The answers for SANZAR on how to improve rugby

Ohtani I dont think thier is something wrong because the Crusaders have dominated - they have had excellent players, coaching, and support, and come from the #1 nation in world rugby (despite thier failure to win the thing since 87!) - no mystery at all there.

I agree with Jerry, but at the same time something has to change. The reality is that it's not a very good competition. If the Crusaders hadn't dominated the tournament, things might be different, but there's something wrong with a competition that's been dominated by the same team for so many years.

Very interesting from Melbourne today http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25145500-5015651,00.html "If the ARU does not choose Melbourne, they are simply not fair dinkum about making rugby a national sport," said Merlino, just hours after he told a packed Weary Dunlop lunch the Victorian Government would give the VRU $500,000 to relocate its entire operations, including its centre of excellence, to the $270million Rectangular Stadium to be finished next year. The Bracks Government commissioned the new stadium four years ago, timing its announcement to support Melbourne's ultimately unsuccessful bid for the Super 14 expansion licence the ARU granted instead to Perth. "The new Melbourne super rugby team will be based in an iconic new stadium in the heart of the sporting precinct in the sporting capital of the world," Merlino said. Behind the bonhomie and bravado, however, the Victorian Government is understood to be bringing some serious pressure to bear on the ARU to ensure Melbourne is not once again "jilted" -- VRU president Gary Gray's description yesterday. Merlino would not comment directly on rumours the Victorian Government might even withdraw its considerable investment in rugby if an Australian licence goes to another city.

I don't think any of the SANZAR nations have the required depth to provide a further Super rugby side. All it will be is another Reds/Cheetahs/Highlanders, whoever provides it. SA probably have the best current commercial claim though the potential Victoria market will be tempting I'm sure. To be honest, it just feels like more of the same though and I'm not loving the idea of conferences. I can watch some SAvSA or AusvAus matches as they directly affect the table that my team is competing in. I won't have anywhere near the same level of interest if all those matches determine is which teams my team will face if makes the playoff stages.

i understand the need to expand but becuase I am down in club rugby i get worried about easy assumptions about the depth of Australian rugby.Be under no illusion the Reds are only just beginning to recover from the inclusion of the Force and probably need another year. The NZ super teams are below par. Too many players have left for Europe. there are even more SA players there. the global recession may help here. But either the Brumbies or aNZ franchise would be susceptible to a new Melbourne franchise. Good luck to the Force on player retention. the flight from Melbourne is a lot easier than Perth. I hate when we get the bullshiit. it will not be western Sydney long term this would be brilliant for local ratings but short term this would only weaken the ARU's flagship for ratings in Australia the Waratahs and a Gold Coast franchise would cause havoc to a fragile Reds franchise.Remember QLD is now the rugby league stronghold in this country.

True Tah, I read the same article. Australia has 31 foreign born players and NZ has 17.

Guys, Melbourne/Victoria has to be the next Aussie port of call for expanded Super comp. Doesn't make sense for a farmer to only have say 4 out of 10 paddocks cultivated for cash crops or revenue streams, when he can cultivate 7 or 8 paddocks & be more productive. It would be great to have teams in Western Sydney, Central Coast, Newcastle & Gold Coast. But only one can get the gig, & we have to choose the team that will benefit Australian rugby the best long term.

"Sick of seeing the best Islanders play for New Zealand because of a lack of genuine alternatives?" .. stopped after that call ... the writer clearly hasn't a clue on what he / she is saying ... a standard cheap and nasty call usually the reserve of the clueless NH scribes ...

James Mortimer Gregan was actually born in Zambia not Namibia and I understand his mum is a Zimbo. I see your point though and agree that those who say NZ rapes the Islands for rugby players has no idea of the Pacific Way, the last real poach NZ did was Joeli Virdiri, they tried to get Caucau but failed. Interestingly I read an article in NZ Herald which said that apparently there are 31 foreign born players in Australian Super teams, and that NZ should be worried that we will poach their stars, so far we've got Ezra Taylor, Daniel Braid and Ben Castles, hehehe.

I agree re the raping of the Pacific islands. I have read somewhere that at the last WC, there were 14 NZ born players in the Samoan side. Who benefits who? And how many players in Aus S14 sides were born outside of Aus, compared to the same with NZ sides? I don't know the answer, but would be interested to find out. As to the old chestnut that the new team will be filled with returning expats and leaguies, that's what they said about the Force. Instead they got disgruntled and dollar struck Reds and Brumbies. Assuming that NRL players do switch, that might take care of the 3/4 line / fullback. As for the other 11 players, hmm. Not too many players earning euros right now will be keen on switching to SH pesos. I can see the symmetry of five teams per SANZAR partner, but a prerequisite must first be a playing and supporter base to justify it.

Hear hear Jerry. I get sick of people implying that New Zealand "rapes" the talent of the pacific islands. The reality is that with certain players being nutured and developed through the acadamy system, that it benefits New Zealand as much as the pacific islands. If anything, it is the representation of islanders through the top nations that assist the Pacific countries who do not have sufficient school or age grade competitions themselves. Finally, the reality of professional sport is that nationalities count for little when it comes to representation. Would not Nambia have been a far better rugby nation - if Australia hadn't taken George Gregan........ Please.

I should also add that of all the cities I travelled to in Australia during the World Cup in 2003, Melbourne had the least atmosphere and interest in the event. Only the Australia v Ireland match had any buzz as they cleverly tied it into the Spring Racing carnival week.

Roger Taking up the earlier comment from the Link. The biggest hurdle for rugby succeeding in Melbourne is gaining parity in media coverage in press, radio and TV as well as being played in schools across the state. I'm a Kiwi who's lived in Melbourne for the past 10 years and it staggers me how much of the sport pages are devoted to AFL. Not even rugby in NZ dominates press coverage in their dailies as much as AFL does. Melburnians love sports events but it will take some time for rugby to even get a whole page devoted to the sport. I've attended most of the Storm's home games and there is a passionate but small base of support for rugby league here and they get at least half a page of coverage in the Herald Sun but even with Nine's rights to FTA coverage, delayed coverage in this state normally means after regular scheduled programs have run so it's late at night - not great exposure for any sport. There is enough local support for rugby to attract a regular crowd of 20 - 25,000 and there was a report this week that the Victorian rugby union will receive $500,000 from the state government to relocate it's entire operation including it's centre of excellence to the new rectangular stadium in preparation for a possible inclusion to an expanded Super 15 competition. AFL has a stranglehold and they won't give it up without a fight, witness the late decision by the AFL to ALLOW the A-League grand final to be played at Telstra Dome (or Etihad Stadium) as they had previously booked it for a pre season NAB match between Collingwood and Richmond.

Roger - not saying they don't, but its not the driver for why the A-League is successful or why Super Rugby may be. i'd say the dominance of AFL means Melbourne is pretty comfortable with itself and doen't necessarily need its sport to fill some 'craving' for the world stage for it to be successful. Otherwise the latest Althletics meet would have dominated the town.

Take it easy link on the 'naive' calls Link... So, you are saying Melbornians have no desire to be on some kind of world stage...thats obviously sets them apart from pretty much every other city i think...:) F1 GP, Cth Games, support for soccer can ALSO be attributed for a city's need to promote itself and feel like its a player on world sporting stage...Vics havent have eber had a winter code choice down there so AFl dominates ( and will always dominate) the market...but as Aust 2nd biggest city, it has capacity to succdessfully support a RU team...I was not trying to say Vics would prefer AFL to Union, rather than it would prefer Union to League and had the added attraction for those Vics who want o watch a world-ish game during winter.

Roger - "you see, Vics really want to be relevant on the world stage, and thats why they have gotten behind their soccer team. Vics really want to be relevant on the world stage" You are frightengly naieve. So this is why AFL is the biggest game in town then? A Super Rugby team may be successful in Melbourne, but its not because it wants to be on the world stage, it because of the history of support (weary dunlop etc..) particularly in corporates and dare I say it in the upper class. Futbol has always had big support in Melbourne, not cause it wants to be on the world stage, but because of big migrant populations and junior participation.

SANZAR sell the broacasting rights to News Ltd, who on-sell them to Sky TV and Foxtel. As far as I'm aware, SANZAR only negotiate directly with broadcasters in France, Asia, the Americas and Europe. News Ltd has the rights for the UK, Australia and New Zealand and SuperSport has the rights for Africa. There was some talk this time about cutting out News Ltd. and negotiating directly with the pay TV providers in each country, but at present Foxtel do not have a deal with SANZAR itself,

I understand your point though...whereas Fox can play all games on its channels, Ch 9 cannot, so it sells them to fox...difficult to grasp why fox would on sell right to game when they can shw them all...JON seems optimistic so he must have something up his sleeve...hopefully contract with fox conains sufficient protection for Sanzar to on-sell some expanded games in future, OR provides that fo dont have rights to whole of comp, rather just to 90 games of super rugby..one for the lawr to nut out.

Thanks, but if SANZAR only give PAYTV right to 90 games, and sells remainder on open market, isnt SANZAR in a position to negotiate bw PAYTV and F2A as to an even spread of primetime and good games? With expansion, fox get more games so its not like they wouldnt be getting anything out of the new deal.

The difference with league is that Channel Nine has the controlling broadcast rights to the NRL. They decide which games they want on a Friday and Sunday and then Foxsports get the left overs. Foxsports will always have the controlling broadcast rights to the S14 as they have the money to purchase the entire package, which is how the S14 is sold from SANZAR.