While I have a lot of respect for John O’Neill, who is regarded as one of the best sporting administrators in Australia, his comments in the Sun Herald’s interview on 23 October 2009 left me somewhat disappointed. Much like his responses to the Roarers’ questions earlier this year.
To a great degree, in both cases, the necessary questions weren’t answered, the issues dodged, and I was left feeling like I had been to a politician’s press conference – more spin that substance.
While O’Neill is to a great degree having to play that game, given the politics involved in rugby, I continue to feel like his second coming to rugby is less substantial than the first. Perhaps because we have higher expectations.
As O’Neill himself says in the article, he isn’t the Messiah. I unkindly found myself thinking of the Life of Brian …
O’Neill indicated rugby was cutting its cloth to meet the financial pressures it was facing. However, this raises the issue as to whether the mandated share of player payments is an albatross around rugby’s neck.
The agreement forced on the ARU by the WRC and first News Ltd deal cut in 1995, and unchanged in 2005, is the elephant in the room no one in power will mention publicly.
Rugby has to pump more money into junior development, and provide a next tier competition to widen the professional base (more on that later), but does not have the money to do so. Whenever the revenue goes up, the player wages share goes up with it. But we aren’t cricket with a similar deal and boundless revenue (and no code competition).
My big question is whether the new deal for the Super 15 will change that.
You can bet Tony Dempsey and RUPA will be pushing for more of the same, and to my mind O’Neill will be looking to change it. Much of the current angst between Dempsey and O’Neill is likely to be they know a big fight is coming on this point, and they are positioning themselves for that clash.
O’Neill raised the good point that Test crowds in 2008 were the highest since 2003, and the Wallabies were still a chance of winning the Tri Nations title heading into the last game. It is amazing the crash that came in 2009 with poor results, and a 40% drop in Test crowds (and that with Bledisloe Cup rugby returning to Sydney after years away).
However, in many ways it may be that 2009 was the annus horribilis that Australian rugby had to have, if it leads to change to fix the now glaring fundamental problems that have gone un-remedied in the good years (both playing wise and administratively).
O’Neill also raised the financial turnaround for the ARU since 2007. While this is clearly important given the dependence on funding from the top, and reflects poorly on the last administrative regime (who were responsible for it), it also is a case of how you read the statistics.
The ARC was responsible for a $5m hole in the 2007 budget, which would have changed the numbers had it not been staged. As such, the turnaround is in large part due to one decision O’Neill made – cancelling the ARC.
It is also worth querying how much cloth was cut to provide those numbers. Anecdotally all departments (except Wallaby players presumably) had to cut their budgets, and similarly at the state unions, and in the context where junior development was taken on more by the ARU after 2008.
As such, the turnaround in numbers means the sport was treading more lightly and doing less as a result. Although not the same thing, I am reminded of the Gordon Geckos of the 1980s who bought companies, sacked staff, and produced companies that on the numbers looked great, but had been gutted. Less spending means less getting done.
On the ARC front it is also worth noting that it was apparently going to cause another $3.3m loss in 2008. However, in circumstances where 2008 provided a $9.25m profit, this meant that the profit would have only been $5.95m before allocations.
This would have meant less allocations, or drawing down savings to maintain allocations, but in the context of the ARC always having to take losses to get set up, it begs the question of whether the ARU could have taken the pain and now be staging the 3rd year of the ARC with the numbers starting to get close to break even (and perhaps a TV deal or wider sponsorship – although perhaps not with the GFC).
O’Neill says he had to stop it. And now we have the ARU crying off doing it all again, and having to take the losses early on all over again even if it did.
The whispering campaigns complaint is a fair one, although doubtless there are two sides to any argument. The fact remains that people hiding behind anonymous comments clearly aren’t backing themselves, or helping the sport.
If something needs saying, then front up. True some may fear for their jobs (which in some ways may be a chance to trot off to Europe), but there is also the fact that if the ARU were seen to be punishing players and coaches for fair comments. That would probably do the damage the comment maker was aiming for in any event, perhaps more so.
The suggestions that Deans has been dragged over the coals for his comments about the need for an ARC style comp (although this was from Danny Wiedler, facilitator extraordinaire of any whispering campaign …) supports some whispered allegations that O’Neill and the ARU prefer yes men to robust discussion.
At least rugby has the solace it isn’t the only code, especially in bad times, that has those types of whispering campaigns go on.
My biggest problem with O’Neill is with his comments about the “third tier” (sorry Whose Got Melon). In this regard, I have a bit of a dissection.
“Each of our major competitors are supported by state-based competitions.” This appears to refer to the NSW Cup and Queensland Cup for the NRL, and the VFL, WAFL, SAFL etc for the AFL, and the various state leagues in football.
O’Neill’s suggestion “That is precisely the case with Super rugby being supported by Premier Rugby competitions in Sydney and Brisbane, which in the past two years have had Wallaby players back in the fold on a far more frequent basis” suggests club rugby is an equivalent to the VFL, NSW Cup, etc. If so, I disagree.
It also skirts around the fact that the NRL and AFL each grew out of state based competitions. As such, each has strong representation in their respective heartlands. Sydney for the NRL and Melbourne for the AFL.
Where rugby in each of its heartlands of NSW and Queensland has just one fully professional team (based in and servicing only its capital cities), the NRL has multiple teams in Sydney and NSW (and Queensland) and the AFL in Victoria (as well as two in each of their other heartlands of Perth and Adelaide).
Further, those state leagues are now essentially the feeder teams for the top teams, and propped up by them in a way which means the “fourth tier” for the NRL and AFL is the equivalent of rugby’s current “third tier” of club rugby.
Further, I feel club rugby lacks the strength and funds that can be put into the NSW Cup, VFL etc. The grass roots structure supporting rugby seems anaemic by comparison to our main “competitors”, and any suggestion that club rugby will keep ticking along in this regard ignores the serious problems it has.
Further, it also ignores the NRL has the Toyota U-20s cup and AFL has reserves, with each providing a career path and depth of professional numbers that is lacking in rugby.
O’Neill also notes “which in the past two years have had Wallaby players back in the fold on a far more frequent basis. ” This only raises questions – why wasn’t it being done before Deans did it, and where else would they go to keep in shape if they weren’t playing club rugby (at least until September when the season ends)?
O’Neill boasts about what most in rugby would regard as either a necessity, or proof we need more (i.e. they should be playing in more than a semi-pro comp).
O’Neill queries “what other football code in Australia has a sustainable third tier?”
Well, we get back to many people’s question of what is a 3rd tier? If 1st is international and 2nd is provincial, then the NRL is the 3rd tier, and the AFL only has a “3rd” tier (with no meaningful 1st or 2nd).
If 1st tier is your “pre-eminent comp” (as appears to be the suggestion) then O’Neill isn’t comparing apples with apples, and is probably wrong anyway.
If the NRL is league’s 1st tier, the Toyota Cup is 2nd tier, and NSW Cup is 3rd tier. It is sustainable because of leagues clubs and the NRL money pot I would suggest. Which raises the issue why rugby doesn’t have a big enough pot to support its own (or why the 2nd tier isn’t a lot bigger given it is so much more important).
If AFL is 1st tier, the presumably reserves is 2nd tier, and VFL etc is 3rd tier. So we come to the same analysis as NRL. O’Neill’s question actually points to the problem in rugby – the structure and depth doesn’t run deep enough. Although in rugby’s defence it has only had 14 years to build professionalism, whereas NRL and AFL properly have been building for about 35 or more.
O’Neill’s interview concludes with “We are expanding the footprint of Super rugby significantly from 2011. The season will run seamlessly from March through until the end of the Tri Nations and then on to the spring tour. Super rugby expansion will also help develop a much broader player base – the ideal of a third-tier competition.”
We have the issue raised above of only 1 professional team in each heartland, against the NRL’s and AFL’s many.
Rugby often goes several weeks without a home game in those towns (which the conference derby structure will only partially eradicate). Further, once the Super comp is over in early August, the Wallabies and semi pro club rugby (in Sydney and Brisbane) are the only product being touted.
Rugby is essentially pinning its hopes on one professional game, every two weeks or more in the current format (plus the semi pro club comps in two cities). Hardly overflowing with product. Against competitors that can provide live top level games in every major city every weekend. An issue that would begin to be solved by an Australia equivalent of the NZC or Currie Cup.
Finally, the addition of a 5th Australian side (hopefully) is hardly “significant” or providing a “much” broader playing base. It will increase such by 25%, which is better than nothing. But is dwarfed by what the ARC provided (which was almost a doubling), and is tiny compared to the professional playing base the NRL and AFL possess.
O’Neill seems to be putting a brave front on some weaknesses in Australian rugby.
O’Neill seems to be putting a lot of hope in the Super 15 format, which will ensure more derby games, and freshen up the concept. It will provide more product and more local games which is what attracts Australian viewers (let’s ignore the lack of FTA coverage which is one of the greatest handicaps to building popularity of the sport below the Wallabies).
However, the Melbourne Rebels will not solve all of Australia’s player depth issues, the extra revenue is unlikely to plug all the holes in the structure, and rugby has a number of fundamental issues that will not go away by not mentioning them.
Strange as it seems, I am disappointed to read O’Neill seems likely to depart in 2011 (unless this is move to have everyone say “Don’t go, John!!”).
From what I can see, O’Neill is right in one regard. It will take the long haul to fix Australian rugby’s problems. Which will take it beyond 2011 to see it done. Without one vision and team leading that rebuilding, are we doomed to another cycle of regime changes and chopping and hanging direction?
Much as he is maligned, O’Neill was involved in much of what was good about the last 10 years in Australian rugby, so when he talks about it taking the long haul, why do I feel a bit disappointed O’Neill may not be here to see it through with the rest of us.
Unless this is all part of some very long range plan …. but that gets me back to my main point. Just be honest with us John, we can take it. And if there is some grand plan here to get us out of the current rut, I’d like to know what it is, rather than being told what amounts to general spin.
john roberts
Guest
THESE ARE JUST IDAES FOR EXAMPLE WITH A COMPERTITON FOR AUSTRALIA WHICH I MENTION ABOVE I PERSONALLY THINK THE CURRENT SUPER 14 SOON TO BE SUPER 15 IS OVER USED SUPER RUGBY IS GOOD IT WOOD BE NICE TO SEE SOUTH AFRICA AND NEW ZEALAND FOCUSING MORE ON THERE DOMESTIC COMPERTITIONS AND OF CAUSE AUSTRALIAS COMP ASWEL MENTION BEFORE THESE ARE THE SANZAR UNIONS WHICH WILL BE JOINED BY ARGENTINA SOON ARGENTINA TO HAS A PROVINCAL COMPERTITION AS WELL NOW SUPER RUGBY WHY NOT CALL IT THE SUPER RUGBY CHAMPIONS LEAGUE CHAMPIONS VS CHAMPIONS THE TOP FOUR PROVINCAL SIDES OF SOUTH AFRICAS CURRIE CUP COMPERTITON DEPENDING ON RANKINGS OF THAT COMP AND THE TOP 4 PROVINCAL SIDES OF THE AIR NEW ZEALAND CUP AND THE TOP FOUR STATE SIDES OF AUSTRALIAS COMPERTITION AND ARGENTINAS TOP FOUR PROVINCES OF THRIE COMP 16 TEAMS ALL DIVIDED INTO 4 GROUP POOL ROUNDS LIKE A SEMI WORLD CUP FOLLOW BY QUATER FINALS AND SEMI FINALS AND 4 AND 3 PLACE AND GRAND FINAL EVEN BETTER SAY THE TOP 6 PROVINCES FROM SOUTH AFRICA CURRIE CUP TOP SIX PROVINCES FROM THE AIR NEW ZEALAND CUP TOP 6 STATE SIDES FROM AUSTRALIA TOP SIX PROVINCALS SIDES FROM ARGENTINA COMP MAX OF 24 TEAMS DIVIDED INTO 6 POOL GROUPS AND SO ON WHY NOT IT THE INTEREST WOULD BE HIGH IF ALOUD TO THESE ARE JUST IDEAS SOUTH AFRICA, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, ARGENTINA, DOMESTIC PROVOINCAL SIDES ARE ALL RUN PROFESSINALY AND EACH CNAMPIONSHIP COMPERTITION AS WELL
john roberts
Guest
THE ARU I PERSONALLY THINK THEY SHOULD BUILD A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FOR ALL AUSTRALIA AN INTERSTATE SIDES TO COMPETE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL AN 8 TEAM INTERSTATE COMPERTITION THAT WOULD BE THE LIKES OF QUEENSLAND REDS, NEW SOUTH WALES WARATAHS, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY THE BRUMBIES, WESTERN AUSTRALIA THE FORCE, THE NEW TEAM FROM MELBORNE THE VICTORIA REBELS, WHO HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE NEW 2011 SUPER 15 COMP AND STATE SIDES LIKE TASMANIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA, AND NORTHERN TERRITRY, THIS WILL TRULY INVOLVE ALL AUSTRALIA AT A REPRESENTATIVE LEVEL AND ADMINASTRATION AND STRUCKSHAL LEVEL AS WELL AND WELL GROUNDED IN THE CITY CENTRES OF THE COUNTRY DEVELOPING AND SPREADING AND HELPING GRASS ROOTS RUGBY IN PLACES LIKE DARWIN NORTHERN TERRITORY, HOBART TASMANIA, ADALAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA, AND SO ON NOW ABOUT THE INTERSTATE COMPERTITION OR AUSTRALIA PROVINCAL COMPERTITION 8 TEAMS WILL HAVE 2 ROUNDS THAT WILL END UP 4 TEAMS OUT OF 8 RESULTING IN QUATER FINALS KNOCK OUTS AND SEMI FINALS AND 4TH AND 3RD PLACES AND THE GRAND FINAL I PERSONALY IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE THAT THESE INTERSTATE SIDES AS THE PROFESSINAL FRANTRAZ FOR THE DOMESTIC SEASON FOR AUSTRALIA AND MAYBE HELP THE WALLABIES ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE ASWELL AND WHEN IT COMES TO SELECTING TO PLAY FOR THESE SIDES THEY SHOULD BE CHOOSEN FROM THE CLUBS SIDES FROM WITHIN THE STATE SIDE BOUNDIES AND TO SPICE IT UP A LITTLE HAVE SOME INTERNATIONAL STARS IN THE MIX WITH CONDITIONS SAY 4 OR 5 INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS PER TEAM BUT IN SAYING THAT AUSTRALIANS ARE PRIORITY NUMBER 1 TO BE PICKED FIRST A COMPERTITION LIKE THIS WOULD BE AS GOOD AS THE AIR NEW ZEALAND CUP AND SOUTH AFRICA CURRIE CUP
Knives Out
Guest
So if he wasn't a failure then he was a success?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Hermin Bay Pablo has given you the first part of the answer: it's not lack of competitiveness but boring rugby that has turned away fans. Having a team with foreign players hugely benefits Australia rugby, because the team provides money for the ARU to invest and because it provides a centre for grass-roots development in the country. It then provides playing opportunities for young Australian players, when they finally do emerge. It therefore develops Australian rugby a lot, and so it only need have foreign players at the beginning, eventually as the game would grow they would be replaced by Australians. Most of the teams in Europe have at least a third foreign players, and the fans succeed in relating to them.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Agreed vented relied, and Tahu was hardly a failure: he was injured and then left out of the Waratahs by an absurd coaching decision so that he never had a chance to adapt to the game.
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
Hermin, the fans aren't being turned off by the lack of competitiveness, but by the style of play. This year has been boring grinding rugby.
sheek
Guest
I have great respect for the quality of thinking & writing of some of you, & admire your defence of the undefenceable, a game in pathetically, self-inflicted retreat. I'm currently reading Peter Fitzsimon's 'Tobruk'. The Allies retreated in such appalling haste at the head of Rommel's Afrika Corps, that the Aussies derisively referred to it as the 'Benghazi Handicap'. Whether Australian rugby will find its own Tobruk to stem the tide, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, as I enjoy the RL Four Nations, I "almost" couldn't care less!
Hansie
Guest
O'Neill is predominantly a spin merchant these days. His answers in the Sun-Herald were very self serving. In his autobiography, he made great play out of his role in the Australian teams of the late 1990s, including his role in selecting the captain. In the SH, he claimed to have no role in team or captain selection. Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.
Chunks
Roar Pro
I can't see why people are saying rugby league players have been a waste of money. Lote Tuqiri was the best winger australia had for 5 years. He lost pace and form in the past 12 month but should never have been called a waste. Well worth the money invested. Ryan Cross has been and is a very high quality Super player. Hasn't cemented his spot at wallabies but watch him this tour. Big Dell and Rogers were Wallaby starters and had some great games. Definitely drew in the crowds, particularly at S14 level. Schifkofske and Mclinden - have filled the massive gap left by Chris Latham. Both were/are solid S14 performers - minimal mistakes, lots of big game experience. Reds could do with more players like these two. Barnes and Rocky I hate to mention because they only played one to two years of league before moving back to union. People refer to them as leaguies though for some reason. Well, if they are leaguies, then that adds to my point. Brad Thorn. Not much needs to be said here. Class. Australian rugby could do with some league forwards who have the stamina and grunt of some forwards like brad thorn. To me, Tahu is the exception, not the norm in terms of the inability to transfer from league to union. His case might have exacerbated as well by lack of game time. Should have played a heap of club rugby prior to playing S14. Was out of his depth while still trying to learn the game.
Hermin
Guest
No KPP it is you who is ignoring the facts and truths. How the hell is stacking teams full of foreigners going to benefit Australian rugby? If this was true English rugby/ league and football teams should be on top of the world but we all know thats far from the truth isn't it. I think you really need to go and have a read of the threads because you are adding absolutely nothing. If you did you would be able to explain the declining ticket sales also you would be aware that the new competition does not guarantee a bigger broadcasting deal, you would be aware that fans across all three nations are being turned off the game by its lack of competitiveness. Do you really think a Australian team stacked full of foreigners that noone can relate to is going to be taken to heart? Also in the event it should be a good team ala conference can you tell me how South Africas awful bottom two teams will improve or will they two be required to stack these teams full of foreigners on the perceived notion that Saffas will warm to them accept them and pay to watch them? Reality is KPM and you keep missing it Australia stuffed up big time on the last expansion as did South Africa. The last four years have far from been a financial success for SANZAR and the super 14. If anything the lack of quality football has only highlighted how bad a decision it was to expand this tournament from 12 to 14 teams. Yes a new team may potentially bring more money but whats the point of having more money when your teams are so rubbish a team from the back blocks of eastern europe would fancy their chances. However history tells us that the ARU is absolutely clueless when it comes to running rugby within its borders. Also as a Australian rugby fan I would be demanding answers as to where the money EXTRA money they have taken since the expansion has gone as clearly it has not gone to grassroots rugby and as you have noticed there certainly wasn't enough to sustain the domestic competition. I wonder why?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Hammer they're cutting costs now from fear of the financial crisis: it doesn't mean they have no money. Out of your list of 1-7 1 The money would come from two new Super teams, and they probably have enough anyway. 2 They don't need to invest more in grassroots than they are currently doing, the national competition would have a dramatic effect on grassroots by itself. 3 As I said, many overseas players cost the same as Australian players, just not the ones in France. 4 Raids on league are successful for producing Super level players (even if you don't think they produce good international players. A player like Ryan Cross is a good example of a good Super level player). 5 Things seem ok for hanging on to current mob, especially with the money saved from Tuqiri and Tahu's demise. Mortlock may even be gone soon. 6 That's just a normal cost. 7 Not a priority, though in an ideal world it might happen. The national competition has an infinitely better effect on everything. So many of those things are paid for and affordable already (2,3,4,5,6), could be done with some loss, but not too much (1) and don't need to be done (7). The new Super teams aren't even necessary to fund the national competition, they would just help a little.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Hermin when you say Australian rugby won't be strong enough to support two teams, you ignore the point I made about filling them with foreign players. Of course they would make money from new teams, both from broadcasting and ticket sales.
Hermin
Guest
I suggest KPM you go back and read some threads again because clearly you have missed a huge chunk. You will find posters like myself have already covered Australias lack of a domestic competition and that it was pulled too early. Also you will see that we have also talked about how expansion has diluted the talent in Australia only one of their four teams has cracked the top four in four years although on two occasions still nothing close to how they were performing when the talent was more evenly spread across three teams. Australia cannot support a extra team and realistically they will not have the talent to fill an extra team for a few years yet. They are struggling to get punters through the gates as is and for some reason you think it will all be rosey come the fifth team. I'm sorry mate but I think it will be an almighty failure just like the last four years and good be the death rattle for Australian rugby. The money is not there and to think they will automatically get millions more to reinstate teams and invest in infrastructure when there is no guarantee they will actually get anymore money from the new deal as well as suport a fifth team is somewhat naive. The key is to generate interest and as well as get a broadcasting deal they need fans to get through the gates get them buying merchandise, make the competition competitive it creates excitement. It keeps the fans interested, one only needs to look at the NRL where evenly matched teams have cult followings.
Hammer
Guest
I think you'll find the money isn't there KPM - the ARU have been cutting costs all over the show - there just isn't this vast cash reserve you think there is ... certainly not for: 1. funding a new national competition 2. investing in graasroots 3. paying overseas players 4. funding raids on league (which has proven to be a waste of money) 5. trying to hang on to the current mob 6. pay Deans a $1m a year 7. re-introduce Aust A program The new broadcasting deal would need to be massive in order for the ARU to do (or continue to do) all that .. and in realty it may be that with the new splitting of the revenue streams - they may get no more than what they're currently getting - and at the same time having to prop up a new team in a very hostile market
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
The domestic competition did not fail in rugby terms: only in financial terms. Had there been more money, as I am suggesting here, it would not matter. Besides they abandoned it too early. O'Neill has gone from being not cautious enough in his first reign to over-cautious in his second. According to you the domestic competition and Australia A failed because of the ARU making mistakes over them: I suggest they try again but don't make the same mistakes.
Hermin
Guest
KPM Read the blog again and you also may want to read a few of the other threads. Since getting a bigger slice of the pie. The ARU started and canned a domestic competition after one year = FAILURE The ARU cut the Australian A program why???????????? oh thats right no money = FAILURE Reds bottom 3 last four years struggling to retain players why????? Lack of money and they are a rubbish team = FAILURE Seriously its not hard to see they have been given more and failed miserably even the national teams winning percentages have gone down since expansion. I don't know what world you live in but the ARU has failed the Australian rugby fan and players. Also why will what you suggest work when as i find myself repeating it FAILED miserably last time?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Hammer the money must be going somewhere: even if it just goes into the financial reserves, that backup would allow the ARU to take risks like a national competition, or spending on some foreign or rugby league players. I imagine a lot of the fear of starting a national competition would be that if it doesn't work out in money terms the ARU's financial security could be at risk. I agree that O'Neill doesn't seem to want a national competition and would prefer the Super 15 to be one: however, I think he will be forced by general opinion to create it. If the national coach is breaking ranks to argue for one, then it shows how serious the need is. Not all foreign players are getting paid vast sums in France: in the European system elsewhere there are many players on relatively low wages who could be enticed. Then there are endless rugby league players in Australia who would be getting the same wage if not more if they moved over. In order to make the teams competitive, I would say 5-7 first team players, so 10-14 for both, would need to come from outside Australian union, and with 16 NRL teams and a whole world of foreign players I'm sure 10-14 players can be found. Of course the ARU would abandon the current limits on foreign players for the new teams, but O'Neill has effectively said that will happen anyway. When I say more money could go to a national competition and grassroots, I actually think it would be unnecessary to send it to the latter, as a national competition would do most of the grassroots work necessary.
Hammer
Guest
Hermin - I know that is the argument peddled out - but what I'd like to know from those few that take this line is why do the think that increase revenues from broadcasting rights is completely separate from the quality of the product
Hammer
Guest
KPM - is this your vision or do you know something others appear not to ... because since expansion from 12 to 14 the extra money generated from the broadcast deal and passed onto the ARU hasn't filtered down to grassroots - so I don't know why all of a sudden there'll be a change of heart at the top if more teams are added and the ARU gets more cash .. you talk of the commencement of a national competition to be also funded from the extra cash - there has been zero comment about this occurring - in fact it is obivous O'Neill is looking at the S15 to be a makeshift domestic competition ... Foreign players - first off why would they come here to Australia - when they can continue to go the existing route to Europe - where the money is better ... especially if the extra cash you reckon that will be generated will be heading to grassroots and a national competition ... also I haven't seen anywhere that foreign players will be allowed in enmass - the limit is 2 t one of which can't have represented previously so the ARU can poach them later on ...
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Firstly, when you say 'you've had more money and an extra team' although it would be fun pretending to be Australian for a while I should tell you I'm English. Right, Super franchises make money. National competitions at the beginning makes losses. So the money from new Super franchises can cover the losses from the national competition, allowing it to continue, and thereby hugely aiding the growth and strength of Australian rugby. Also, the money from two franchises could be put into youth and grassroots development as well as a national competition. Why does it matter if foreign players are needed to make the Super teams competitive? If the results in terms of money are so good for the financial health of the game, by allowing a national comeptition to exist and funding the grassroots, then who cares if there are some foreign players in the team? Why does the tournament benefit or not benefit from it? It doesn't make any difference actually if there's one more team.