Henry backs strict eligibility rules

Perhaps more New Zealanders would support the Super 14 if it wasn't so effing boring. The Crusaders' dominance of the competition has meant that it's just not exciting for anyone outside of those provinces. These days there seems to be a strong desire to return to grass roots NPC rugby, but the NZRU can't market it properly. I honestly believe SANZAR would be better off running separate domestic comps and having a HC style tournament for the top teams.

hayden, The population of Sydney's metroplotian area is about 4.28Million. The population for the entire nation of New Zealand is about 4.27Million So you're bang on the money with your guess! Ian, The change you describe exactly what I'd like to see occur! What I'd really REALLY like to see occur. I don't beleive that it has ever been realistically investigated and was abandoned too soon after professionalism. It would certainly strengthen the domestic game in NZ and SA. Comments out of Japan would also suggest that they'd be far more cooperative with the idea of their Top League clubs becoming part of SANZAR rugby than simply creating a new Japan-wide franchise. So this concept has the potential to succeed. Even the NZ Provinces were pushing the NZRU to adopt a pro comp based on the provincial model rather than a franchise one. All I can hope is that one day they'll give this concept a go and that hopefully it won't be too late. The Air NZ Cup has been great this season and I'd much rather buy tickets to support my province taking on Western Province or Queensland than I would the Hurricanes. Regardless of our chance of winning. Finally, to get back on the original topic (despite my great interest in the side topics raised) I would be much happier with the concept of overseas selection of AB's from Super14 teams if there was a salary cap in place, otherwise you're just adopting an open chequebook league, like the EPL for futbol and the financially weaker NZ teams would get left for dead as their stars drifted to the big $'s.

True Tah What is the comparative population base between Sydney and Hamilton, for example? Of course you should expect 35k at a Waratahs game. The entire population of NZ is less than the greater Sydney area I would guess. Benjamin, I agree that if all Aussies plying their trade overseas returned to Oz, there would be enough players, but that ain't going to happen. Look at how the Force weakened the Reds and Brumbies. An already limited talent pool will get diluted further. This is not to knock Oz rugby. More than any other major nation they punch above their weight. Ian, oh to have HC style comp down here.

Matt If you beef up your respective provincies/club games in NZ and OZ you don't need the Super 14. Instead you return to your old loyalities in your domestic games with a HC type tournament between provincesclubs in SA, Aus and NZ. Instead of the artifically created regions you have a domestic structure that is closer to the heartbeat of the game and the grassroots. One of the beauties of the HC is that each year NH teams will play against different clubs in the pool, which adds considerably to the interest for the players and spectators alike.

Maybe if they gave up on the failed idea of franchises in NZ then they'd get more support. As it stands the top tier of pro rugby (Super14) stills struggles to compete with the semi pro Air NZ Cup for viewership and match total and average match attendances. At present the NPC crowds are pretty solid, even without the AB's playing. This failed love with NZ Super rugby was made even more evident by how poor the S14 crowds were in 07 when the AB's weren't playing. Provinces like Hawkes Bay and Bay of Plenty get crowds equal to those of Europe (8000-10000). They also have huge player bases, yet the expansion of Super Rugby will mean pro rugby in these provinces will be pushed aside for more big city games. Waikato rugby crowds are still on par with Chiefs crowds and, while admitedly Highlanders crowds are as dismal as Otago's, Southland still manage 7500-9000 to thier games though from a population of only 90,000! Even bottom of the table Manawatu average 7500-8500 per game. So maybe if they ploughed the News Corp money into Provincial rugby instead of Super rugby then the financial burden wouldn't be so great? My problem is, if the crowds for Super rugby in NZ are poor now, how will McCaw and Carter playing for the Tahs help? Won't it just make the NZ teams weaker and encourage less sponsorship money and fanfare for NZ sides? If it becomes an open player market then NZ has the most to lose. We have the least money but the most quality players. Open player markets would mean that our franchises would have to directly compete with the pay on offer in Aussie. If the NZRU is struggling as it is to compete then how with it help to have yet another drain on the player talent line? Braid playing for the Reds and the idea of picking AB's from Aussie teams just seem to be of most benefit for Aussie rugby. The expansion of Super Rugby is also most beneficial to Aussie Rugby and most detrimental to NZ rugby. In the same sense the ELV's are most beneficial to Aussie rugby. Just like staging all of the 2003 WC cups games, just like staging the 2011 WC in Japan instead of NZ. All of these decisions have and were heavily pushed by the ARU and in all scenarios the loser will or would be NZ rugby.

Maybe if you Kiwis actually went and watched your Super rugby teams play, then your various unions would have more $$$$ to pay these guys more and keep them on NZ soil. Some of the Chiefs and Highlanders crowds this year were appalling, and whilst I understand the Crusaders were doing renovations to AAMI stadium, it was still empty a fair bit, cmon guys, if the Tahs had McCaw and Carter and were the kings of Super rugby, we would be getting 35K plus every game! I am fully appreciative of the benefit NZ rugby has been to Australia, and it has helped us create a professional comp, similar to Australian RL keeping NZ RL on life support.

Hayden, I think there are more than enough players to make up a 5th Australian team. Latham and Justin Harrison were offered weak contracts despite their experience and whilst some players want to travel there are many players in Europe who have shone. Just look at Brock James. You have players like James who wasn't getting the necessary exposure to develop his game and elder players like Harrison and Latham who the ARU considered to old. Were the ARU to alter their player recruitment policies then they could fill a 5th team IMO. OJ, I don't think the player drain will affect NZ rugby for various reasons; rugby is the no.1 sport, playing numbers are up - like you say, and most importantly NZ amateur and age group coaching is superior to the rest of the world. If one player leaves then that is an opportunity for another player. I certainly don't foresee any of the leading NZ players playing in Australia. Regarding the players in the GP - I imagine they'll be back for the next WC.

It's getting to the point where if you can't make the All Blacks you might as well ply your trade offshore as a professional rugby player. Plenty of Super 14 players have done that. Some return to New Zealand, others finish their playing days overseas. I don't begrudge any of them. It's when you lose young players who could be All Blacks or who are already in the frame that you start feeling the pinch. If the economy starts hurting Europe, I guess they'll pursue the Aussie avenue. Eventually that cash will dry up too. New Zealand will always be reasonably competitive because it's the only major code. Playing numbers just went up overall. That fabric is stronger than the global economy which will fluctuate. Things may get a little bumpy and the All Blacks may go through the odd lean patch, but I don't think it's doom and gloom. I'd rather be in New Zealand's position than Australia's.

Matt, I think you'd be surprised. Rugby survived for over 100 years before going professional in Australia whilst fighting off 2 other professional codes (AFL, League) and without the help of the New Zealand Rugby Union on a provincial level. We did have provincial a series, the ARC, that was quite successful in terms of the quality of play it delivered. It floundered because of a lack of funding. I think you'll find that if Australia were to withdraw from the Super 14, the ARC would start up again. It would become our national comp and all of the money that would normally go towards the Super 14, would instead be channelled into the ARC. The majority of our current Super 14 players would then end up playing in the ARC, and the crowds that would normally go to the Super 14 games, (which I might add are quite healthy crowds, often outpointing our NZ counterparts at a provincial level) would end up at these games instead. In a nutshell, I don't believe we need NZ as much as NZ would like to believe we do.

So by your reckoning, with Australia having the largest population of New Zealanders outside of NZ (either born here or moved when they were infants), then we're entitled to pillege as many NZ players as we like. Rupeni Caucau, Joe Rockocoko, Sitiveni Sivivatu were born in Fiji. Rodney So'oialo, Va'aiga Lealuga Tuigamala, Jerry Collins born in Samoa. I could go on and on. Mate, at the end of the day, I'm not saying it's wrong, Australia does it as well. But don't complain when another country does it back to you. You're just being a hypocrite.

ADH, I agree that there are exceptions to every rule and that Steve Devine is definitely a player that was stolen from under the ARU's noses. I can't think of too many other examples to back up your theory of a two way tasman rugby traffic system? Maybe Brad Thorn? But then it's hard to argue that he was anywhere near the ARU radar or talent ID program when he made the call to return to NZ for the Crusaders? I'm not say that NZ won't do what best for themselves, because I believe they will. In fact this entire article was centred on the NZRU doing just that, not picking foreign based players for the AB's. That is doing best by NZ rugby. I don't think the claims that Aussie Rugby survives on NZ Rugby is a joke at all. I think Rugby in NZ would live on fine without Australia. It would get as much money, but it is our national game and ain't going away in a hurry. But I wouldn't see a bright future for Rugby Union in Australia if it was to try and live without NZ Rugby. The strength of the All Blacks brand and the attactive publicity of playing against NZ is one of the main things keeping Aussie rugby afloat. Coz last time I checked there wasn't much of a domestic rugby comp happening in Aussie. Without Super Rugby the AFL, NRL and A-Leauge sharks would start circling pretty fast. That's probalby why JON is happy for NZ and SA to squeeze the life from their traditional domestic competitions in favour of Super expansion. That is the only realistic lifeline they have right now.

ADH, Your comment on pilleging Polynesian players is either a wind up or shows clear ignorance. Are you not at all aware that Auckland for instance is the largest polynesian city in the world? The players you are alluding to are either BORN in New Zealand or moved there as INFANTS....its a Multi-cultural country hence the make up of our team...

Matt, you are forgetting that New Zealand has actually done it to Australia on previous occassions. Steve Devine was schooled in Australia, went to one of our greatest (if not the greatest) rugby nurseries in St Josephs college. He played Australian School Boys and was looking like a great prospect for the Wallabies. He was snaffled up by the Auckland Blues and actually ended up representing New Zealand. Justin Collins, also born in Australia (Hobart, Tas) ended up in New Zealand playing Rugby. Was it OK for this to happen and weaken our already poor playing stocks? Are you saying that the New Zealand teams won't do what's best for themselves? Not to mention the countless number of Pacific islander and Polynesian players the NZ has pilleged over the years with little regard for their playing stocks. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's an open market. But to say that Australia benefits solely from NZ and not vice versa is a joke. New Zealand needs Australia, (and South Africa for that matter), just as much as we need you. Sure, you bring greater playing depth, but Australia and South Africa provide the S14, and Tri nations with greater viewing audiences (both at the games and on TV), which in turn delivers better broadcast deals.

Yep I was mightily annoyed when I heard this. Winning the Bled and the Trinations with after being bled of so much talent was truing awesome but im more than worried at the big picture. look at the new faces in the Wallabies squad for the end of year tour - they are all Kiwis whist not being first choice its only a matter of time before OZ gets our best. We really are struggling big time to hold our own talent not only in rugby but everything else hence the number of Kiwis living in OZ etc. now for the opportunities they provide. You would have to ask were on earth will we be after the next World Cup?? its only going to get worse.

Good point Matt. It makes a mockery of Aus desire to have a fifth team. There aren't enough players for four. Over the years, NZ rugby has bent over backwards to help lift the standard across the Tasman. Right now, the only thing NZ rugby has going for it is the lure of the jersey, and the residency stipulation. Take that away, and another hole appears in the dyke. You only need to see how the Kiwi league team performs to see how the All Blacks will be weakened if they bring in players from overseas. A few days of training together does not a team make.

If the only thing countering the European $ is the chance to play in national colours then isn't the only thing countering the Australian $ the same chance to play in the national colours? Personally I don't see any difference between the European club trying to poach kiwi talent and Aussie teams doing the same thing. If you could get selected for the AB's from withing the S14 then most Kiwi players would go to the wealthier Australian teams. This would then weaken the NZ teams and they would start to struggle to compete. What is the point of NZ players moving to Aussie teams? How does that help NZ rugby make money and remain strong? Currently Daniel Braid leaving the Blues has not diminished the S14 brand overall, but it has certainly reduced the Blues brand and enhanced the Reds brand. And therein lies the problem. The Aussie teams will do what is best for themselves. The Tahs couldn't care less if Daniel Carter and Richie McCaw were on their books to the detriment of the Crusaders. The Force would love to snaffle up Tony Woodcock and John Afoa. But if the quality of talent is only flowing in one direction then the Aussies will get fatter while the Kiwis get weaker. I'm continually boggled by how Aussie rugby feeds off the strength (and stupidity) of NZ rugby and then always comes back looking for more support when the dust settles. The Reds signing Braid (and the ARU letting them) is just another stab in the back really. At a time when the NZRU is struggling to keep European wolves at bay, the close neighbours (who want the NZRU to support the demise of the NPC in favour of helping Aussie rugby compete with the NRL and AFL) comes in the side door and signs an All Black themselves, knowing full well that he'll be lost to Kiwi rugby. Imagine the comments from the ARU if John Mitchell finished up at the Force, took back over coaching the Reds and brought Giteau and David Pocock with him? Wouldn't be very neighbouring would it. So no, I don't think you should be selected for the AB's if you are playing in any nation other than NZ. Any opening will signal a flood of talent offshore and the weakening of the whole NZ Rugby pyramid, both in terms of playing quality, fan support and financial sponsorship and income.

The concept that players who go to Europe and Japan can't be eligible for the All Blacks is a good one. At present the only competition to the overseas dollar is the chance to play in the national colours. But I think it is a different matter in the Super 14, in the case of, say, Daniel Braid. He is playing in a tournament that involves five NZ teams and is not diminishing the Super 14 brand by playing for Queensland. If the NZRU maintains this stance regarding the Super 14 it will allow the ARU to diminish the stock of top NZ players by picking off a number of them and making them unavailable for the All Blacks.