Time for a trans-Tasman rugby championship

3rd reset should be a short arm to the feeding team. seriously if they cant figure out by then if theres illegality then lets get on with the game. they could always ask for another scrum if they wanted.

Anyone who want to see how the Kings will do and why they are a joke just Google Eastern Province and Borders Currie Cup records. They gone to bad from worse even with efforts to inject development.

Good and do the same with The Rugby Championship. You will finally understand rugby's future is in continent wide competitions.

This is no longer true for those under the age of 40 Matthew. Yes SA are the old traditional foe with the older generations however there are a large number of people (including myself) who grew up without SA in the mix and that rivalry is no longer their, well it wasn't really to begin with for those under 40ish. Australia has firmly taken a hold of that rivalry now hence why we have the Bledisloe cup it would be one of the most fiercly contested trophys on the planet and you could ask most die hard rugby fans in NZ and Australia about which one is more important after the WC and you could almost guarantee that 90% would say the Bledisloe Cup. Graham Henry himself said last year that the World cup aside the Bledisloe Cup was the most important trophey up for grabs in 2011 and that is what the side was focused on retaining their title.

Any born and bred All Black fan will tell you that their true rivals will always be the Boks.

There really is a sense of irony in a lot of the comments above. And maybe most of the questions we're all trying to solve are staring us in the face?! Looking at a summary of the points being made... People suggest that South African doesn't really deserve a 6th team, as despite them often having a genuine title contender they often perform badly across their 5 teams at present. People also suggest that when teams tour Africa from NZ and Aus that fans don't really have a desire to get up at the wee hours to watch poor opposition (I'm thinking Cheetahs, Lions and probably Kings).This is an issue which would affect TV viewership numbers. Other suggest that Australia has now spread its playing talent too thin. It has large areas of population not represented sufficiently by Super Rugby and also the economic support to sustain a 6th team. However, it doesn't have anywhere near the playing talent to fill out a remotely competitive 6th team. It is also widely accepted that it takes many years (probably a good 20) for a start up team to establish a local talent stream (from which it can severe the need for imported players from the heartlands). That all makes sense to me. Finally, NZ really is the only SANZAR partner that has the playing talent to fill out a competitive 6th side. BUT, it is also the least commercially viable expansion option. Contracts from Europe are also a constant lure for star players and 2nd tier talent who can earn far more overseas then stuck in the NZ system. So, after all that, maybe the time has come for SANZAR to throw open the borders (and create a better competition because of it)? It's not a new idea, but in the same respect that the SANZAR partnership is best for each of the 3 partners overall, maybe this would be the best option for all three countries and help answer each of their own specific issues. Let's just stick with 5 teams for each country for now. Each team can have up to 10 (?) foreign imports from another SANZAR country within a 30 man squad. All 15 teams will also be governed by the same salary cap limits (taking into account exchange rates at the start of each season. TV and major sponsorship money will also be split 15 ways, so the big teams help pay for the small teams. For example the Force can bring in Stephen Brett to partner Ricky Januari in the halves and both of those guys are still eligible for the AB's and Boks respectively. A strict salary cap then stops the wealthiest clubs from hoarding too much talent and also means that the competition should be fairly close each season within each conference. If all 3 conferences are evenly matched and all teams have a variety of nationalities then fans from all 3 nations have an interest in the cross boarder games. If Richie McCaw decided to finish out his career in the warm Durban climate then imagine the NZ interest if the Sharks made the finals against the Rebels (for example). Compare that (non NZ) final scenario if no NZers are present. If you look at the NRL, EPL or even the IPL the imported stars are just as much a selling point and favorite with the fans as any locally developed player. Players like Benji Marshall, Sam Burgess, Robin van Persie, Christiano Ronaldo, Thierry Henry, Dale Steyn, Cameron White and Adam Gilchrist have been the pin up players for clubs/teams in foreign leagues. In the end, fans don't care where a guy is from, so long as he plays well for their team. If all 15 Super Rugby teams were on an even footing and could sign star players from any of the 3 SANZAR nations (plus Argentina and the PI's) then the fan experience would be all the more rich for it. NZ would immediately be able to have 15 sides will to pay Dan Carter enough money to keep him on the radar of the AB's coach. A guy like Sarel Pretorius could make the move to Sydney to add some attacking flair to the Tahs backline, but could do so without fair of throwing away his dream to play for the Boks. The players would overnight have so many more career options available to them than the current 5 home teams or bust. And finally, this system would allow for a much smoother expansion system. If all the SANZAR talent was evenly spread across all 15 teams then adding new sides would be easy. All you have to prove is that you can pay the bills and you can then draft a team from any off contract players from the massive pool available. The Rebels have shown, with signings like Sommerville, Ciprianni and Delve, that high quality foreign players will be happy to move to a new city in a new country for a start up team. Now imagine if the Rebels had been able to sign any Kiwi or Saffa player without those guys having to give up their internation career. Players who want a change of location and more money from a team who is better able to remunerate their value within the side. All of a sudden you're looking at guys like John Afoa, Jarred Payne, Luke McAlister, Brad Thorn, Dannie Roussow, John Smit, Gerhard Mostert, Bakkies Botha, Gary Botha, Fourie Du Preez, Victor Matfield, Guthro Steenkamp, WP Nel, Rory Kockett, Stephen Brett, Joe Rokocoko, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Mike Delany, Neemia Tialata, Jaque Fourie, Conrad Jantjes and Francois Louw. Those are just a handful of the top drawer players who have left to Japan/Europe from last seasons Super Rugby comp from NZ and RSA. Those are guys who were looking for a change and an opportunity where none was available in the current SANZAR climate. But if it meant that even one or two of those guys stuck around the competition would be all the richer. And overnight a team like the Western Sydney Rams could put together a roster that would be genuinely competitive for inclusion in next season competition, if expansion was deemed to be the desired goal.

I'm not quite sure how to reply, because I have countered many of the points right above, i.e. how to find the players to fill the teams, why there would be the interest in these new markets, why there should be players redistribution. Re-read my answers which anticipate 1-3 of your points. The new markets are doing well, Perth and Melbourne, as would Adelaide for the reasons I gave above. As for the niche markets and heartlands, the Brumies implosion last year was a freak event and warped their crowds, while the Waratahs insistence on playing kicking rugby destroyed their crowds. Neither are inevitable. Gold Coast is a rugby town and has always been. The very recent appearance of the AFL will not have changed that and you would find the moment a rugby team appeared it would fill the stadiums, as this is a rugby town. Rugby saturates the city, not the AFL which is a newcomer. Western Sydney is a vast area and Sydney is a rugby heartland of 4.5 million. If 410,000 in Canberra can support a team, then half of 4.5 million certainly can. Southern Australia is 1.7 million and in Australia, the number 2 rugby nation in the world, so it could support a team. I've got nothing against altering the foundations, but as long as there are only 5 teams rugby will be whipped and shredded by the 16-18 team NRL and AFL which will fill all the markets and take all the players.

Rugbug, I don’t have a strong opinion about this. We both agree that NZ could support at least one more Super Rugby team. The thing is that money is the big thing that underpins a professional sports team. The amount of money depends partly on population size and the local economy, but it also depends on passion – will there be bums on seats week-in, week-out in bad times as well as good? Taranaki certainly has the passion, but my instinct is that a larger population than Taranaki’s would be necessary to underpin a Super Rugby team. But it may be that with a rich backer and partnerships with other unions, Taranaki can underwrite a team. If there is an expansion, I think the right way to go is for the national union to set financial and stadium criteria (and perhaps membership criteria) and the bidding teams to show how they can meet or exceed these criteria. But there will be no expansion in the near future. In the meantime, Taranaki seems to be positioning itself to take a big piece of private equity in either the Chiefs or the Hurricanes. It will be interesting to see what happens.

OK, let’s look at why expansion is not on the cards for the ARU. 1. Australian rugby’s player numbers and public interest are much smaller than in NZ and South Africa 2. A 2009 study found that interest and participation in rugby union had declined, even among previously passionate sections of the population (you can easily Google this if you don’t believe me). Outside Qld crowds are declining. 3. Australian Super Rugby results are poor overall. Three of the bottom four teams last year were Australian. A strong argument for consolidation, not expansion. We have to walk before we run. 4. The ARU is broke – it has cut squad numbers to just 30 and scrapped all but 2 of the academy teams. This will guarantee ongoing poor results and a continuing decline in public interest. 5. Even in its core markets – Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra – rugby is a niche sport, well behind rugby league which is now booming. 6. Lack of free-to-air coverage makes it very hard to grow interest, especially outside core markets. This is a huge stumbling block Now let’s look at why top-down expansion won’t work in Adelaide, Gold Coast and Western Sydney. Adelaide – little interest in rugby: 900 senior rugby players in the whole state and poor TV ratings for rugby games. A very poor track record in interstate rugby. Whipping boys. Weak economy – little potential for sponsors. Has lost Adelaide Sevens to Gold Coast. Gold Coast A saturated sports market in a mid-sized city with a weak economy. The NRL and AFL teams have free-to-air coverage, more public interest and much deeper pockets than any ARU-backed pro team would have. They are more attractive to sponsors and could outlast any rugby team which would quickly go broke. Western Sydney Four NRL teams with long histories, passionate followings and deep roots in the area. A cashed-up and highly promoted new AFL team. Little interest in rugby in Western Sydney – only 2 Shute Shield teams in the west and they are both weak (don’t try to tell me Eastwood or West Harbour are Western Sydney team – they are western North Shore and Inner West). The way to expand is to do it from the bottom-up. 1. Admit Melbourne Rebels reserves to the Shute Shield or the Canberra competition 2. Admit Central Coast, Illawarra, Newcastle, Campbelltown and Hills District teams to the Shute Shield 3. Keep playing test matches and one Super Rugby blockbuster at Homebush so people in Western Sydney can access top-class rugby, and play pre-season matches in Parramatta. 4. Play two Waratahs home games every year in regional NSW – one in Gosford, one in Newcastle 5. Keep the Australian Sevens on the Gold Coast and play one Reds game there and another in Townsville 6. Reinstate academy sides for every Australian Super Rugby team and with each team to play home-and-away curtain-raisers (ie 8 rounds plus a final) 7. Reinstate the Australian Shield for NSW Country, Qld Country, Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth, Northern Territory. If the ARU and Australian Super Rugby teams can’t deliver on all of the above, then Australia is not ready for Super Rugby expansion. Our foundations are unsteady and must be strengthened before we go any further. If, in a decade, it becomes clear than the Western Force and Melbourne Rebels have become part of the fabric of their cities and are here to stay, then we can start thinking about further expansion. Until then any such notions are just pie in the sky.

I think you will find that the Hurricanes are contributing finances to all the partner unions involved. The Canes do not belong to one single province, they are no more Wellingtons than they are Wairarapa Bush's. Taranaki rugby union is one of the most financially sound provinces in the entire ITM cup and to even suggest that they would have to play their games away is farcical in itself and again only reiterates that you know very little about the make up of NZ rugby. To even compare Taranaki to Southland is also a little off, the only thing they have in common is population size, the Stags nearly bankrupted themselves just top stay in the top flight and imported over half their team from Otago. Again its not hard jump onto the TRFU website you will learn a hell of a lot about the Amber and Blacks and it may just help to erode your preconceived ideas.

or the fact that both south auckland and counties are listed, dunedin (which I'll assume means otago) is there while Hawkes Bay and BOP are omitted.

What a load of made up nonsense .... When was the last time ( if ever) you were in Sth Auckland, Adelaide etc ... Just interested to know because you speak with such authority on all of NZ and Aust

I have already suggested moving the Pampas XV (effectively Argentina 2nds) from the Vodacom Cup to become the 6th team in Aussie conference (based in Adelaide). 1) This would bring more Argentinian players into the right season pattern 2) It would expose Adelaide to top level rugby Either this or the SR teams need to be supported by the UAR in order to bring their top players into SR, so current teams would get financial incentives to take on the elite players from Argentina, (say 35 players). As to the 6th NZ team, I agree a Pacific Islands team based in NZ (maybe over in Napier??).

Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn .... Is the author of this article Sheek in disguise? Lets kick South Africa out of the Super 15 ... and have an Aussie NZ comp with more sides .. and of course with foreign players from invited in from every country in the world except Europe to develop world rugby. BORRRINNNGGGGGGGGGGGG The Super 15 works because it is full of Aussie, NZ and SA test players. The 3 countries are perenially amongst the best 5 teams in the world ... and people like to see Cooper versus Carter or Mccaw versus Pocock ... One of the good things about the original Super 12 .. was that the games between ACT, Qld and NSW were bascically selection trials for the Wallabies. I dont know why people are so obsessed with expansion. The problem you get with expansion is that the more teams you have, the more talent is dilluted and you end up with a lower quality product ... and people start not to care about .. say .. the cheetahs versus the rebels who are both at the bottom of the table and without any national players. NO to Super Expansion. No to more teams. Yes to high quality rugby.

It's a different case for rugby in new markets from the examples you give, as because of the Wallabies it already has extensive exposure and identification in new markets, and the game has a very old history everywhere in Australia, which is not the case with AFL or Soccer. So any new Australian region has far more potential for rugby than some other sports. In South Australia there are 1.7 million Australians already exposed to the Wallabies and the state has had rugby played for over a century. That is a massive, massive market with huge potential that could easily support a team if anywhere on the planet could. There is no NRL, so no competition of a similar kind, and it is in states such as Western Australia and Victoria that have had no elite rugby team that the fascination with it is greatest. Often Force crowds come however their team plays. Of course Sydney, the heartland of the game of the number two rugby nation in the world, with 4.5 million has a demand for rugby for more than a SINGLE team. Yes it can support it, as can the Gold Coast, a critical rugby town in Australia with no team. Counties Manukau could provide big enough crowds which is all that matters, and it is precisely because of the presence of league that it is the major market worth expanding into: these are the only players currently unavailable to New Zealand rugby. I do not want to spread the talent in Australia more thinly. I want to see an end to the hoarding of players in one or two franchises endemic across the competition, so that say a powerhouse team could protect 24 of its players and the remaining 6 would go the new team, or to strengthen weak ones. But expansion would not mainly draw on existing players, but would involve foreign imports, NRL converts, Australians overseas, more or less like the Rebels but to a greater degree. The Rebels showed how to do it and in fact could have done it much better too. As for crowds, this is again because one or two teams are allowed to hoard all the talent, when just 4 or 5 at the tail end of their squad would hugely strengthen the weaker teams, making them competitive and improving the crowds.

Perhaps, but I think there would have to be a strong argument to show why it wouldn't work in Adelaide, WS or GC.

I would prefer a TransTasman league and South Atlantic (ie 6 South African and 2 Argentine teams) But what about the possibility that in a few years each of the existing 3 Super Rugby conferences expands to 6 teams? Under this format, each team could play 10 intra-conference games (ie home and away against every other team in same conference) and either 3 or 4 games games against each of the other conferences, giving a total of 16-18 games. NZ and SA can easily add one team each, but I remain convinced that Australia has reached its limit. Australian rugby has been in decline since 2003 and won't recover easily. The NRL and AFL are putting enormous efforts into building their bases and have more successful and better-run competitions. They have been growing in popularity as rugby has declined. I think the 6th team in a Australian conference would have to be either a Pacific Island team playing its home games in Auckland and Wgtn, or perhaps a team based in Hong Kong or Japan and playing out of an indoor stadium to deal with the Asian summer.

Rugbug, when I said the Canes were underwriting Taranaki's player list, I meant financially only. Sure most of the Taranaki guys are local, which is a credit to the province. But they earned the bulk of their money playing Super Rugby not NPC. In a free market where there was no Super Rugby, only NPC, most would have moved elsewhere (Auckland, Wgtn, Europe) for more money. I'm dubious that a small region whose biggest town has 60,000 people can support a professional sports team. Also, I'm not basing my argument just on population, otherwise I would be saying there should be be more Australian teams. Southland has a similar population and rugby history to Taranaki. Should they have their own Super Rugby team. Should Samoa? Talent matters but what enables a professional team to survive is the combination of economics and the local supporter base, and population is a factor in both of those elements. I agree that having a sugar daddy multi-millionaire will help Taranaki punch above its weight, but it would still need at least one partner province. I'm aware that Taranaki is cashed up and looking to buy equity in the Hurricanes or the Chiefs. I suspect their agenda is to become the senior partner in that franchise and ensure 1. a couple more games in New Plymouth every year and 2. that draft players and overseas signings end up based in New Plymouth and play NPC for Taranaki rather than for one of their partner provinces. So Taranaki could take advantage of current unusual circumstance (ie rich backer) to set themselves up for the future by becoming senior partner in a Super team. But in order to be sustainable, that team will have to play most of its home games outside Taranaki. I don't think they will wait for a Super Rugby expansion to set up a new Central team. The NZRFU is looking to sell equity in 4 of the 5 super teams and I think Taranaki is going to go for it now. If they get what they want and make a good fist of it, they would be in a good position to set up a new arrangement in any Super Rugby expansion

P.s please show me how the Hurricanes are underwriting Taranakis player base? Last time I checked the Hurricanes were a product of the regions that made up the Hurricanes franchise, Taranaki, Hawkes Bay, Manawatu, Wanganui, Wairarapa Bush, Horowhenua-Kapiti and of course Wellington province. Every province has imports this includes the current big 5 AKL, WKT, WGN, CNT and OTG you can sift through their entire squads and you can guarantee you will find many players who are not originally from these provinces now plying their domestic wares for these provincial unions

I think you need to a bit more recent history Steve not only on the team but also the financial backing that very wealthy ex pat Taranakian has should they get the go ahead for a SR team. Like I said above Taranaki had absolutely everything they needed for SR expansion in the last round they only thing they didn't have or weren't was Australian. Taranaki are much more successful and competitive than you give them credit for, they have also been in the 1st division now for quite some time not to mention current Ranfurly Sheild Holders finishing higher on the table last year than Auckland Wellington and Otago all current SR bases. Then there is also the point that the won more games than Canterbury only missing out on a finals spot due to bonus points. North Harbour simply will not work, like I said they barely survive in the championship(2nd division) as it is. Not to mention greater Auckland Struggles to support SR currently and your proposing to split that support base again based purely on population. Sadly it doesn't worl like that, talent and competitiveness are a huge part not to mention finances which Taranaki basically has guaranteed.