Even weak Australian Super Rugby teams are an investment

Even though new zealand have won a rugby league world cup, they have never been dominant and very inconsistant and there wins against aus are very rare, the way i just described the kiwi team sounds exactly like our wallabies squad against the allblcks. the fact is most of our talent is directed towards league and if you disagree you are dreaming or you have not watched a game of nrl or kangaroos tests, and on the flip side nz have most of there talent directed towards rugby so the evidnece is there how popularity of one sport weakens another. finding talent in aus for rugby needs to start at schools, i went to a range of different high schools and nonof them had a union comp they all had league, so i had to go on my own and travel 2 hours to play for randwick on the weekends not knowing anyone, so i gave up and turned to league and so did many of the other rugby fans in different age groups in my school turned to league. It was so convenient cause we trained together and played for the same school then played together for our club and eventually rep together.

agree with this article completely. Short term pain for long term gain. One would argue that the NZ and SA conferences have weaker teams than any of ours going by the Blues and Lions currently placed last and second last. The extra team pumps $20 million into the rugby economy and the Rebels now have agreements with the Parramatta Two Blues and Norths as development clubs. Lets now assume the the top structures of Australian rugby are fine in that the Wallabies and the 5 Super Franchises are fine as is. The next level down needs to be decided upon. We need a national under 20 comp that plays the same time in the local derby games. Those weeks were there is no local derby, the players go back to their clubs. The club systems in each of the 5 states need to be the viable 3rd level. All clubs must have Level 3 accredited coaches and receive funding based on the number of junior clubs. Continue with the Junior Waratahs and other Academy games with the reformation of the AR Shield ( SA, NT, Cockatoos etc). Continue with the emergence of the Sydney - Country games. We have the player depth, we need to improve pathways for those 'outside' the current system and improve coaching at all levels. I don't necessarily think creating a 3rd level is vital assuming we develop proper pathways will all players playing for their clubs when not playing any rep footy. But we do need a lot more rep football.

agreed justin. when the 5 current teams are doing equally well on and off the pitch, with the variables like depth of talent minimised then perhaps go again. but if its already too hard to supply 2 teams with adequate talent, then what point is there in starting more franchises? could the problem potentially be that the average rugby follower doesnt have a team he supports down the line from the wallabies through to the lower grades? despite all the supposed problems of rugby in australia, the wallabies seem to go alright and compete with and be the best. as everyone knows, its that next level that is hampering the game in oz.

Still - I certainly do not advocate growing endlessly. I believe the 5 Super teams is all we will ever have and in time we will grow into them. Right now I think if we had 4 they would be pretty competitive so we are not far off, maybe 5yrs. Now that we have a longer Super competition the ARC has become less vital than it was before as we have more players playing more matches at a higher level. Yes the jump is larger from club (though Sydney club rugby is extremely strong in comparison to many club comps in NZ IMO) to Super than provincial to Super but how much stronger will the ARC be if many of the better Super players are not in it anyway?

i suppose just like anything, AndyS, there will be variables that will result in unforseen problems or consequences. sure there is a bit more security in a chain restaurant, but then again, the winding up of businesses is not just the province of the small business. how many large corporations every year are either cutting staff numbers or store branches in order to survive? we must remember that the level of debt a larger format would bring would also make it hard to be successful. at the end of the day, its all about the strength of the product, whether you have a large chain or a small business in a niche market. big doesnt really mean better.

it was a nice world cup... how do you say... nicely arranged!!

Interesting analogy...what is the survival rate for restaurants? If it was your livelihood you were trying to secure and kids you were trying to educate, which one would feel the more secure option to work at? The restaurant might have a more dedicated set of regulars, but it is also all eggs in one basket...a few bad reviews, lose the key chef and have a single unforseen accident and the doors close forever.

at the same time, how do you measure "what" number will actually grow the game? perhaps the "less is more" ideal is what we should be trying to achieve. there is nothing more idiotic in sport, in business or in life of unbridled growth, and is actually counetr productive to the value of the product. and easy question would be to ask, what is your favourite restaurant? an original idea or a chain like sizzler? now sizzler as a corporation will make a lot of money, but on a store by store basis, the one off restaurant more than compensates ona like for like basis. i guess its a fine balance, and with a small population to service rugby, league, afl, football et al, how do we quantify what is successful? potentially in our small market we should look to tighten the reins and infact enhance the product by concentrating the talent etc, whilst having a successful 2nd tier comp. too much of something devalues the product and no kind of price manipulation will change that to coax the public back. this is a potential problem in NZ at the moment, and having a bunch of rich billionaires will not fix the issues. growing endlessly and the people that promote this idea, remind me of the storm financial collapse. what would you rather have? 5% growth over 20 years, or 20% over 5 years?

And how does your position grow the game? We would suddenly lose 40% of the players from the pro game in AUS. Regardless they wont be going back to 3 so I wouldnt worry about it

The ARC had independent costs, but also an independent revenue stream from tickets etc. I don't remember what the ticket prices were like, but 90,000 people at even $15 a ticket is an appreciable amount relative to the running costs of the comp. A second level comp would have the same costs (travel, players, etc) but no revenues unless (say) 20% of the gate was assigned to them. That is unlikely, so it would be more of a burden and forever remain so.

yes that would go down well in Canberra, why would you get rid of the most competitive and successful super rugby team in Australia

I would have thought that was more than possible. At the very least run a U20 comp with the New Zealand sides to help expose the Youth Academies to the riggers of top flight Rugby.

Higley i agree. All the kiwis who complain about aussies poaching kwis for origin I challenge it cuts both ways. Brett webb, Nathen fien, Nathan and Jason Cayless, and Jason Nightinggale. Not to mention tongan born players like Fui Fui Moi. So it works both ways.

Kane there are also about 75,000 registered kiwis playing RL in Australia. From grassroots to toyota cup to the NRL. There are also a lot playing RL in England as well. I agree though if RL did not exist in NZ and Australia the rugby world cup would always been contested between Australia and NZ. No other team would come close. I know South Africa and England have a huge amount of registered players but they just dont have the depth and talent that NZ and Australia have.

yes but we all know that was rigged, just ask Ricky Stuart ;)

A lot of mays, ifs and perhaps in that. I don't think 5 teams is a good idea - I'd have three, and move the Brumbies to Melbourne. Or ditch them - its not like Canberra has the population to support a regular Test, and its a bit silly to have a franchise based in a weak revenue stream.

Excellent point Kane - NZ has been fairly competitive in RL even though they have even less resources than Austalian rugby. To an extent, NZ rugby league is assisted by Australians with NZ background, like Nathan Fien.

I wonder why the ARU dont run a second level comp in conjunction with the current Super Rugby Australian Conference. The venues are booked and prepared, the promotion is done, crowds would come an hour earlier and be entertained with a free flowing "curtain raiser". Then you could consider adding a Western Sydney, GC, Newcastle, Adelaide team at this level. Deos anyone know why this wouldnt work? The ARC was too expensive because it was run independently and had seperate costs.

Agree with you Kane; number of regos doesn't necessarily means quality at top level. And the excuse that we have league and afl in Oz isnt valid: other countries have other sports, hockey, soccer, judo, ski, sumo, hand ball, volley basket etc...what will be our next excuse? We have a sunny climate and tend to be lazy and too laid back thats why our wallabies aren't motivated?!. No more excuses, other countries have their problems too.

Yeah, politics gets in the way of that.