie rules when i lived over there. both good games with their own strategy and tactics. both physical and fast.
i do however agree with aus players being contracted to NPC provinces. i dont think there should be an aus team in our ITM but definately have up to 8 players per team.
January 30th 2013 @ 5:13am
Johnno said | January 30th 2013 @ 5:13am | Report comment
Glen Christie wanted in too NZ rugby, but he wanted to own a super rugby team outright. The NZRU said no. So he went to rugby league, where he could be top goat the boss. the Warriors I am really excited about.
With the 2019 world cup in Japan in Asia-paicfic, NZ should strengthen ties with Japan rugby which is growing, and much improved .
Id love super rugby to be Aust/NZ/Japan, and nz keep it’s 3rd tier ITM cup. Any aussy involvement in NZ’s 3rd-tier ,NZ should wisely avoid. There is new plans, for a licence deal business model for NZ’s super rugby teams. But the NZRU still will have ownership of the teams, but the licences will get a say on marketing and promotions, and promotion benefits. I think the Hurricanes/Crusader’s have .
http://www.3news.co.nz/NZRU-announce-new-Crusaders-license/tabid/415/articleID/280806/Default.aspx
Australia-Japan rivalry is really exciting. However I am still sceptical if Japan will bother join super rugby. The corporation there like, running the teams, bring in a lot of money, and the standard of Japan rugby is improving. In other word’s i am not sure Japan even needs SUper rugby, and same applies to USA/Canada.. All this super rugby expansion, i still can’t see it happening outside of the 3 current SANZAR nations.
If South Africa were to leave SUper rugby and join the NH or go stand alone domestic comp, Aust/NZ trans tasman comp could survive. As revenue would be higher for away matches due to friendly tv times.
But test matches make big money the RC, and South Africa bring in big money too the RC, and super rugby acts as a good promotional tool for the RC.
So were are back to square 1. Unless Japan comes in to super rugby, or USA/Canada, . 2016 when the new Tv deal starts will still be same old,same old. South Africa who have no opponents in Africa, and Europe doesn’t want them, they will stay in SANZAR, and join Argentina in the RC.
And pacific islands team, in the RC, Fiji or Samoa in the RC, a pacific islands team in super rugby playing out of Auckland, a pacific islands team in a 3-rd tier in Aust or NZ. . All these scenarios, forget it, it won’t happen Not commercially viable enough.
And NZ or Australia, don’s seem too keen on having a non aussy or kiwi team basing it self in it’s country, despite large pacific islands populations. I think it’s co the same as the old NSL soccer , not running teams on ethnic lines.
So SANZAR will continue, in 2016 and Aust/NZ will still join up with the larger STH African market. I am still concerned about low tv ratings, for away matches in South Africa, . But I like the conference system, more local derbies and hope it stays.
For me the most logical solution, to all 3 countries, and strengthening depth, is 1 extra super rugby team in each country, south africa would love it. And all 3have a 3rd-tier, but no joint 3rd-tier between Aust/NZ. WOuld not be good for NZ development, as there whole junior pathways are so differently planned to Australia’s.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:00am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:00am | Report comment
johnno – i’m not a fan of derbies as i like seeing nz teams smash other teams rather than each other. but i do understand the logisticcal advantages it gives in such a big conf.
i’m def not a fan of the sanzar nations getting more teams. that avenue has been exhausted and done to death and shows nothing innovative or new. expanding into the asia or american markets is much more attractive cos its at least trying something different.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:07am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:07am | Report comment
Johnno, again with your extra super rugby team?
Ankther su
Er rugby team will effectivley kill any chance Currie Cup have of sustaining itself.
Super rugby should not and must not be the be all and end all of SH provincial rugby.
There is only one way forward if super rugby wants to expand and remain.
The Currie Cup and ITM cup and a similar cup competition must take the place of the conferences.
Whereby each country can then have as many teams as they want in their domestic conference and these domestic teams play a round robin only amongst themselves and travel and cross conference matches are completely irradicated.
Only after these comps have been completed can the top 2 teams progress to some form lf knock out series. I am more and more inclined to concede the hC model would work best as the compeition can be shortened and the domestic legs still take precendence.
That also takes care of the viewing times for each of these countries as there will be much less cross continent matches and you’ll get your derbies.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:16am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:16am | Report comment
biltongbek – currie cup should be protected above super. SA have been very good at protecting it and rightly so.
itm however has adapted and survived the expansion. i dont know how as i was a doom sayer when the AB’s were removed from ITM but i’m now of the opinion that ITM is better than ever. its faster and has a skill level equal to super quality over all .
i dont like the idea of ITM being adapted to be a knock out stage for super. imo super just shouldnt encroach at all on what little time ITM has to itself.
i like cross continent games. touring SA is the baptism of fire that every professional player neeeds to go thru. it seperates the men from the boys
January 30th 2013 @ 6:22am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:22am | Report comment
Mania, that is fine if you wantt cross continent matches.
But then.
There must be less teams and it must be home and away. Otherwise it simply loses all credibiltity for me. We have spoken about this before, I hate the current format. The teams that get through don’t have an equal chhance, some play easier games, otherlay easier opponents.
Let us just look at the stormers vs the Chiefs, if they are the two best teams in the comp, they must play each kther home AND away.
Reduce the teams then.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:34am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:34am | Report comment
agree. top teams need to play each other more than just one off’s. dont know how itll be done though especially as the conf system is here to stay and will be needed if canada and US are brought on board as rumoured. definately reduce the current amount of sanzar teams
January 30th 2013 @ 1:07pm
Hightackle said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
More teams, less teams?
You cant have a home and away and being SA I thought you would know this. SA teams would be hugely disadvantaged.
lets say they drop it to 12 teams. Thats 8 weeks that all SA teams need to be away on the other end of the earth for.
I like the new format, not becuz its fair but becuz its the best system possible.
January 30th 2013 @ 4:36pm
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
I don’t think it is the best system possible. If they are adament about the conference system then let the conferences fight it out on their own for qualification to go to the knock out rounds.
Also the problem you have with conferences are that you should either have two, or four, or eight conferences as you need it to follow the correct format for qualification of quarters, semi’s and final.
Even the HC is flawed in the fact that it has 6 pools. The winner plus two best losers, Two best losers? how do you establish two best losers when everyone is in a different pool with different degrees of quality opposition?
January 31st 2013 @ 3:13am
Hightackle said | January 31st 2013 @ 3:13am | Report comment
So whats your solution?
More or less teams isnt going to happen, it just isnt.
Travel is a problem.
So its the best system possible.
Unless you can come up with a better system without shrinking the earth, making SA teams travel too much or adding or taking away teams, what is your solution?
And I disagree about the number of conferences. 6 is perfect for a playoffs stage. The 2 top qualifiers are rewarded for their efforts and get to sit out a game and refresh.
Its the best system possible. I have not heard a better system yet.
January 31st 2013 @ 3:20am
Hightackle said | January 31st 2013 @ 3:20am | Report comment
Also how can the conferences fight it out by themselves. Its only 5 teams. If they only played amoungst themselves they would play each other 4 or more times in a season. Also if your confetence has 4 top teams and SA and Australia have none it is far too lop-sided.
January 31st 2013 @ 3:30am
abnutta said | January 31st 2013 @ 3:30am | Report comment
Hightackle,
I can’t fathom your concerns.
There are plenty of models out there which advocate “closed conferences” for SR (no cross conference matches means no international travel during the conference stage of the competition).
Therefore you can have more teams in each conference be it 6, 8 or 10 in each and still have less travel and expenses involved with running the current 15 team SR comp.
January 31st 2013 @ 4:43am
Hightackle said | January 31st 2013 @ 4:43am | Report comment
What are you talking about?
There are 5 yeams in each conference. Not 6,8,45 or 112.
Abnutta find me a conference system that only has 5 teams where they play a whole season amoungst themselves.
Last I checked the super rugby had 5 and wouldnt allow 6.
My concerns are that it wouldnt work with 5. I chose the number 5 becuz thays how many teams we have. I have no idea why people keep going on about 10 teams or whatever. We have 5, so dont say it would work better if we had 10 or 26 or whatever. Its super 15 and until that changes and we get 49 teams in each conference I see no point in arguing on how the system doesnt work becuz in fantasy land there are much more teams.
This is the best system for super 15 and until somebody comes up with a better system for the 15 teams we have, I am happy with it.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:26am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:26am | Report comment
The real problem with the ARU, NZRU and SARU is that you have three nations all wanting Super Rugby to serve different purposes.
sARU wants Super rugby to serve the purpose of being a SUPER competition, superior in quality and intensity and superior to Currie Cup. It seem to me NZ wants the same, but Australia wants Super Rugby to be something else.
Any partnership whereby everyone doesn’t share the same vision will eventually fall apart. It is only natural.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:37am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:37am | Report comment
biltongbek – agree. imo ARU wants super to save aus rugby and be their develoment program . they want SA and NZ to pitch in to help save it without ARU doing any investment in grassroots of its own. totally shortsighted.
SARU and NZRFU need to adamantly tell ARU that its domestic shortcomings and its failure to out market AFL and NRL is solely an aus problem
however i disagree its doomed to failure. partnerships are built on compromise and understanding….and failing that bullying.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:45am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Eventually someone is going to get to a point of having had enough, one way is the contiuous demand for expansion which doesn’t serve the purpose of why Supr Rugby saw the light in the first place.
January 30th 2013 @ 6:49am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 6:49am | Report comment
biltongbek – i note more doom and gloom to u this year. are u not happy with the prospects of the boks? meyers first year i thought was positive and he showed an ability to learn. the players are there.
i agree super has too many sanzar teams but its the 3rd season of the super 15. expansion in 2016 is promising with new teams and fresh new ideas and markets hopefully to b explored.
with the conf system super can expand without eating up more of the rugby calendar if SA and NZRFU have the balls to stand up and say u cant eat away anymore of currie cup and itm time. it’ll take a bit more planning and creativity but it can be done
January 30th 2013 @ 7:11am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:11am | Report comment
I am very interested to see how the various halfback pairings are going to do in their Franchises.
So no, not doom and gloom, Burger will be back, Juan Smith is back,
As far as the NZRU and SARU having the balls, I doubt it.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:14am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:14am | Report comment
might be a few rugby balls lying around but no, none of the metaphoric ones we hope for.
looking forward to burger coming back. i wonder what new evolution he’s going to introduce to his game? he was working on an off loading game befor getting injured
January 30th 2013 @ 1:50pm
jeznez said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Give the new ARU CEO a chance – JON was adamant that Super Rugby should be the vehicle for Aussie rugby you describe and that he saw no room for a third tier apart from the club rugby competitions.
Pulver has stated that a third tier for Aussie rugby is on the agenda – I think we need to wait and see what he comes up with.
January 30th 2013 @ 12:38pm
Colvin said | January 30th 2013 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Is “Glen Christie” actually Sir Owen Glen?
I thought the owners were Eric Watson and Owen Glen
January 31st 2013 @ 3:35am
Dadiggle said | January 31st 2013 @ 3:35am | Report comment
Sure South Africa can leave Super Rugby but I do not know who is make that deal worth anything since South Africa bring much more than Australia and NZ to the table. If we go all India on you guya the Lions and the Kings would be in Super Rugby now and you all be playing matches 4 am in the morning.
January 30th 2013 @ 5:59am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Andrew, what I don’t get is why would the NZRU give places to Australian Rugby players instead of their own Players?
That doesn’t make sense to me, if the NZRU replaces 5 players per provincial team that takes 70 NZ rugby players out of the loop.
January 30th 2013 @ 8:43am
Mike said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I agree with you 100% biltongbek. as a NZer this makes no sense to me. The ITM cup is the perfect breeding ground to develop young NZ players & expose them to a decent level of pro rugby before playing S15, & this is a massive reason why NZ teams have been successful in Super Rugby. I hope this doesnt happen for the good of NZ rugby. Australia need to create there own 3rd tier comp to develop depth & bridge the gap between club football to Super Rugby.
January 30th 2013 @ 8:54am
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Yeah Mike, without wanting to create controversy I get the feeling some Australian posters want to shift the responsibility of ARU onto NZRU to develop their players.
It is time that the ARU become accountable for the shortages deemed bybAustralian rugby supporters in their system.
January 30th 2013 @ 8:57am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:57am | Report comment
i was gonna say that i’d be all for having a few aus players in the ITM but when u put it like that biltongbek then nah your correct. maybe itll force ARU to actually get off their a55es and instead of lining their pockets, actually put some money back into australian grass roots rugby
January 30th 2013 @ 1:51pm
jeznez said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Well our NRL develops NZ league players, surely they can return the favour
January 30th 2013 @ 7:46pm
stillmatic1 said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
like tamou hey jez!!! worked out well for nz rugby league………….
January 30th 2013 @ 4:10pm
atlas said | January 30th 2013 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
a reminder that ITM Cup is semi-professional – not attractive to a player in it for the money.
Season salaries are capped at between NZ$15,000 and $60,000. (AUD 12-48k)
The cap for each province’s squad salaries was NZ$1.35 million last year. Some ran under $1m for their 30 players.
Hardly ‘up there’ in pro sport terms.
For most players it is the peak of their rugby career, playing for their mainly amateur clubs then representing their province. I’d be against using it as more of a training competition for overseas players.
January 30th 2013 @ 1:11pm
Hightackle said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
You would have to put in 6 Australian teams imo. South Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra, Gold Coast and North Sydney into the ITM.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:12am
Darwin Stubbie said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:12am | Report comment
The only way I can see this happening is if the ARU fully fund a player draft and pick up the wagers of those that go to the provinces … Once there however selection would be down to coaching staff … If deemed not good enough they’d be on the pine …. Can’t see it happening – SR is the pro competition and the effort should be made there to improve that – 2016 should be about improving and fixing the flaws evident in the conference and finals system … It should not be about blindly expanding – more of the same (of lesser quality) is the first nail in the coffin
January 30th 2013 @ 9:06am
Rugby Andrew said | January 30th 2013 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Well guys, I did say it was a plan B option in case the ARU can’t get a seniors third tier competition off the ground.
Secondly, there are 26 provinces in the competition (including the rural-based Heartland championship) so there are teams out there or you can create new ones. NZ rugby is haemoraghing talent to the NRL (and now the AFL wants a bite?)
In any case, the most likely scenario would involve Aust teams playing in the ITM Cup, a scenario I look at in my next article.
January 30th 2013 @ 11:13am
Nick Cross said | January 30th 2013 @ 11:13am | Report comment
“NZ rugby is haemorrhaging talent to the NRL”
Is this true nowadays? I’m struggling to think of a NZ rugby player with any profile who has gone to the NRL recently, apart from SBW who was only on loan from the NRL anyways…
January 30th 2013 @ 11:32am
Rugby Andrew said | January 30th 2013 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Nick, that may be a slight exaggeration but I’m not talking high profile players. More at the development level where is where future ABs are made — blokes like Konrad Hurrell, Omar Salamankiel (?) and Roger Tuivasa-Sheck had no RL experience until they were signed up by NRL clubs.
From the sounds of it, the Warriors’s (quoting comments made by Dean Bell last year) have opted for signing up promising rugby players instead of developing their own junior competiton as it would be much cheaper for them.
Interesting to note the comments made by the Sydney Roosters CEO Brian Canavan about how they want to keep SBW at the club for longer than one season. It sounds like they are considering giving SBW a sabbatical to play NZ rugby for 2014 and 2015 if he returns to the club!
January 30th 2013 @ 2:42pm
Greg said | January 30th 2013 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Hurrel and salamankiel would be lucky to ever get a look at a super rugby contract, hardly a huge loss considering the amount of talent coming through
January 30th 2013 @ 7:15pm
Ryan said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
Matt Duffie at the Storm was also a talented rugby player from St Kentigens
January 30th 2013 @ 11:33am
mania said | January 30th 2013 @ 11:33am | Report comment
no nick. more accurate to say its a paper cut. sure players go to league but u look at the kiwi’s and its really players rugby can easily get by with out. i dont know of any kiwi league player i would want in my huricanes squad.
January 30th 2013 @ 9:28am
Westie Nomad said | January 30th 2013 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Super Rugby in AUS is a flawed product… being that the teams do not invoke tribal fanatisisim that other sports seem to generate, this is partly due to the small participation numbers, lack of free to air TV coverage and also because the game is seen to be elitetist in its roots.
Aus does not deserve any further expansion spots for the next 10 years atleast, it needs to work on developing its own NPC/Currie Cup style comp before any expansion is even considered.
However expansion for Super rugby is ineviitable, i believe SANZAR(no accronym for Argies) need to develop a fourth conference for Argentina, If they are to be expected to play as part of a Southern Hemisphere four nations then they should have the same development pathways and potential to earn income at home instead of abroad, but ithink NZ, SA and Aus are scared to give that much to the Argies as they could develop too quickly and potentially overtake them in the long term.
Also a fifth conference for those other potential participants e.g. USA,Canada, Japan & Pacific Islands.
If the Super rugby program developed within that frame work e.g. 5 conferences covering 5 continents then the potential for billion dollar TV deals would be very likely send the game into new realms and increasing the sponsorship opportunities astronomically for all SANZAR participating nations.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:02pm
Jiggles said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
Your first paragraph just screams “I have no idea about Australian rugby”
January 30th 2013 @ 12:29pm
sheek said | January 30th 2013 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
I have said it before & I’m happy to say it again, super rugby (SR) under its current structure is not the optimum structure available.
ARU heavies must continually chuckle to themselves every night before they retire to bed at how gullible NZ & SA are to help piggy-back Australian rugby.
Not only is the SR a pseudo Aussie domestic comp, but it’s also our development comp as well. All thanks to NZ & SA. I’m not sure what NZ & SA get out of it financially, but perhaps they consider it a necessary evil to prevent Australia becoming exclusively rugby league.
The enormous success of both the AFL & NRL demonstrates that Aussie fans don’t care about how well entrenched their sport is world wide, or not, as long as the local brand gives them a bang for their buck. This is something the ARU fails to understand or appreciate.
Even the A-League is beginning to make serious traction into the local psych. Aussie fans won’t cop rubbish, but as the standard of the AL has lifted, along with the quality of the marquee imports, so has interest in the domestic product.
We also have the examples of the Currie Cup in SA & NPC in NZ (sorry, I won’t refer to comps by commercial names). Fans in these countries are as deeply passionate about the CC & NPC as Aussie fans are about their AFL, NRL & AL.
The ARU needs to disband the provincial based teams & create metropolitan based teams in each major city. Meanwhile SR needs to become Heineken Cup style format (I know you were all waiting for this!).
Top four each year from domestic CC, NPC & ARC qualifies for HC style super 12. But let’s forget that for the moment.
What is essential is that Australian rugby resurrects the ARC, based on former provincial & original ARC models. Thus an eight team start-up ARC would feature:
Sydney Waratahs (Sydney North Harbour & Northern Beaches, plus Northern NSW Country)
East Sydney Fleet (South & East Sydney Suburbs, plus Central NSW Country)
West Sydney Rams (Greater Western Sydney from North-West through South-West, plus Western NSW country)
Brisbane Reds (North-West of Brisbane River & Sunshine Coast, plus North Qld Country)
South Brisbane Hurricanes (South-East of Brisbane River & Gold Coast, plus South Qld Country)
Canberra Brumbies (all ACT & Southern Inland NSW)
Melbourne Rebels (all Victoria)
Perth Force (all WA)
Note, the rugby catchment areas represent the geographical reach of the clubs they are designed to represent. East Sydney Fleet for example is not meant for Eastern Suburbs, Randwick, Southern Districts or Sydney University to be its feeder clubs. Although logically, this would make sense. But it’s not something that needs to be enshrined, or expected.
I’ve seen some recent models that utilise variations of Sydney Shute Shield, Brisbane Hospitals Cup, Canberra John Dent Cup, etc, but they’re unwieldy & therefore messy. The premier rugby clubs have had over 100 years to make an impact on the national rugby scene, but have failed to do so, compared to the famous Melbourne-based AFL clubs or Sydney-based NRL clubs.
The future of Australian rugby, our own ARC, needs to be based on a variation of the A-League. Australian rugby fans need their own comp, just like the AFL, NRL & AL in Australia, or CC in SA & NPC in NZ, something they can call their “own.”
We need an ARC not only to feed the aspirations of homegrown fans, but as a development comp for future Wallabies, a clear pathway for aspiring professional rugby players & a broadened base for professional rugby players.
January 30th 2013 @ 1:06pm
Bunny Colvin said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
We have a 3rd tier, the state comps. What is wrong with them. They managed to serve rugby and cricket well for over a century. What’s more, they have their own parks, histories and followings.
Considering the numbers involved in Aussie rugby, I think we are doing pretty well. (Top 2 or 3 ranking regularly)
January 30th 2013 @ 1:53pm
sheek said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Bunny,
Technically you’re right. Well, you’re right in the way i look at it.
Tier 1 – Wallabies.
Tier 2 – Super Rugby & ARC comprising same level & teams.
Tier 3 – Metropolitan premier rugby in each capital city.
Most people separate SR & any proposed ARC. I disagree. I believe the domestic comps (ARC, NPC, CC) should be qualifications for SR.
Nothing wrong with state comps. But another level above them is required. In both Sydney Shute Shield & Brisbane Hospitals Cup, the disparity between best & worst is too great. Not enough hard rugby.
Rugby needs it own equivalent of the Sheffield Shield (an ARC) which has served cricket wonderfully for over 120 years.
I don’t care about rankings. Being no.2 or 3 in International rugby is equivalent to being no. 12 or 13 in football. International rugby doesn’t have the depth of international football.
What concerns me is the gap between our strong teams. It takes 8-12 years for each powerful Wallabies team to come along, last several years, then slip back into the abyss.
When the ABs & Boks fall of the pace, they only fall off slightly & for a few years. the Wallas take so much longer. I put the consistent strength of NZ & Sa rugby down to their domestic comps. Just like Australian cricket through Sheffield Shield.
January 30th 2013 @ 2:02pm
kingplaymaker said | January 30th 2013 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
I think this model of decline and fall is incorrect: it’s not as if great teams magically appear and vanish then reappear. It’s a case of playing pool decline. This has plummetted in the past decade, although the seeds may have been sown even five years before that.
January 30th 2013 @ 2:58pm
AndyS said | January 30th 2013 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
That is what we have now Sheek, except with only 5 Super/ARC teams instead of 8. I wouldn’t have picked you as subscribing to the philosophy that just adding teams will create the players to fill them and solve all our problems…
January 30th 2013 @ 3:10pm
sheek said | January 30th 2013 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Andy,
There’s a bit more to it than that.
It’s about finding a minimum number of teams in a stand alone comp.
Five is fine as part of 15 in super rugby. But five wouldn’t be fine in a stand alone ARC.
It’s also about satisfying the dreaded pay-TV, who love programming content.
Five teams would play each other twice for 8 games each, 20 games total, plus a final. Not enough content.
Eight teams playing eight games each, 32 games total, plus two semis & a final, is more acceptable.
It’s also about broadening the professional player base, providing more opportunity for more players.
There would be an additional drop in quality, but hopefully, that would be quickly broadened as the talent filtered through.
I thought the 8-team ARC of 2007 had great potential. And remember they quarantined the best 30 players because of the world cup. The concept wasn’t the problem back in 2007, but much of the structure was very poorly thought through.
January 30th 2013 @ 3:50pm
AndyS said | January 30th 2013 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
But as you’ve written it out yourself, it is merely a change in competition format rather than a structural change to Australian rugby. At the moment the developing player basically goes from one of dozens of essentially amateur teams, to one of five professional teams, to the Wallabies. That will be exactly the same under your model, except it will be eight professional teams. There is no smoothing of the development path or progressive improvement in the standard of his peers/opposition.
The reason we struggle against the ABs and Boks is because their players develop from dozens of essentially amateur teams, to a couple of dozen semi-professional teams, to the five Super teams, to the national side. It is a much smoother path with progressive improvement in the standard of play and coaching. Regardless of how they feel about Super rugby, I really can’t see why they would want to change a system that works so well for one that would work like ours…
January 30th 2013 @ 5:39pm
sheek said | January 30th 2013 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Well Andy,
Perhaps it is, but it’s totally Australian, totally our own. Super rugby is only one-third Australian, ARC would be 100% Australian.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. I hadn’t said SR wasn’t working for Australian rugby, it IS working quite well.
My problem with super rugby is that it isn’t our OWN. We can’t call SR Australian, only one-third of it.
And if NZ & SA decide to call our bluff, where would that leave us? I think we should have some idea of what we might do if left to our own devices.
January 30th 2013 @ 8:32pm
AndyS said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
And on that we absolutely agree, we need a domestic competition that is totally Australian and not reliant on others. I would rather it were an ITM/CC equivalent in the hope it would one day attract the same sort of passionate following and do the same job of underpinning the professional levels of the game. But Super rugby does work for all involved and is the means by which the game accesses the sort of money that keeps the best professionals in the Southern Hemisphere. For mine we need both, but on the first point we are certainly in agreement.
January 30th 2013 @ 8:55pm
biltongbek said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
Now you guys are on the right track.
But andy, Super rugby in my view is not working. Yes for Australia it is great, but talking from a South African perspective it isn’t working for me in the current format.
Our Currie Cup loses out big time.
Too many teams in Super rugby and it takes way too much space in the calendar.
the Heineken Cup consisting of 6 nations take a mere 9 weeks to complete. Super rugby takes 21 weeks.
Don’t get me wrong I enjoy watching Super rugby, and it isn’t that I don’t want it, but it should not be the predominant event on the calendar.
However the powers that be want to do it, reduced teams, whatever. It must be done and dusted in less time, at most it must take 12 weeks to complete. There is a Currie Cup that needs more time, and lastly the fatigue of the sheer number of games is degrading our national teams, Super Rugby teams and our currie cup teams.
January 30th 2013 @ 10:03pm
AndyS said | January 30th 2013 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
I was thinking very much on the financial side of things. It doesn’t really matter what we think of it, anything that is intended to replace Super rugby must have a very clear line of sight on how it will generate at least as much cash. Less and it risks the best players leaving, reducing the cash flow to the new competition, leading more players to head off and so on. If that starts to happen, the only way to stop or reverse it is more money. That need for cash is why we have the constant pressure to grow now, but where would it come from if we’d already shot the goose? That is the real risk of major change – that damage is done that can’t be recovered from and we simply become feeder clubs to Europe. Every I and T must be pointedly crossed before we make any radical changes, all the outcomes made certain and all the intended gains guaranteed. Tough to do, especially when going back to the future (much as I miss some of the old ways too).
January 31st 2013 @ 12:56am
abnutta said | January 31st 2013 @ 12:56am | Report comment
Biltongbek,
You appear to be coming around to the view I have held for the last year or so – that the CC/NPC can not coexist with SR in a financially competitive or sustainable manner.
Ideally SR must be done and dusted in no more than THREE WEEKS. Purely as a Champions League style knockout series between the best sides from each SANZAR nations domestic competition – CC/NPC/ARC.
January 31st 2013 @ 1:41am
biltongbek said | January 31st 2013 @ 1:41am | Report comment
Abnutta, yes, although I believe that If the Currie Cup/NPC can be used as a qualification tool for the knock out rounds that you are suggesting.
January 31st 2013 @ 2:17am
chris said | January 31st 2013 @ 2:17am | Report comment
I don’t want the CC to be a qualifying competition for Super Rugby.
Firstly, CC teams are already penalised for producing Springboks (one of their major roles).
Secondly, in South Africa players are already unlikely to sign for a non-super rugby team. I don’t want all South Africa’s young talent to sit on the bench for the big three because they know that is the only way they will be able to play super rugby and by extension, the Springboks.
January 31st 2013 @ 2:54am
abnutta said | January 31st 2013 @ 2:54am | Report comment
I also think we’re avoiding the big South African elephant in the room.
That being for the Currie Cup/NPC/ARC to serve as the Preliminary Conferences to a Super Rugby finals series… all three would have to be moved from their current playing windows to begin in late Feb/early March.
Inevitably the TEST season would fill much of the void of the August-October window along with largely amateur or semi pro development competitions running concurrently that would not require the services of the TEST players – ie. basically the Vodacom Cup and the ITM Cup we currently have which are currently shorn of the top stars anyway,
January 31st 2013 @ 5:46am
biltongbek said | January 31st 2013 @ 5:46am | Report comment
Yes the problem isn’t easily solvable unless we we get the IRB to look at the international schedule.
If the Currie Cup Prenier division were to go back to 8 teams, you would need 16 weeks to complete the round robin and finals.
If the qualifying teams came from there and let’s say for argument sake the top 3 teams qualified and there was a single round robin, plus semi and final, it would take 10 weeks minimum to complete, for those two comps you would add 4 weeks pre season, plus at least 2 weeks for travel.
That brings you to 32 weeks into the year assuming you started at week one with your pre season.
That leaves 20 weeks, 2 for the national coaches to prepare, 3 weeks for the inbound test series, a week to prepare for the Rugby Championship and 8 weeks to complete, a week rest and 3 weeks in Europe, for a total of another 19 weeks which leaves 1 week rest and the year is up.
Just don’t know how everything is supposed to fit.
Ths Super Rugby comp is starting to irk me.
January 30th 2013 @ 4:38pm
richard said | January 30th 2013 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Sheek – your second paragraph; never were truer words spoken.
What some Australians want is to use NZ to develop their players.O’Neill got rid of your third tier comp – I would suggest Pulver re-institute it.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:07pm
Jiggles said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
“We also have the examples of the Currie Cup in SA & NPC in NZ (sorry, I won’t refer to comps by commercial names). Fans in these countries are as deeply passionate about the CC & NPC as Aussie fans are about their AFL, NRL & AL”
With regards to the NPC I don’t think that’s really true, crowds are woeful and ratings are getting worse. It’s a bit like the Sheffield shield in Australia. It’s obviously very important to developing test players and everyone says they love it, but very few actually watch it.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:23pm
Ryan said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
Crowds are small in the big centres for sure but the attendances in provinces like Taranaki are pretty good, for a city the size of New Plymouth to attract 5,000 let alone 10,000+ is no small feat considering the city has an apporximate population of 60k and the province as a whole only 110k
The new deal with AIG also helps significantly to the point crowd numbers are no longer as important as they once were as the funds are there to help sustain the competition.
January 30th 2013 @ 7:29pm
Jiggles said | January 30th 2013 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Still doesn’t change the fact that for all the professed love of the NPC, people aren’t watching in their droves. It’s a great competition (I watch most games each year) but people shouldn’t kid themselves and pretend its something it isn’t.
January 31st 2013 @ 1:02am
abnutta said | January 31st 2013 @ 1:02am | Report comment
5 or 10 thousand is still chicken feed compared to what these fixtures used to draw when the best players in the country (the top All Blacks) were still turning out for their provinces.
It is still within my living memory that Lancaster Park and Eden Park had 50,000 turn up to watch the big provincial matches.
And when you consider how far provincial rugby has fallen from the days when 20,000 would turn up to Poverty Bay matches against touring sides while the population of Gisborne was only 16,000 – the esteem in which provincial rugby was held compared to nowadays are worlds apart.
January 31st 2013 @ 7:52am
richard said | January 31st 2013 @ 7:52am | Report comment
With regards to NPC crowds,they are poor,that merely reflects the amount of rugby on offer.We basically have over-kill.
As you say,it is vital as a tool for player development,and as such,the NZRU will do everything to keep it going.It really is NZ’s point of difference at test level.
As for how many people watch it, more than you think.It’s just that they don’t go to the grounds,most people have Sky(cable) and you get all the games live.
January 30th 2013 @ 12:40pm
Johnno said | January 30th 2013 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Sheek
A good structure, I hope someone at the ARU likes reading the roar and reads your post. That’s as a good a “competition format model “, as I have seen. And is living within clear commercial realities, within it’s means, too. Build the Base.
-Geographically-zoned clear and direct, organised, and too the point.
-And non isolationist, it has mainstream broader audience demographic ,wider audience format
But what does confuse me is 1 point. For a man who I find as big a realist on here as anyone about the commercial realities on here, and a man who will roll his sleeves up, and go in and do, “what’s gotta be done, has gotta be done in the name of progress.”
Why then do you say
-”sorry, I won’t refer to comps by commercial names”.
-2 quick questions:
-Do you oppose stadiums being commercially named telstra stadium .
-Do you oppose sports comps being commercially named in naming right
A good post sheek , impressed.
January 30th 2013 @ 1:18pm
abnutta said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Johnno,
This proposal, which took a heavy lead from the basic principles laid out by sheek above and can be read here on the roar: http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/09/11/the-blueprint-for-super-rugby-expansion/
was forwarded to an ARU insider who was completing a Masters Degree in Sports Marketing by a friend of mine here on the Central Coast of NSW in the same course at University. I’ve had no feedback nor have I received a reply from the unions I forwarded it to, namely ther NZRU, Taranaki RU, Hawkes Bay RU and Southland RU.
January 30th 2013 @ 1:35pm
sheek said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
abnutta,
Perhaps they’re waiting for sufficient time to elapse, so they can then present it as their own…..!
January 30th 2013 @ 8:52pm
Johnno said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
abnuuta. A good proposal that was sent to the administrators, it would of been good to get some feedback. But oh well. But the structure outlined, covers a lot of geographic areas, and would cater to a broader winder audience which is what’s needed.
January 30th 2013 @ 12:45pm
Hightackle said | January 30th 2013 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
AFL in NZ?
Never happen.
January 30th 2013 @ 1:08pm
Bunny Colvin said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Agree. NZ is too small a population, and too small an economy.
It is too difficult for Tasmania now, and they are a football state and have the same currency. Imagine NZ. It would be a disaster from day one.
January 30th 2013 @ 3:05pm
Cruise said | January 30th 2013 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Nothing to do with population or economy, we just don’t like the game. No disrespect intended.
January 30th 2013 @ 4:09pm
Ian Whitchurch said | January 30th 2013 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Cruise,
The issue is kids like this.
http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/2013-01-09/hawks-commit-to-shem-tatupu
AFL International Rookies get paid better than fringe NPC players do – and Mike Pyke is being paid about what a Super 15 player gets paid.
If the NPC stays semi-professional, then becoming an AFL international rookie, or switching to league, is a decent choice for someone who isnt on the fast-track to the All Blacks, which is where the money is.
If the NPC was fully professional, then switching codes is a less good option.
January 30th 2013 @ 8:59pm
Colvin said | January 30th 2013 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
Bunny,
Love your name. But AFL isn’t our game.
January 30th 2013 @ 1:16pm
sheek said | January 30th 2013 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Hi Johnno,
I can accept ITM NPC, but not ITM Cup.
I can accept ANZ Stadium Australia, but not ANZ Stadium.
I can accept Etihad Docklands Stadium, but not Etihad Stadium.
I can accept Suncorp Lang Park, but not Suncorp Stadium.
I can accept Ryobi limited overs Cup, but not Ryobi Cup.
(Why not call it in honour of someone – say Ryobi Simpson Cup, after Bobby Simpson).
I can accept BMW Tancred Stakes, but not The BMW (major Sydney weight-for-age horse race).
I cannot accept Qantas Wallabies under any circumstances.
I’m very pleased to know that Qantas is the primary sponsor of the Wallabies. Put the name on the training gear, pack the sidelines with signage, but nothing on the playing strip. Very pleased to know someone cares enough to sponsor the Wallabies.
I’m happy for the announcer to introduce the “Australian Wallabies, sponsored by Qantas.”
But they are the Australian Wallabies, not the Qantas Wallabies.