In considering locations for a fifth Australian Super franchise, the Australian Rugby Union appears to be neglecting the option of basing it in the heartland of Australian rugby – the inner city suburbs of Sydney. Both the ARL and AFL have the majority of their clubs located in the city in which their game developed.
Given that this week’s SANZAR board meeting was held in Dubai one should not expect too much respect to be paid to location theory in determining the next site for expanding the Super 14 competition.
Australian Rugby Union supremo John O’Neill has justifiably argued strongly for the fifteenth franchise to be granted to Australia, but where should such a team be based? Perhaps an examination of the location of professional teams in other football codes in Australia might be illuminating.
The National Rugby League has sixteen Premiership clubs. Nine of these (56%) are located in Sydney; four (25%) in other traditional rugby league areas; and three (19%) in what might be classed as expansion areas, namely Melbourne, New Zealand and the Gold Coast.
The Australian Football League also has sixteen Premiership clubs. Nine of these (56%) are located in Melbourne; five (31%) in other traditional Australian Rules areas; and two (13%) in expansion areas, namely Sydney and Brisbane.
It can be seen that in both of the major codes with which rugby competes the majority of teams are located in the city in which their game developed. By contrast Australian rugby has just four professional teams; one in Sydney where the game has its Australian roots (25%); one in Brisbane, a traditional rugby area(25%); and two in expansion areas, namely Canberra and Perth(50%).
John O’Neill has been quoted as saying that in choosing a location for the additional team “the Gold Coast, Melbourne and West Sydney boasted the necessary prerequisites, while also mentioning Gosford and Newcastle.”
Let’s look at the logic of these five sites.
Starting with Gosford, its main attraction would appear to be that it has an underutilised stadium, apparently constructed by John Singleton in “Field of Dreams” mode. Well he built it but they didn’t come. The area lacks critical population mass, is devoid of major corporations to provide sponsorship support, and lacks an underlying club competition of anything remotely like an appropriate standard.
Newcastle would also seem to be deficient in terms of population, business support and strength of its club competition. In fact, a Newcastle team competed in the Sydney Club Premiership competition for a few seasons in the late 1990s but folded due to lack of support from the Newcastle public.
Placing a team in Melbourne would create many of the same problems faced by the Western Force, namely being in a city where the overwhelming majority of the population have no interest in rugby and don’t really know the difference between rugby and rugby league, and not having an underpinning club competition of anywhere near acceptable standard.
Giving a franchise to the Gold Coast, an area that supports just one team in the Brisbane Premiership club competition, means that the South-East Queensland conurbation, essentially Greater Brisbane, would have two Super 15 clubs while Sydney would have only one. Giving their relative populations, strength of their club football competitions and business clout, this does not make sense.
So that just leaves West Sydney – or does it? John O’Neill has, if I recall correctly, mentioned both Blacktown and Parramatta as possible locations, but where is rugby’s heartland in Sydney? It has always been in the inner city suburbs, basically clustered around the harbour.
Of the last fifty Sydney First Grade Premierships, twenty-three have been won by Randwick and ten by Sydney University. If we then add in those won by other harbour-side clubs―Norths, Gordon, Manly and Easts―45 of the last 50 Premierships or 90% have been won by rugby-heartland clubs. Only five or 10% have been won by clubs which could be regarded as part of West Sydney―three by Eastwood and two by Parramatta.
In addition, the great bulk of the wealthy private schools which have been the major nursery for Australian rugby players are located in the heartland suburbs.
Club rugby has always struggled in West Sydney, and even the club which has enjoyed success in recent years, Eastwood, is facing a financial crisis partly due to a rapidly changing demographic unfavourable to rugby.
If we had a central Sydney team in addition to the NSW Waratahs where would it play? The obvious answer is the Sydney Football Stadium. Very few professional football teams own their own grounds; it makes much better economic sense to hire an existing facility.
Would there be sufficient support to sustain two teams in the one city? Apart from the obvious examples from the ARL and the AFL, English cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, both much smaller than Sydney, have dual soccer clubs as well as numerous other clubs clustered nearby. The proximity of rivals seems to promote fierce tribalism and increased interest in the sport.
In discussing a new Australian franchise John O’Neill spoke about the possibility of a “hybrid team including Pacific Islanders, Australia expats and league converts.” Ignoring the wisdom or otherwise of sourcing players in this way, why might there be a deficiency of professional standard rugby players in Australia? Precisely because there are so few opportunities for rugby players to ply their trade in their own country.
As mentioned above, there are sixteen fully professional clubs in both the NRL and the AFL. By contrast, there are only four Australian Super 14 clubs. In broad terms this means that there are four times as many opportunities for rugby league and Australian football players to play professionally here as there are in rugby.
Given time, the additional demand for players created by a fifth franchise will produce the necessary supply. That process will take much longer than it should because, with a few notable exceptions, player development has been grossly neglected by the administrators of rugby in Australia.
Knives Out
Guest
Drop SA? Do you think NZ fans actually care about Australian rugby? SA brings in the bucks and has the tradition and history.
WorkingClassRugger
Guest
Just read that SANZAR have a back up Asis- Pacific competiton format if the current format falls. This one cuts SA pretty much out until the finals. Why stop there, just drop the dead weight and start an alternative 12-14 team competion between Aus., NZ, Jap and PI sides. With the leech of the SANZAR nation gone thats more money for development in each of those nations. They constantly want to play hard ball to get there often ridiculous demands satisfied, so teach them a lesson, tell them to take a long walk in the sense of a provincial championship. Let them do their own thing a only deal with them at Tri-Nations time. Oh yeah just before the door hits them on their way out let them know that the deal that will most likely raise a better price than when they would have competed, that they are entitled to exactly 0% of its resources and profis.
Cracker
Guest
There has not been a lot of in-depth discussion on where the players for a fifth Aussie side would come from, apart from saying that they would hurt the existing local sides. JON said that the team could consist of Australian players, islanders and leaguie's. How would the islanders fit in under the current eligibility policy for Aus s14 teams? Would they create a new quota for players eligible to play for Tonga, Samoa and Fiji? This would be a great way to develop talent from the islands while keeping the players close to home and would also reduce the strain on existing Aussie clubs.
Nashi
Guest
Wow, what a reaction you have provoked. Lot's of very strong opinions and passion. At least you all care! I reckon it has to be Melbourne (sorry I mean Victoria) or nothing. If the Melbourne Storm can survive on the smell of an oily rag surely a rugby team would fare better, from one of the posts above it seems there is strong corporate sponsorship interest and at least the beginninings of a local talent pool (better than league). The number of people who grew up in rugby playing states or countries and moved to Melbourne would have to be huge. I bet in the years to come if the Storm folds financially a lot of their supporters would switch to rugby as the two games become more similar. The Western Force's main complaint has always been Subiaco so the new stadium in Melbourne will help make the game a proper spectacle for those who actually go to watch. If you have ever been to Suncorp you know what a difference it makes. Forget Docklands! One last thing in Melbourne's favour is the desperate disappointment expressed by all those involved in Melbourne's bid when the last franchise went to Perth. So the locals are dead keen. So with all those things going for it, if you can't make it work in Melbourne it simply won't work anywhere else in Australia. And forget all this rubbish about a second NSW based team. This is a PROVINCIAL competition!
True Tah
Guest
bennalong good points, but the whole issue about teachers has been around for ages. Rugby used to be incredibly strong in NSW State High Schools in the 1970s and 80s, a lot of the teachers were ex-Vietnam vets, so they were hard nuts. It is outside the control of the ARU or any other sporting body - unless the ARU is interested in funding young men's teachers educations?
bennalong
Guest
I'M OPPOSED TO EXPANSION at a time when dollars are scarce and we don't spend enough on junior development as it is Pulling in sponsorship for a team in Melbourne which will not feed players into the franchise is a pointless exercise unless the money is there to promote junior rugby STRONGLY FOR TEN YEARS . AT MINIMUM We must get little kids playing their fathers game by informing their risk averse mothers of the benefits, and of the safety of junior formats AND of the risks posed in playing soccer, including Minimal Brain Injury from heading the ball. We must get primary school kids playing formal sports-- taught by men -- every week instead of these ridiculous Gala days. Sponsorship is only valuable if some of the dollars also encourage kids participation in Rugby
JonnyP
Guest
I thought that when Western Force got the nod last time that it was a really close run thing and that it could have gone to either Melbourne or Perth. Now unless anythings changed since then , which I don't think it has, then surely melbourne's a dead cert (that's if Aus gets the extra place). I must add that I only really remember the 'climax' of the bid process last time when it was announced that Perth had won. Can anyone remind me where else had a bid for a team? Did Western Sydney bid last time?
WorkingClassRugger
Guest
Melbourne or Western Sydney are the only two logical choices. And frankly the VRU can probably announce their team name and colours now and do away with the conjecture. The suggestion by Clarky for a Melbourne based team to use West Syd as a player base is an excellent one, well why not the NSWRU pretty much ignore it anyway. For as long as I can remenber they have only had 1 development officer for well over 2 -2.5 million people in Sydney's Greater West and Southwest. The sheer level of talent out there is phenomenal and the NSWRU officer(Manu Sutherland) has done his best with severely restricted resources. If a school boy team from a private college made up of the sons of the middle class masses of Western Sydney, can in its first year of competitve rugby go out a beat all but St Joey's, playing as a proxy second grade for High, and with only 3 or 4 actual rugby players in the side and only training on the Friday before the game for an hour, imagine the side a Melbourne based team could produce if developed probably. And maybe just maybe it might force the NSWRU to finally pull their fingers out and do something. I can talk from experience I started playing Rugby for the Campbelltown Harlequins and had to move into the Eastern Suburbs to make any real inroads into rep rugby. As for a new national comp, combine it with the NPC and the former ARC teams plus one team from the PI and maybe 2 from Japan. This will be a interim proposal, with the aggressive development of rugby in each state through juniors and schools, so maybe 10 years into the future we can create a stand alone Comp with representtives from all staes and territores ideally a 16-18 team comp
Mtngry
Guest
If you want 2 teams in NSW then I would say NEITHER of them should get to use the Waratah name. That should be reserved for the ONE ALL OF STATE team. Mind you ANY Waratah rugby out of Sydney would be nice. But I am a fan of the Melbourne Idea, keep the teams by state and lets invade their turf for a change.
sheek
Guest
Kapito, At this point I wouldn't drop the Super format, unless of course, the various countries themselves want it to happen. However, it doesn't make sense to me to expand the S14/15, whatever, to occupy more weeks in the season. Well, I can understand THAT part of it - make the players earn their money more, increase gate takings, more product for pay-TV, therefore more revenue, etc. But I don't think Aussies, Kiwis & Saffies really want that. We tolerate the other teams in the comp, but what Aussies really want to see is Aussie teams belting the crap out of each other, & ditto Kiwis & Saffies likewise theirs. As I've mentioned in the past, the S14 is only 28.57% Aussie participation, 35.71% each for the other two. And the other thing is, we see the leading ABs & Boks several times every for their national teams.
Albert Ross
Guest
^^ gabs = gaps
Albert Ross
Guest
",.. with a few notable exceptions, player development has been grossly neglected by the administrators of rugby in Australia" I thought this was part of the RU's cunning plan. Let RL develop the adolescent players, bring them through to SoO and top class club performance and then pick them off to fill the gabs the RU system has. Cousin Bruce - you mention the UK RU crowds but aren't most of those clubs bleeding to death financially and reliant on benefactors with more money than sense (like a lot of UK Association Football clubs)? Munster seem to get the biggest crowds in Yerp but are financially unstable I am told.
Pfitzy
Guest
The Heineken competition is still based on an international provincial framework though - the thing is they have a much cheaper travel route than we do if you include South Africa. But if you exclude South Africa, you get another problem: they supply more than half the revenue to the SANZAR Super Rugby/Trinations deal. I'm in favour of a trans-tasman comp with the stronger NPC franchises. Costs are lower, though income is lower, and the time zone is favourable for Japan and the Pacific Islands. The initial Japanese effort could be based in Australia somewhere to gauge interest in terms of TV numbers, with a second-year schedule allowing them multiple home games in a bracket to minimise costs.
Katipo
Guest
Rickety Knees, I didn't realise that melbourne storm was a financial basket case. If they are, this would enhance the case for acquisition wouldn't it? News should be even keener to off load the club if it loses money. Maybe it can be acquired for a nominal amount. maybe if it were a union club it would make money. Perhaps this is an opportunity for a private equity investor? Sheek, I have to agree with you (again) about an Australian national competition. The more thought I give it, the more sense it makes. I think it is a given that SANZAR countries can support only one domestic professional framework. And the writing is on the wall for super rugby when interest peaks around domestic encounters & international fixtures amplify costs. The way forward is for national competitions with the winners qualifying for an international heinekin cup style tournament(with a reduced number of games). SANZAR ought to drop super rugby like the hot potato that it is. Instead they should debate the possible path ways to strong domestic competitions in member countries and an international finals series, and sell that to broadcasters (and fans). BTW Melbourne Storm could be acquired by rugby to join whatever tournaments ultimately evolve.
Pfitzy
Guest
The English club situation is totally different - you can't look at their attendance figures in terms of numbers, but percentages. In addition, their facilities enjoy far higher usage than ours thanks to the predominance of football (soccer) in the UK who have far more money through their tiers than rugby could hope to produce. As Bruce argues, we have a large business community who are supporters of rugby, so where are they when the games are on? Probably at home watching it in the comfort of their own lounge room in HD, because quite frankly the SFS has turned into a dog's breakfast as a football stadium, and even the members are forced to slum it through bad parking and catering. In the meantime some idiot gets paid to help the Tahs write a song that no-one cares about it (go see the website if you don't believe me). I shake my head in concern over what is happening with the NSWRU... I'd argue that more and more often clubs have nearly nothing to do with development of our top level players - look at the Beales, Coopers, O'Connors, Palmers, and Giteaus of this world and you realise their ascent has nearly nothing to do with clubs. They get picked up from school before the league snouts can get them, and then whisked into a franchise. Its less common with forwards, but then look at the results: guys like Tilse rot on the Uni 2nd Grade bench and yet have a Waratahs contract! Wallace-Harrison and Al Campbell played for Uni and so got first crack at Brumbies/Tahs contracts, and were found wanting. The sad fact is that Sydney can't support a second rugby team; nor can Australia support a fifth based on its current domestic structure and lack of decent competition above club level. The outmoded architecture of rugby in Sydney from the Suburban comp right through to premier rugby is a cancer eating at the potential rugby has in Sydney. Only allowing clubs to stake their claim through numbers rather than ability produces lopsided contests at lower levels, while serving to feed the Old Boys' Club mentality in the top divisions. As long as you beat SOMEONE in your division on the championship table, you can hold onto your spot. Wealth begets wealth.
sheek
Guest
Bruce, there was another thing I forgot to mention in reply. It is a mistake to compare rugby union with Australian football, association football & rugby league. Rugby union has evolved differently, it has a different ethos & character, & must be developed along its own characteristics, not in comparison with the other football codes. AFL has no international competition, at least no genuine international competition that doesn't involve a hybrid game. All it has is its national club comp, & a beauty it is too. Soccer & NRL are similar in that they have a international competition, although soccer's is so much stronger than rugby league. Then each has a national club comp. Rugby league also has state of origin which partly takes up the slack of a lack of international focus. Rugby union has a powerful international focus, & a long tradition of provincial state based competition via NSW & Qld. Club rugby has always come in 3rd most of the time. My suggestion, which I'll expand on at a latter date, is for a Heineken Cup style comp involving top 4 from each of domestic comps of AUS, NZL, SAF & ARG. This in turn will help to resurrect national domestic comps in NZL, SAF & ARG. Australia's problem then, is to develop one....................
True Tah
Guest
Bruce yeah the English clubs may not have huge crowds, but you have to remember the amount of games the club plays, the Guinness Premiership has at least 20 rounds, plus Heineken Cup. Leicester seems to sell out or go close to selling out each game, over a season they would get a far larger total crowd than the Tahs ever could with a max of 7 home games. Also a few clubs own their own home grounds as well, which would help to drive down costs.
sheek
Guest
Bruce (another Bruce?), I respect anyone who is passionate about rugby, & you have written passionately. Your last para is spot on, but there are some inaccuracies that need to be corrected. Perhaps your definition of 'heartland' & 'expansion' is different to mine, but Gold Coast & NZL are not expansion areas in rugby league, in the sense the game has had a loyal following in these places for many decades. Ditto Canberra in rugby union, which was part of NSW Country, before breaking away on its own in about 1974-75. As for suggestions where the 15th Super franchise might be allocated (assuming the ARU get the nod over SARU), john O'Neill has learnt from previous experience to make all the contenders think they are in with a show, lest they try to sabotage everything with a "scorched earth" policy. Very selfish people, some of these rugby types - just look what happened with the ARC! Realistically, it's either going to be melbourne or japan. And I am deeply concerned with O'Neill's obsession with Japan. Operating a 5th Australian Super team out of either Western Sydney or Gold Coast would critically destabilize either NSW or Qld, as you correctly suggest. Locating a team on the Central Coast is also crazy, but never under estimate John Singleton's powers of persuasion.....& money. He got the Central Coast Rays in the ARC made up of Sydney North Shore players. It was this type of crazy structural fault line that partly contributed to the demise of the ARC. So it has to be Melbourne, Victoria. If the general population is in love with AFL, then the ARU & VRU combined have worked very hard to get the business community on side, which appears to be the case. And there is a small but very loyal following of rugby diehards who desperately want a Super team based in their city. I am continually frustrated by the 'nay-sayers' who argue we can't expand for this or that reason. Why don't we just shut up shop & remain in our little suburban dwellings like rugby league?! For 100 years, the ARU had this stupid attitude it was up to the other states to develop themselves, although I don't know how they were supposed to do this in the amateur era, without some help from the national body. The fact the game has spread as much as it has in the past 15 years, is often in spite of, & not because of, the majority body of opinion.
Brian
Guest
It seems the problem is more with the Tahs than anything else. Why don't people from West Sydeny, CC and Newcastle support them? These same populations love the League SOo and go to the SCG every January so the Tahs have to improve, start playing games in Parramatta & Newcastle. There should not be a second team just because the Tahs can't market themselves properly. Melbourne would be tough, the new stadium will be great for Rugby but media coverage of any sport other than AFL between March-Sept is difficult. Having said that the population of NZ/UK/NSW expats at any given time should get you a crowd of 15k and RU is definately more popular than League. Would also probably be the end of the Melbourne Storm
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Personally, I'm opposed to expansion. I don't think it's the way forward for a struggling Super 14 and I don't see the justification for a fifteenth franchise. After a round of horrendous local derbies, it's pretty clear that right now is the weakest the Super 14 has ever been. SANZAR's solution? Provide the people with more rugby! You'd swear there was a demand for rugby, as opposed to falling crowd numbers, a drop in season ticker holders and a decline in ratings. And there's no justification for another Super 14 team in Australia. You may have a market, but you don't have the player depth to prevent the competition from becoming even weaker than it already is.