Why a national club competition won't work

Matt agree with your comment that we should be trying to get Aus v NZ as opposed to Aus/NZ v SA sides in Super Rugby, but unfortunately it seems Pay TV is the dictator, otherwise I would imagine that more games would be played on Sunday afternoons. Given the amount of flack thrown at Super Rugby by the Northern Hemisphere, I find it difficult to stomach that viewers in SAs timezone value (i.e. Europe) are the reason for the inclusion of the sides. I hardly see the need to include Japanese sides in Super rugby at all - unless they stacked their sides were mercaneries (which is pretty much the case anyway), they would be on a hiding to nothing. They would be better served by keeping their professional comp away, and besides the Japanese Rugby Union is even worse than the NSWRU in many respects. There is no way I would let those clowns in on Super Rugby, and in any event interest in rugby would be killed, as their sides would be getting slaughtered. I like the idea of having a partnership franchise with the islanders though, Western Sydney could align themselves with the Tongan/Samoan rugby unions, same with a new Auckland franchise.

Yeah it is a very interesting prospect, Pro rugby in Australasia minus the positives and negatives of African participation. South African supporters quite rightly state that South Africa is the biggest current market of the 3 Sanzar partners, which I do not dispute. But the fact of the matter surely has to be that if, instead of a match between a SA and NZ or Aus side in South Africa, you would have a NZ vs Aussie team in one of the Trans-Tasman countries. So, if NZ and Aussie teams were not going to Africa then you would lose the African veiwers, but you would have Kiwi AND Aussie fans watching the game that replaced it. I then belive that it would rate better overall, as both nations would be watching the game, not just fans of the home team. Likewise, at present, South African teams must play at least 33 of their combined games (for the round robin season) outside of Africa. That means a lot of missed viewing opportunities for fans of their teams. If they were to move into a trans African or European competition of some sort then their fans would have the opportunity to watch all games live (be it at the stadium or playing in Europe on TV). Therefore, the only real benefit I could think of for Aus and NZ to remain playing games in Africa is that those games have and increased crossover of viewership to fans not within the SANZAR nations, but within the SA timezone. So possibly the reasoning with staying in Africa is to cater to European viewers and bring in more money to the partnership? The South African benefit would surely be the better quality of competition they recieve when playing NZ and Aus. If SA was to move to Europe (and this may be the case eventually, as European money becomes too much to ignore for the SARU) then the ARU and NZRU would need to find more money for their new comp to subsidise the loss. Surely the best option would then be Japan? The positives are obviouisly the very large population of the country and huge comercial potential. The pro clubs there are also awash with company money from some of the world's largest corperation. Japan is to host next year Junior World Cup and will no doubt be a front runner for the 2015 world cup also. If this tournament can build of the back of the current growth in their domestic and international game then the game of rugby soon become an enticing prospect for SANZAR to get into. Their playing standards are the big sticking point at present. The domestic comp, whilst growing each year (in both the number of teams and number fo fans attending, as well as the quality of players) is still well below the level required to compete in Super rugby (their teams would struggle at NPC level even). So the future does pose some interesting times for SANZAR and defintely some potential opportunities for growing the game globally, but also more specifically in Australia. I too like the idea of a tournament based a little closer to home than the Super14. Melbourne and then West Sydney would have to be the next locations for Pro sides in Australia, while a 6th NZ team operating out of Auckland could also work. Add to that a couple of Japanese teams and a 16 team comp could well become financially viable. This type of comp would most certainly require a relaxation on player eligibilty though, as both Japan and Australia would not have the depth of talent to fill their sides straight away. A salary cap would also then become necessary to ensure an even playing field. The Pacific Islands can never hope to realistically host a pro team of their own. The money just isn't there. They would be better served having their players (which is where their strength lies) being distributed around the various teams gaining high level rugby exposure. They could also create a partnership franchise (be it West Sydney, or South Auckland) where a prediminantly Island team could be based. This would give the Islander a permenant home base and a solid finacial platform and fan population base with which a succesful and profitable team could be built.

Matt - very interesting stuff. I suspect you are not far off the money. Certainly the TV pulling power of games in SA that start at 11pm are always going to be limited. Add to this the problems touring there and for the Africans to tour down here and you have a situation that will change, guaranteed. True Tah -SA is very interested in playing in the Tri-Nations as they know that playing tests in Europe will condemn them to a slope away from NZ and even Australia. I like the idea of a Southern Hemisphere competition every 4 years and could be mirrored with a Nth Hemisphere one. I agree that if countries send development teams down here they should have to play at a state and country level offering others an opportunity to watch the games. They are not the massive money spinners they once were and the French test is proving that. Having said that I am going to it (A mate of mine won tickets in a raffle) but my expectations are pretty low. Maybe Randwick will put the hand up for another international fixture. The best competition for us is State based with ACT, NSW A + B, QLD A + B, WA and a Combined Country Origin team. Played in a short start of season comp to replace the early start currently in S14 lasts 6 weeks with a 1st v 2nd final for the Australian Cup (donor required). This gives the players a good hit out and coaches of S14 an idea who has stepped up and exposure to a higher level for an additional 3 teams of players. Not a bad solution and one we can afford at the moment.

Matt and Midfielder, both you guys are also recognising that the South African sides are more of a hindrance than a help to Super Rugby, which is what I have been arguing for ages. Midfielder the format you have suggested is pretty much what I would have in mind, except I wouldn't have teams from Japan or the Islands in the comp. The ARU should drop the policy that only Australian-eligilbe players can play, that way we can tap into the huge humber of Islanders who play in Europe and Japan. Additionally, the Super Rugby teams would need to play a certain number of games away from their "power base" - you could have Waratahs playing in Newcastle/Gosford, Reds playing in Townsville or Darwin, Force playing in Adelaide and Melbourne playing in Tasmania. This would give those in non-traditional rugby areas the chance to experience professional rugby. The Western Sydney side could play games at Parra, Penrith and Cambelltown. The Clubs might not like it, but the best they can hope for is being in a Sydney-based Premier local league. The whole European touring teams should be given the boot, as we would be focusing on the new comp and these sides are generally piss poor anyway. The Tri Nations concept should be scrapped, and replaced with a Southern Championship, every four years - i.e. Australia, NZ, Argentina, South Africa, plus the Islands - run two years after the World Cup. This would enable us to bring back touring in the years in between, which is an aspect of rugby which is rapidly being lost, welll realistically the only fair dinkum touring team are the Lions. My dad was at Quirindi Oval in the 60s when the All Blacks played Northern NSW and scored a record scoreline and he reckoned that everyone in the district was at the ground- whilst the days when regional sides could play against the big boys are over, we could put on say NSW Country v England in Tamworth or Bathurst etc.

Matt IMO I would not go with SA ............ but create a new vision of S16. Six Australian Teams Sydney City (not NSW Tahs) Western Sydney City (city name to be replaced), Melbourne, ACT, Brisbane City, Western Force, 7 NZ sides including the Northland i.e regional based sides, 2 Japanese sides, 1 Islander side. Play two rounds , have final four or six play grand final, 16 Team comp over 30 rounds plus 5 weeks of finals, plus internationals, have existing rugby clubs become feeder clubs to the new S16 comp. Do not need SA's ........... more trouble with TV schedule and local comp that it is worth, Japan play in our time zone, and Japan have more people with more money than SA. But see my previous posts you need to fix the local club and park football as well.

To be honest guys I did see the expansion of Super Rugby as the way that SANZAR was likely to go, but more and more I'm wondering if South Africa are looking to pull out. First it was the signing of the exclusive and dodgy Super Sport TV deal and now they have just announced a newly extended 5 year deal with ABSA bank to sponsor their Currie Cup. Firstly, the Supersport TV deal sees all rights for TV coverage of Springbok home tests and the Currie Cup (that were previously included in the News Corp deal) being taken over by Supersport from 2010 onwards. This would only leave South Africa contributing Super Rugby to the SANZAR pie for the next round of negotiations. If I was Steve Tew or John O'Neil I would be seriously looking at SARU and their apparent tactic of putting a foot in both camps. They will have independent coverage of their Bread and Butter earners (Tests and CC) while they will be able to wait and see what happens with the SANZAR negotiations. If News Corp don't offer a decent amount they could well put their eggs in the European basket and just simply enter their Currie Cup team into NH competitions. This TV deal, coupled with the extended sponsorship deal (with ABSA), would suggest that SARU are not about to scrap the professional nature of the Currie Cup teams until at least past 2012. It is also possible that SANZAR has already decided to extent the Super Comp to 24 weeks and have told ABSA that they will now be sponsoring a completely second Tier Comp? But I would have imagined that the Currie Cup could not continue in it's curernt form if SANZAR was to expand Super rugby and South Africa was to remain a part of it. So either the expanded Super Comp is not happening, or South Africa is marching to its own beat? I am firming to the belief that it is more of the later. They appear to be slowly withdrawing from SANZAR, leaving them the possibility of moving into the more lucrative European marketplace. Conspiracy theory maybe, but the idea of a Trans-Tasman provincial comp (including teams from Japan to boost income) could become a realistic possibility within the next 5 years. This would defintely be helped if Japan get the WC rights for 2015. The growth in the Pacific region from back to back WC's (NZ2011, Japan2015) would give a great boost to any comp involving NZ, Aus and Japan.

sheek We are actually very close accept I see third level at club (Gordon, Eastwwood) level and management of juniors as the way forward, You want to create the ARC in some form or other I cannot see that working as there are too manu vested interest in keping current structure in place. Your idea is good but it needs thoses in the exisying structure to support and history shows they don't. In time I can see mergers like Gordon / Manly ............ Parra & Penerith ........... but the international / S 14 / Club is an excellent structure but it is weakest at the base as I see it

Rhys, It wasn't so much how much work Burgess had to do, but realising the precious gift he possessed. Sometimes, this takes time. And I agree, I'm not talking about Wallaby coaches either, but the developmental coaches at each level. Unfortunately, they're all protecting their positions & income, & will less & less speculate on a player outside the 'mainstream' system. Midfieldr, I'm not sure at all I'm suggesting a new structure. What I've been saying is the structure already exists - simply elevate & expand it.

Apart from the funding which I refered to earlier, rugby already has three layers, International, S14, Club. Unlike the old soccer / new football, where all old was no good and new was good, --------- generally welcomed by most (not all) but most and therefore a new system i.e 8 A-Leagues teams (5 new, 3 existing) replaced 20 NSL teams. Union has the three levels in place, as I see it at international level & S14, there are few problems, it is the club level that needs the overhaul, and the management of the player base supporting the clubs. I would look to fixing up the club / park level ........ but like Sheek and his views on the provinical style you have heard me many times preach this many times. Actually I think Sheek and I are quite close on this issue; except how it is to be done, I say improve existing structure, Sheek create a new structure.

In the case of Luke Burgess, look at how much he had to do, unfortunately, not too many young players have that kind of mettle. I'm not talking about wallaby coaches, im talking about coaches at the developmental levels. Who the higher level coaches unfortunately rely on a bit at the moment to uncover their talent.

James, This is why IU have so often advocated the provincial style comp. With the exception of Melbourne/Victoria, if/when they become a super team, all the other structures are in place. Aaagghh, I know, it's groundhog day, & I keep repeating myself.

It's wrong to assume only guys who come through the national age teams will make the Wallabies. Very, very, very wrong. And a dangerous assumption. Look at Luke Burgess. Schoolboy 2nd XV. Unwanted by Brumbies - "can't develop anymore". Now Wallaby first choice scrumhalf. I hope the various coaches in Australia are smarter & wiser than that. Some guys who are superstars at ages 16-18 aren't going to get any better. Others peak at 22 while others still are only just starting to put it all together. Let's hope Rhys, we don't pigeon hole players too early lest we're stuck with the duds while the gems are forgotten.

I agree with many of the idea's posted here, in some countries they would be feasible, i just really dont know about here, we have such a lot population compared to our land size, with the crowded sporting team market. Would be very difficult to get people to pay to come and fill the seats, with finances for many australians tight as it is. I think another problem we have is that in our development systems, if you don't make Aus schoolboys, or now Aus. u/20, your pretty much no chance of becoming a professional rugby player. Academy coaches just wont be interested, they want to pick up guys at 18 and mould them into wallabies as soon as possible, rather than letting the guys become full adults first, then rugby players. Picking the guys so young now, nobody at any lower levels knows them and sees why they are selected.

Guys There is something to be said for using existing structures. I think the two reasons the ARC was too costly was the cost of the Melbourne franchise, and the genmeral cost of artificially creating another tier. Let me explain In WA they already had/have players and coaches there, accomodation organised and salaries being paid, all via the S14. In Melbourne, they had to pay high short-term accomodation costs for all the people sent down there, engage coaches and officials, and pay them all. The existing structures include the Force, the Brumbies, and the Sydney and Brisbane clubs. This is where all the best non-wallaby players are. So you start with teams from Perth and Canberra, and then you have a champions league style selection of clubs from Sydney and Brisbane, for example, the top 3 in Sydney and the top 2 in Brisbane, plus the possibility of NSW or Qld country filling the 8th spot. Again, an existing sgtructure, though they might find it hard to compete against largely professional teams. You will end up with all the best club players in Sydney gravitating to the wealthier clubs, so they have a chance to play in the next national comp. Well, Sydney Uni already seems to have most of them anyway, one way or another. The same would likely happen in Brisbane. Is this philosophically right, and what happens to the clubs not competing in the national comp? There are a lot of questions but with the S14 being 13 weeks and then followed only by intermittent internationals, something really does need to be done, despite what some of those self-serving club officials will tell you.

Sheek... What if the Super 14 comp points were carried into an Australian National Comp and the Super 14 franchises supplied their next tier players or fringe Wallabies looking for game time played for their franchise National Comp Team. I would envisage that during the Super 14 finals there would be a two week bye period before the commencement of the National Rugby Cup. This would still provide our beloved tribalism at a provincial level; would add an extra level of rugby for aspiring talent. We all could continue to support our favoured S14 club base adding to its revenue stream. The S14 Franchise team Brands have larger public appeal and would create greater interest from broadcasters and revenue from bidding for media rights. This would assist ARU expenditure for a National comp and offer rugby corporate sponsors more exposure opportunities. Post Super 14, in the second part of the season, the National Rugby Comp would offer home and away matches. Each team would play each other three times in the year including the super 14 match. The extra matches plus a final would provide an additional 7 weeks of Australian Provincial Rugby. Nearly a further two months of national rugby. At the end of the season a Southern Hemisphere Champions Cup could be played for out of the Currie Cup, NPC and Australian National Comp. This would also give opportunity for a new Western Sydney Super 14 franchise to grow and create a good fan bas

Michael C, I am not suggesting Melbourne does not have enough followers to support the bigger games and I agree that some of the storm followers would be converted and there are plenty of Victorians who have moved south from NSW and QLD. But as with NRL and the Central Coast issue, it should be a team built in Melbourne that is eventuallly included into an expanded Super tournament. I appreciate the AFL managed to move South Melbourne (Swans) to Sydney, but it has taken 25 years to really make some headway. The ARU's pockets are not that deep. Get some development officers into the Melbourne Schools and start selling the game to them and let them make it stronger and move slowly.

sheek, I guess your more on top of it than i, just think an opportunity missed in Melb around 2003. The ARU would need to rebuild the interest again before dropping a team in. Expansion is a difficult thing in non traditional areas. Redb

I believe that JON will take a broad brush to this problem when he has the dough. There will be an expanded S14 that will become our national comp as well as the middle tier. Club rugby should go back to amateur with a league structure to ensure that clubs are on the ball but with a promotion and relegation play off (my idea). Turning Ranwick and Uni etc. into super clubs has passed its use by date. If this was going to happen, as it has in England, they should have started when the game first went professional. Unfortunately the ARU had the clubs on the welfare scheme and they couldn't get off it. Like it or hate it S14 will replace or rather envelope the concept of the ARC. It will be the called the B-League ir if there is amazing imagination at the ARU marketing dept............ the R-League!

Assuming we want to expand the depth pool of rugby as a whole would it be concievable with the provincial woes of the NPC (less so of the Currie Cup) could be solved by simply proposing reserve games. If the season is expanded to 20+ weeks the Super Rugby teams will travel to thier destinations and on the day before the main game the reserves will play, and not for a very high cost, if any at all. This will raise the squad numbers at the very minimum to 44 players. The reserve game will grant injured players the ability to ease themselves back into play, allow rugby fans to check out future talent or even allow non rugby fans to rock up and see a cheap, but still pretty high quality game. I believe England football has a similar system where the reserves are a very important part of the game. The reserves would play the same fixtures as thier parent teams but when finals came along they would no longer be bound. I personally think that decreasing the length of the season but jam-packing it full of different tours is not the right way to go, you need consistency in who you support first and foremost. Anyway, the tiers will go in my idea National, Provincial, Reserves, Semi-Professional clubs.

Scrum Importance, When you talk about cracking the Melbourne market, I believe in finding a 'niche'. Let Melbourne remain the citadel of AFL, that's fine. Rugby should aim for the same type of niche in Melbourne that the Swans enjoy in Sydney. Redb, Don't know that I agree with you there. Perth wasn't a soft option as you suggest, it was the wiser option. Look, it would be great to have a super team in Melbourne as well. And hopefully, it will happen sooner rather than later. You can't please everybody, but giving Perth the 4th Aussie super team was the right decision at the time, & still is, IMHO.